Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_08 27 20071 LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2007 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the July 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 Robert Winchester David Wilbourn City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA AUGUST 27, 2007 2:00 P.M. I. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: LOCATION: 1. Z -4567-B 5722 W. 12th Street 2. Z-8250 1800/1804 N. Taylor Street 3. Z-8251 17 Hickory Hills Circle 4. Z-8252 4215 Lee Avenue 5. Z-8253 1010 W. Capitol Avenue 6. Z-8254 11 Cobblestone Way 7. Z-8255 225 Epernay Loop 8. Z-8256 103 S. Schiller Street i ■ � — 3NId 831ZVa3 0 (� llnaelHl a O N 1111131 / /1 � Nrow Atlmatloae Es HOaV 1S3H0 Nplryp 00 ONIN lw a3H380 � u \PVH`ON MO8000M 3NId 3 I z Hpdb N e aa0 NOI11wV 11095 s SONi ddS Natld 81tl3 J A11SKAINn " J x A11somn W SONIadS 83A30 Iddissl Slry s m Y 1001H0 � � alona3s3a r M08HV9 NHOr 3 tib � ue 3NN13H Oa0331NOVH5 8 , Oa 31 OV 5 SIOatlS wtlHaVd QNOOa ¢ h- NV S 08 h� t — — 11WI1 NJbpo�p w,'.,`, 3OOla ArvN b1s cc ORg\S o r a ILI � o NtlnlllOS u latlM315 Q ySdb h 4_ 0 5 VPS Sllrvll ALIQ�2ry J.�pl/lp 31VCN833 0 rn AUGUST 27, 2007 File No.: Z -4567-B Owner: St. Mark Baptist Church Applicant: Jason D. Ray Address: 5722 W. 12th Street Description: North side of W. 12th Street, three (3) blocks east of S. University Avenue Zoned: R -2/C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 557 to allow permanent use of banner signs. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Church Proposed Use of Property: Church STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R -2/C-3 zoned property at 5722 W. 12th Street is occupied by the St. Mark Baptist Church campus. The existing church campus consists of three (3) buildings located along the east half of the property, with paved parking within the west half of the site. There is an access drive from W. 12th Street at the southwest corner of the property and a drive from W. 10th Street at the northeast corner of the site. The applicant is proposing the permanent placement of banner signs on 19 existing light poles throughout the church campus. The majority of the light poles are located within and adjacent to the parking area within the west half of the property, with additional poles around the main (center) church sanctuary building. The proposed banner signs will be 24 inches by 30 inches in size. Each banner will contain the church logo and message relating to a church AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.) activity, project, campaign, etc. The applicant notes that banners will not be placed in an area that could cause distraction or obstruction to vehicular traffic. Section 36-557(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance limits the placement of banner signs to four (4) events in a calendar year, with a limit of six (6) weeks per event, for a total of 24 weeks. The applicant is requesting that the banners be allowed to remain up at this location on a year-round basis. Staff is supportive of the requested variance to allow permanent use of banner signs by St. Mark Baptist Church at 5722 W. 12th Street. Staff believes the request to be reasonable. Similar variances were approved in the past for commercial shopping center developments in the Chenal Parkway area. The permanent use of banner signs at these previously approved locations seems to have worked very well with no problems to staff's knowledge. Staff also believes the banner sign concept will work well at this church location and should have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow permanent placement/year-round use of banner signs at 5722 W. 12th Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The banner signs are for the identification of the church and church programs only. 2. The banner signs are to be attached only to the light poles within the church campus, with limitation of the size and number of signs as described in the "Staff Analysis." 3. Any banner sign that becomes torn or damaged must be promptly removed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 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 and 1 absent. $aptt, ,K 000 REACHING PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE Department of Planning and Development Board of Adjustments City Of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Re: Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Friday, July 27, 2007 Dear Board of Adjustments, St. Mark Baptist Church is requesting a variance of the sign ordinance to allow outside banners on the churches parking -lot lanterns. Per your request, enclosed you will find the application, sight view showing sign locations, and a copy of the sign design. As stated, the lanterns are owned by St. Mark and are on St. Mark property. Please be advised that the site plan will show with green marks where each pole is located and where the banners will be placed. We are proposing to put a total of 19 banners around our campus. The banner size is 24" x 30". You can also find the graphic design of our campaign logo, which will be displayed on the banners. We are embarking upon a large Capital Campaign here at St. Mark, what a better way to keep our campaign theme before the membership than to place reminders in our parking lot as done at various locations around the city with other organizations. The banners will not be placed in an area that causes distractions or obstructions to street traffic. We thank you for your assistance and if there is anything else that you may need please feel free to give me a call at 663-3955, ext. 239. Sincerely, (; .. . ason D. Ray Executive Assistant to the Chief Operating Officer Bishop Steven M. Arnold - Senior Pastor 5722 W 12th Street, Little Rock, AR 72204 - WW ..SMARKORG - 501-663-3955 - 501-707-0334 FAX AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-8250 Owner: Elizabeth Stegall Revocable Trust Applicant: Ron Tabor Address: 1800/1804 N. Taylor Street Description: Lots 5 and 6, Block, 12, Mountain Park Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 301 and the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 to allow a commercial building addition with reduced setbacks and parking with reduced street buffer. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No Comments on this variance. At time of building permit review, additional comments maybe made on the proposed development. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the city's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. This site is being rehabilitated and thus if this rehab of this existing structure exceeds fifty percent (50%) of its current replacing cost then all of the following comments apply. 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. AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) The zoning buffer ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide street buffer. Currently, this site is not meeting this minimal amount along the southern and eastern property lines. The landscape ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide perimeter landscape strip along the sites entirety. Currently, this site is not meeting this minimal amount along the northern, southern and eastern property lines. A variance from this minimal amount will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. It appears the parking lot area is over sized and thus by reducing its depth this minimal ordinance amount can bemeton the east perimeter. C. Staff Analysis; The C-3 zoned property at 1800/1804 N. Taylor Street is occupied by a one- story brick commercial building. The property is located at the northwest corner of N. Taylor Street and Cantrell Road. There is paved parking on the east side of the commercial building. An existing driveway from N. Taylor Street serves as access. A paved alley is located along the west property line. The alley is used by the various businesses within the block for access. The applicant proposes to remove the north portion of the building and remodel it as a branch bank facility. The exterior walls will be removed, but the roof structure will stay intact with the overall roofline remaining the same. The north portion of the building will become the drive-thru portion of the bank facility, with the canopy maintaining the same side (1 foot) and rear (15.5 feet) setbacks as the existing structure. With additional right-of-way dedication along Cantrell Road, the resulting street side (south) setback will be five (5) feet. The existing area of parking will be utilized with the redevelopment of the property. With the right-of-way dedication, only a one (1) foot street buffer will remain. There will be an additional 16 feet of landscaped area between the new south property line and the new sidewalk constructed along Cantrell Road. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances with the proposed redevelopment. The first variance is from Section 36-301(e)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section requires a minimum street side (south) setback of 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a five (5) foot street side setback after right-of-way dedication. This end of the building currently maintains a 25 foot street side setback. There will be no changes to the south building wall or roof overhang. The second variance is from Section 36-301(e)(3). This section requires a minimum rear (west) setback of 25 feet. As noted previously, the new northern section of the building will consist of a covered drive-thru area and will maintain the same 15.5 foot rear setback as the existing building. AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) The third variance is from Section 36-522(b)(3)b. This section requires minimum 6 foot -9 inch street buffers along the Cantrell Road and N. Taylor Street sides of the parking area. As noted previously, the additional right-of- way dedication will reduce the street buffer to one (1) foot along the south side of the parking area. The proposed plan shows a 6 foot -9 inch area along the east side of the parking area. However, the applicant is showing the new sidewalk to be in this area. The sidewalk needs to be moved to the right-of- way, which will allow for the appropriate buffer area. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the proposed redevelopment of the property as a branch bank facility. The overall building and parking foot prints on the property will remain relatively the same. The need for variances is an issue based on the fact that additional right-of-way dedication is required along Cantrell Road. Without the right-of-way dedication, no variances would be needed, including the rear building setback, which would be adequate at 15.5 feet with a street side (south) setback of 25 feet which currently exist. Staff believes the applicant has proposed a nice redevelopment plan for the property which should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. As noted in paragraph B. of the staff report, the City's Landscape Ordinance also requires a 6 foot -9 inch landscape strip along all property lines. Variances for a reduced landscape strip along the south and portion of the north property lines will require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances associated with the redevelopment of the property at 1800/1804 N. Taylor Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Landscape and buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. The new sidewalk along the east property line shall be located in the N. Taylor Street right-of-way. 3. The right-of-way dedication must be completed prior to a building permit being issued. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 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 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Van Dover) df�2E�1tl07 12:31 5012240873 WILLIAMS & DEAN Monte Moore ?_oniixg and Code :Enforcement .A.dmillt"Strator City of Little Rodk Department Of'Planning arcs •Devclop^ -lent 723 West Markham .Little Rocks Ali ;22fa1 Re: PrUposed'Suinmit Bazar Car:trell Road at Taylor The bank. requests 'a waiver of additional side and rear yard set bucks as curfently required in th..is locatiort. RAGE 92/03 Please note that this is a roamdeling of an exist,,nS building and that some of . the proposed modifications will actually slightly reduce the rear yard encroachment that currently exists on the site.' (see deznoliti.on plan attached) AJiy further setbacks increases would reduce the btuilding area on the site to the extent that the ilffective usable area remaWgg would render the property unusable for the mark Arad mos' other uses. The existing building, until rece,•rtly, housed a real estate office and an oriental restaurant. ;t is the bank's intent to improve the property in several ways including right. of-way.irnProveme»ts ti,`' curbs, si&walks and landscaping per the city requll +ea*acr:ts-. The prapose . curb all on TayltY �, is improved and farther fioarz. the Cantrell Road intersection, Also, while mar-' of the exterior walls. will be removed. thereof structure Will stay intact and the overall roofline and exterior ap7earance will be enhanced greatly. 07/26/2007. 12:31 5012240873 WILLIAMS x USAN _ PAGE 03/03 T .F tj JJ, . f? C Fi Please let li� tln?e, ki w• ifary t1) heJpftit at further iitforna,ioa or doeumex).tatiun would be We aupteciate the .13oard's consideration ofthese requests. Sincerely, 5' •1. Dena, Vice -Presider:' ti�ii?iarns & TL7ezui r�ssaciated �1'ciaitects, .1rc. I Cnrpd;ra4e Dill Drive Suite 210 Little .Rock, AR 72205 - EIGHTEEN C'JRFCUTEHUU VE tJll1k Ram, 1t?2M 501.224.% PAX W. M4.0873 ' y,�ytryii l�AMSDEAI�.LGI.t AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8251 Owner: Donald M. and Gerry Nell Spears Revocable Trust Applicant: Lisa R. Taylor Address: 17 Hickory Hills Circle Description: Lot 8, Hickory Hills Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wall 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 17 Hickory Hills Circle is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a circular driveway from Hickory Hills Circle which serves as access. The property slopes upward from front to back (north to south). There is about 25 feet of rise from the front property line to the front of the house. The applicant is in the process of refurbishing the landscaped areas between the residential structure and the street. The project includes refacing and capping existing brick walls in front of the house and in the west side yard. As part of the construction, a new masonry wall was built, extending from the east wall of the house to the east side property line. The wall is approximately eight (8) feet high at its connection to the house. As it runs east to the east side AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T. property line, the height increases to approximately 14 to 16 feet. The wall turns and runs for only a few feet southward along the east property line. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet for fences/walls located between building setback and a street right-of-way. Other fences/walls can be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Fences/walls which meet all principal setback requirements can be constructed to the height allowed in the base zoning (35 feet in R-2 zoning). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow only the eight (8) foot long section of fence extending from the east property line toward the house. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as reasonable, given the fact that only an eight (8) foot long section of the fence requires a height variance. Additionally, this section of the wall is not that visible from the street. The wall is located over 90 feet back from the front property line and there is a small stand of trees between the wall and street. Additionally, the residence immediately to the east is located 50 plus feet back from the common side property line. 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 wall height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the wall construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2007) Staff informed the Board that the applicant failed to complete the required notification of surrounding property owners. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the September 24, 2007 Agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 24, 2007 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 322 North Market Street Benton, AR 72015 Tel (501) 315 07$6 Fax (501) 315 0700 www.hopeengineers.com July 10, 2007 City of Tittle Rock$" Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for a Residential Zoning Variance at 17 Hickory Hills Circle To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to detail the circumstances for our request for a Residential Zoning 'Variance concerning the location and height of a screen wall constructed at 17 Hickory Hills Circle located in the Hickory Hills Subdivision in the city of Little Rock. The screen wall is constructed of a concrete block core with a standard brick and rock veneer. The said structure was originally designed as an attachment to an existing structure in which the 6 feet height regulation did not apply. However, during actual construction, there was some miscommunication concerning where the wall was to be stopped. The wall now extends to within 6 inched of the property line crossing the City of Little Rock's minimurn setback requirement of S feet from the side property lines. .Additionally, the subject property slopes with approximately 7 feet of drop in elevation from the location of the beginning of the wall where it attaches to the existing house and the end of the wall near the property line. This drop in ground elevation causes the wall to be 7 feet higher at the end in order to maintain a level line across the top. The result is the overall height of the wall at the end is 16 feet. Therefore, we, are requesting a variance to the height limitation also. Sincere , Lisa R. Taylor ZOO/ ZOO 12] YU VT:60 GaAs LOOZ/8T/LO AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-8252 Owner: Seth and Kelly Ward Applicant: Seth and Kelly Ward Address: 4215 Lee Avenue Description: Lot 11, Block 1, Pinehurst Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36- 156 to allow an accessory building 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 4215 Lee Avenue is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway at the northwest corner of the property which runs along the west side of the house. A one-story frame detached garage which previously existed in the rear yard area was recently removed. The applicants propose to pour a new concrete slab on top of the old slab and construct a new one-story garage structure at the same location as the garage which was removed from the property. The new garage is proposed to maintain the same one (1) foot side (west) setback as the previous structure, with a one (1) foot overhang to the side property line. The garage will be located 12.5 feet from the rear (south) property line, 32.4 feet from the east side property line and separated from the house by over six (6) feet. AUGUST 27, 2007 ( ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T. Additionally, the structure will occupy approximately 17 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). Section 36-156(a)(2)f. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback of three (3) feet for accessory buildings in R-3 zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the one (1) foot side (west) setback as previously existed on the site. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff's non-support is based primarily on the fact that a new concrete slab will be poured for the new garage structure. Staff believes there is ample space to provide the minimum required three (3) foot side setback, with the new foundation. However, the farther to the east the structure is moved, the more difficult it will be to pull a vehicle into the structure. Therefore, staff could support an 18 inch side yard setback, as has been approved for similar situations in the past. This will allow for the structure to be constructed and maintained without encroaching onto the property to the west. Staff support will also be conditioned on the overhang not exceeding 12 inches and guttering being provided to prohibit water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. With these conditions, staff believes the new accessory structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2007) Seth Ward was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial, as filed. Seth Ward addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained why the one (1) foot side setback was needed for the garage structure. He also provided photos to the Board of the area where the proposed garage was to be constructed. He explained that the garage structure filled a gap in the wall/fence line between his property and the property to the west. James Van Dover asked if the new slab will coincide with the old slab. Mr. Ward explained that the footings would be closer to the side property line. Mr. Van Dover asked when the deck was constructed on the rear of the house. Mr. Ward noted that it had been in place for two (2) weeks. These issues were briefly discussed. Vice -Chair Burruss asked how large the garage door was to be. Mr. Ward explained that it would be a one (1) car width and that it would be off -set. Mr. Burruss explained that he could support an 18 -inch side setback. Chairman Francis concurred with Mr. Burruss. AUGUST 27, 2007 ( ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Mr. Ward amended his application to have an 18 -inch side setback. The issues of guttering and overhang were discussed. There was a motion to approve the amended application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Guttering must be provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. 2. The garage structure will have a maximum overhang of 12 inches (not including the guttering). The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The amended application was approved. Seth and Kelly Ward 4215 Lee Avenue Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: (501)221-7100 July 27, 2007 Board of Adjustment City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request for hardship variance Dear Board Members: We are the owners and occupants of the property located at 4215 Lee Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas ("Property"). Please accept this letter as fulfillment of the "cover letter" requirement specified in Section 1(b) of the instructions accompanying the Board's published "Application for Zoning Variance." We respectfully request that the Board, pursuant to Little Rock Rev. Code §36- 69(b)(2)(b), grant a variance from the literal provisions of Little Rock Rev. Code X36 -156(2)(f), which states: Accessory buildings shall maintain at least a three-foot setback from any side or rear yard property line except where said rear yard abuts on a dedicated alley. No setback shall be required for an accessory building upon the alley. We believe that strict enforcement of Little Rock Rev. Code X36 -156(2)(f) would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the Property. Moreover, we believe that granting the variance requested would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the provisions of Chapter 36 of the Revised Little Rock Code. The Property is located in Hillcrest. The principal building located on the Property is a two story brick and frame house that was constructed in 1926 ("House"). The lot constituting the Property is 50 feet wide. A concrete driveway, bordered to the east by the principal building and to the west by the western Property boundary, runs down the western side of the lot. 07-07.27.SKW to Board of Rdjustmentltrmpd Board of Adjustment July 27, 2007 Page 2 Until approximately two weeks ago, a wood framed accessory building ("Old Shed"), approximately 16 feet in width, was situated on the Property. The Old Shed was located approximately 20 feet south of the House, with the western boundary of the Shed located one foot off of the western Property boundary. We believe that the Old Shed was constructed at the same time as the House. The Old Shed building was so severely dilapidated that, in addition to being an eyesore, it had become a safety hazard. As such, we decided to remove the Old Shed and replace it with a new structure of identical size and similar - if not higher quality - material ("New Shed"). Unfortunately, it was not until our contractor had removed the Old -Shed that we became aware of the three foot setback requirement contained in Little Rock Rev. Code X36 -156(2)(f). Unless the Board grants our request for a variance, we will be required to relocate the footprint of our proposed New Shed so as to comply with the aforementioned three foot setback requirement. Complying with this requirement would cause a hardship for us and for our neighbors for the following reasons: 1. Relocating the New Shed would make it difficult to park a car in the New Shed. As discussed above, the Old Shed sat south of the House, at the end of the straight, concrete driveway running down the western boundary of the Property. The door on the Old Shed was aligned with the end of the concrete driveway. This allowed for a "straight shot" insofar as parking a vehicle inside the Old Shed was concerned. Situating the New Shed in compliance with Little Rock Rev. Code X36 -156(2)(f) would require a vehicle operator to make a slight jog to the east in order to align the vehicle with the New Shed's door. Although this change might at first appear innocuous, it would, in fact, cause severe difficulty insofar as parking a vehicle is concerned. There is what we affectionately call "the eye of the needle" where our concrete driveway passes the southwest corner of the House. The southwest corner of the House constitutes the eastern border of the needle's eye. The beginning of our neighbors' rock wall - which surrounds their rear yard - constitutes the western border of the needle's eye. We suspect that the driveway (including the eye of the needle) was originally constructed to accommodate a vehicle the width of a vehicle like a Ford 07-07-27.SKW to Board ofAdjushentlimpd Board of Adjustment July 27, 2007 Page 3 "Model A." While it is possible to squeeze a modern vehicle through the eye of the needle, doing so requires intense concentration and precise maneuvering of the vehicle. Backing through the eye of the needle is, understandably, even more arduous. The fact that the door on the Old Shed was aligned with the end of the concrete driveway made backing out of the eye of the needle at least manageable in that the vehicle was already properly aligned when backed out of the door. In other words, the driver only had to put the vehicle in reverse and go straight back to make it through the needle. If we were required to move the New Shed to the east, the door would no longer be aligned with the eye of the needle. This would require the driver to realign the vehicle, in reverse, so as to situate the vehicle where it could pass through the needle's eye. Although such a feat is theoretically possible, it would be significantly more difficult and would undoubtedly result in damage to our vehicles, the House, and/or our neighbor's rock wall. 2. Relocating the New Shed would also require the relocation of the flagstone patio and underground drainage pipe bordering the eastern boundary of the footprint of the Old Shed. The eastern boundary of the Old Shed was bordered by an underground drainage pipe and a mortared flagstone patio, both of which still exist. Were we to relocate the New Shed, we would also have to relocate the underground drainage pipe and flagstone patio, which would cause a financial hardship. 3. Relocating the New Shed would require our neighbors to install new fencing along the "gap" previously occupied by the western boundary of the Old Shed. As mentioned above, our neighbors' backyard is surrounded by a rock wall (original to the house) topped by a wrought iron fence.. The single gap in their wall and fence was occupied by the western edge of the Old Shed. Were we to relocate the New Shed, our neighbors would be required to "fill in the gap" (they have dogs, and so do we) by building a new section of rock wall/wrought iron fencing. OT-07.27.SKW to Board of Adjushentitrwpd Board of Adjustment July 27, 2007 Page 4 Our neighbors have indicated that they would prefer that we build the New Shed in the same location as the Old Shed because it would save them the significant expenses associated with building a new wall and fence. 4. Relocating the New Shed would deprive us the full use of our rear yard. a. Relocating the New Shed would decrease the width of the area between the eastern boundary of the New Shed and the eastern property boundary by six percent (6%). The lot upon which the Property is situated is only 50 feet wide. The Old Shed was 16 feet wide, and built approximately one foot off the western Property boundary. This left 33 feet between the eastern edge of the Old Shed and the eastern Property boundary. Relocating the New Shed in compliance with Little Rock Rev. Code §36-156(2)(f) would decrease the available space between the eastern boundary of the new Shed and the eastern property boundary by approximately six percent, which would allow less room for outdoor activities and would decrease the area in which our child has to play. b. Relocating the New Shed would require the conversion of existing green space into a concrete driveway. Moving the New Shed would require us to expand the width of our concrete driveway south of the House so as to align the end of the driveway with the garage door to be located on the New Shed. This means that existing green space would be covered in concrete, which would create additional runoff. Moreover, it would require a fence along the eastern boundary of the new driveway that would not be parallel to the Property boundaries. We think this would be significantly less attractive than would a straight fence. We love Hillcrest, and we especially love our house. Our goal is to restore the House and the rest of the Property to its original condition. We are not proposing to build anything different than what has been located on the Property since the time it was originally developed. The New Shed will be safe and attractive and we believe that its appearance will increase the overall appeal of the Property and the neighborhood. We are unaware of anyone who opposes the variance we are 07-07-27.SKW to Board of Adjustmentit.wpd Board of Adjustment July 27, 2007 Page 5 requesting and the property owners who would be most affected by the variance - our neighbors - are actually in favor of the variance. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments. Ve truly yours, ""-ta/Seth and Kelly Ward 07.07-27.SKW to Board of Adjustmentitr.wpd AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-8253 Owner: Markla Realty and Development Company and Tartan Limited Partnership Applicant: Dickson Flake Address: 1010 W. Capitol Avenue Description: Lots 1-3 and 7-12, Block 260, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: UU2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 in conjunction with the construction of a new office building. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Parking Lot and Undeveloped Property Proposed Use of Property: New Office Building and Parking STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No Comments on this variance. At time of building permit review, additional comments may be made on the proposed development. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Site plan must comply with the city's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. The UU district requires street trees at one every thirty (30) linear feet. This is a minimal city ordinance which mandates this distance. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8% of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7'/z feet in width and 150 square feet in area. Proposed plan does not reflect this minimum. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of three (3) feet of building landscaping between the parking areas and the building. AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) The site is located within the designated mature area of the city thus these minimal amounts reflect these allowances and reductions. The zoning street buffer ordinance requires an average nineteen foot (19') wide street buffer along the sites entirety and in no case to be less than half (1/2) the required minimum. Currently, the site is not meeting this minimal amount. It appears the parking lot is designed excessively large and can be reduced allowing for this minimal amount to be met. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 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 site. It appears there are very old live oak trees at this location. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. C. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 1010 W. Capitol Avenue consists of nine (9) lots, or three-quarters of Block 260, Original City of Little Rock. The property is bounded by Capitol Avenue to the south, W. 4th Street to the north, S. Chester Street to the east and S. Ringo Street to the west. The east half of the block, running along S. Chester Street, contains a paved parking lot which has existed for a number of years. The northwest quarter of the block is currently undeveloped and grass -covered. The applicant proposes to redevelop the property as a new office facility for Baldwin and Shell Construction Company. The development will include a one-story, 17,200 square foot, office building located at the southeast corner of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed building will be located eight (8) feet from the front (south) property line, 10 feet from the side (east) property line and 68 feet from the rear (north) property line. A future building addition is shown on the plan on he north end of the proposed building. The applicant is also proposing 79 paved parking spaces with the proposed development. The paved parking will be located along the west and north sides of the proposed building. Access drives are proposed from Capitol Avenue, S. Ringo Street and W. 4th Street. A dumpster area is shown on the north side of the proposed building. New sidewalk and landscaped areas are shown along all street frontages. The applicant is requesting several variances from the UU (Urban Use) district standards with the proposed redevelopment of the property. The first variance AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) is from Section 36-342.1(f)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This section requires a 25 foot front building setback along the Capitol Avenue. The proposed front setback from the Capitol Avenue property lines ranges from eight (8) feet to 16.5 feet. The second variance is from Section 36-342.1( c)(5)b. which requires that street trees a minimum of three-inch caliper be planted along all street frontages at 30 feet on center. The applicant is showing one (1) street tree on the Capitol Avenue frontage and seven (7) trees along the Chester Street frontage with a 40 foot separation. The applicant is requesting to plant no street trees along the W. 4th Street and S. Ringo Street frontages. The applicant notes that their architect suggests the 40 foot separation as being more adequate for mature tree spacing. The applicant also notes that low power lines dictate the request for no street trees along W. 4th and S. Ringo Streets. Landscaped areas will be provided along all street frontages. The next variance is from Section 36-342( c)(8), which requires the ground - level (street fronting) floors of non-residential structures to have a minimum surface area of sixty (60) percent window display. The applicant notes that this variance is requested based on the fact that it will be an office building and not a commercial/retail building. No elevations currently exist for the proposed building. The applicant is asking that their architects be given flexibility to design the office building with less than the 60 percent window requirement. The final variance is from Section 36-342( c)(10)b. This section requires that surface parking be located behind or adjacent to a structure and never between the building and abutting street. The proposed site plan has parking located between the proposed building and W. 4th and Ringo Streets. Therefore, the variance is requested. Staff is supportive of the proposed redevelopment of the property including the requested variances. Staff believes the proposed office building with associated parking area represents a quality development in the downtown area. However, staff does have two (2) minor concerns associated with the proposed plan. Staff believes there is space to add one (1) more street tree along the Capitol Avenue frontage. Staff also believes the dumpster area should be moved away from the busier Chester Street frontage to along the S. Ringo Street frontage to the west. With these two (2) minor changes, staff believes the proposed development will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the overall downtown area. AUGUST 27, 2007 ( ITEM NO.: 5 (CO D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances from the UU district standards, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the landscape and buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the agenda staff report. 2. The dumpster area must be relocated away from the Chester Street frontage. 3. One (1) additional street tree must be planted along the Capitol Avenue frontage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2007) Dickson Flake and Eldon Bock were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Dickson Flake addressed the Board in support of the application. He made no additional comments to the staff presentation. James Van Dover asked about the plans to save trees on the site and plant new trees. Mr. Flake explained that there will be street trees planted along S. Chester Street and Capitol Avenue. Mr. Van Dover asked if the existing trees along W. 4th and S. Ringo Street would be preserved. Mr. Flake explained that if trees are removed they would be replaced, but the specimens may be of a smaller variety than the street trees. Mr. Flake noted that the site's development will comply with the City's Landscape Ordinance. Eldon Bock also addressed the Board in support. He noted that the development will utilize as many of the existing trees along S. Ringo and W. 4th Streets as possible. He also noted that the site will comply with the City's Landscape Ordinance. Dana Carney, City Planning Staff, explained the difference between the street tree requirements and the City's Landscape Ordinance requirements. Mr. Van Dover explained that he could not see justification in not providing street trees along W. 4th and S. Ringo Streets. Mr. Flake made comments related to applying the UU District requirements west of Broadway. Chairman Francis asked if the applicant knew what percentage of the front fagade will be glass. Mr. Bock explained that the building plans were not that far along, but that the amount of windows on the front fagade would be appropriate for an office building. Mr. Flake referenced Baldwin and Shell's existing office building at 6th and Ringo as an example of the amount of window openings. Mr. Van Dover expressed concern with approving the variance for less window coverage without plans. AUGUST 27, 2007 ( ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) There was a motion to approve the requested variances for Sections 36-342.1(f)(1) and 36-342.1( c)(10)b., as recommended by staff. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. There was a second motion to approve the requested variances from Sections 36- 342.1(c )(5)b. and 36-342.1( c)(8), as recommended by staff. The motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. All variances associated with the proposed development plan were approved. July 27, 2007 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1200 Post Office Box 3546 Little Rock,AR 72203 Phone 501.372.6161 FAX 501.372.0671 http://www.colliersdfp.com Little Rock Board of Zoning Adjustment _� j c/o Mr. Monte Moore fi Planning and Development Commission Little Rock City Hall 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Gentlepersons: Attached is an application on behalf of Baldwin & Shell Construction Company for variances requested in its proposed development of the northwest corner of Capitol Avenue and Chester Street in Little Rock. Baldwin & Shell Construction Company, currently at 6th & Ringo Streets, must expand its offices to house its current and anticipated personnel levels. It proposes to acquire and develop the nine -lot site at the northwest corner of Capitol Avenue and Chester Street. The currently -contemplated development will include a one -level office building of 17,200 square feet and 79 parking spaces. Three variances from the "UU" zoning classification are requested. They are: Setback on Capitol Avenue Other buildings on the north side of Capitol Avenue have setbacks less than 25 feet, and it is consistent with the streetscape to align the setback of the Baldwin & Shell building to be similar with its neighbors. The ultimate design may increase the setback beyond the requested variance, but the request is to allow the setback to be equal to that of the other building in the same block, Allied Bank. L. Dickson Flake, CRE, CCIM, SIOR Melanie Gibson, CCIM, CPM Cindy Milby INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS Angie Baxter ° Phyllis Laser Glaze, CPM Marlies Mitchell Building Owners and Managers Association =Mark A. Bentley, SIOR Dana Gray Matthew Nicolo Counselor of Real Estate Gaines Bonner Denna Griffis, ARM "Nolan L Rushing Commercial Investment Institute Denise Bowers, RPA David B. Carpenter Drew Holbert =Kevin H. Huchingson,CCIM, S10R ThomasStrom, CPM, CCIM S' R y Institute of Real Estate Management Mark Caruthers *Gary L Jones, CPM Leah M. Sears International Council of Shopping Centers Marolyn Dorman Karen Keathley C. a eih Margaret Isaact SSteevens, CPM Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc. Nina DuBois Diana G. Lacy Deann Voss National Association of Realtors Dru E. English, CPM Margaret M. Maher °PRINCIPALS Society of Industrial and Office Realtors Karen Fleming Page McDonald 2. Street Tree Requirement The ordinance requires that perimeter street trees be planted 30 feet on center. The applicant's landscape architect has advised that 30 -foot separation is not adequate for mature trees. The applicant is recommending that a 40 -foot separation be permitted on CaOtol Avenue and on Chester Street. There is a relatively -low power line on 4t Street. The applicant is requesting waiver of the street tree requirement on 4th Street and on Ringo Street. No later than the date of the board hearing, the applicant will propose an alternative landscape plan for the 4th Street and Ringo Street frontages. 3. Ground Level Windows The urban use zoning classification is designed for the multi-level buildings east of Broadway with parking structures and a significant amount of pedestrian traffic. The requirement for 60% glass is appropriate for the environment east of Broadway, but storefront glass for a one -level office building with surface parking and low pedestrian traffic is only one of many good design alternatives. The applicant requests that its architects be given the flexibility to design the best alternative for its proposed office use. Sincerely, L. Dickson Flake MM 7-27-07 AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-8254 Owner: John and September Crabtree Applicant: John Crabtree Address: 11 Cobblestone Way Description: Lot 86, The Ranch Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a wall which exceeds the maximum height allowed. 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 11 Cobblestone Way is currently vacant, with some site work having been done in preparation of construction of a new single family residence. The rear one-quarter of the lot is tree covered. With the site preparation, two (2) retaining walls were constructed in order to level the center of the lot, as it slopes upward from front to back. One (1) retaining wall is located within the rear (east) half of the property, with the second wall being in the front half of the lot extending across a 15 foot front platted building line. The rear wall is approximately four (4) feet tall at its center, tapering to grade at both ends. The highest portion of the front wall is six (6) to seven (7) feet above grade, tapering downward toward both ends. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet for fences/walls located between a building AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) setback line and a street right-of-way. Other fences/walls can be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the short section of wall which is higher than four (4) feet and extends between the 15 foot front platted building line and the right-of-way of Cobblestone Way. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the request as a relatively minor issue. The front wall extends across the front platted building line by only approximately seven (7) feet at one (1) point, running to the building line and behind at the ends of the wall. If the wall were located on the 15 foot building line, there would be no variances. Additionally, the front wall is fairly short and unobtrusive. It allows the center of the lot to be brought up to near the grade of the existing residence immediately to the south. Staff believes the existing wall will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The existing walls were designed by an engineering firm hired by the applicant. An attached letter from the civil engineer certifies that the walls were constructed in accordance with the design standards. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence/wall height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the wall construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 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 and 1 absent. Moore, Monte From: thecrabtrees@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 200710:16 AMS To: Moore, Monte Subject: Lot 86 in the Ranch's This letter is in regard to the application submitted for the variance on the zoning restrictions of front wall height for lot 86 in the Ranch addition to the city of Little Rock. The retaining walls are necessary because without them, the slope would have been too great to build the house. The front wall is helping to remove at least 12 feet of slope to the front of the lot even though it is about 7 feet in height. There is also a 4 foot high wall towards the back of the lot to provide stability to the embankment and completes an adequate drainage system to the curb keeping the water run-off away from the house foundation. It is about 20 feet from the back line. This area remains natural with large trees to provide a buffer for privacy. The walls provide a flat enough pad for a slab foundation with few, if any, steps into the house and a level yard area in the front and back of the house. This would not be possible without the walls. Additionally the walls will help aesthetically shape and complement the landscape design around the house. The front of the house will be completely landscaped between the wall and the front of the house. Large rock stepping stones and a patio extending from the front porch are part of this design and would not be possible without the front wall. Respectfully yours, John Crabtree � t WA Ds ENGINEERING, P.A. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Planning, and Consulting June 26, 2007 RE: Segmental Retaining Wall Systems Lot 86 of The Ranch — Little Rock, Arkansas V �-z -OV2-5 I certify that the segmental retaining walls located at Lot 86 of the Ranch Subdivision in Little Rock, Arkansas were constructed in accordance with the design drawings prepared by Edwards Engineering, P.A. dated June 4, 2007. This certification is based on my review of the project as well as conversations with the wall builder.. Based on the available design and construction information, the referenced wall systems are considered stable and should have no problem functioning as intended. Brian Edwards :-^._ -;.;. ....:�.. v.aa:.4l President/Senior Engineer F ; A R K 9802 Maumelle Blvd • North Little Rock, AR 72113 • www.e-engr.com Phone: (501) 219-2808 • Fax: (501) 219-2809 Na. 8 946 Off av � D ED ZG 9802 Maumelle Blvd • North Little Rock, AR 72113 • www.e-engr.com Phone: (501) 219-2808 • Fax: (501) 219-2809 AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-8255 Owner: Matthew and Sarah Bell Applicant: Charlie Basham Address: 225 Epernay Loop Description: Lot 50, Block 71, Chenal Valley 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 single family residence with reduced front setback and which crosses a front 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 225 Epernay Loop is occupied by a one-story brick single family residence which was recently constructed. There is a two -car wide driveway from Epernay Loop which serves as access. The single family lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line. When the house was constructed a mistake was made in laying out the home's foundation. The front setback was measured from a straight line between the two (2) front corner pins instead of compensating for the slight curvature in the front property line. This resulted in the front corner of the garage portion of the house extending across the platted building line by approximately three (3) feet, as noted on the attached site plan. This resulted in a 22 foot front setback. AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new residential structure with a reduced front setback and encroachment cross a platted building line. The 22.5 foot rear yard setback was approved administratively by staff prior to construction. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the front encroachment as being a very minor issue. A mistake was made in laying out the house which caused the minor encroachment. Only approximately 15 square feet of the residence extends across the platted building line and into the minimum front setback. The residence is located within a curve of Epernay Loop, which gives the structure no appearance of being out of alignment with other structures along the street. Staff believes the residence, as constructed, 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 residential structure. 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, associated with the new residential structure, 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: (AUGUST 27, 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 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. . ......... .1 2- kz-515 AUGUST 27, 2007 yfd TA 9►• File No.: Z-8256 Owner/Applicant: Robert Walsh Address: 103 S. Schiller Street Description: Lot 2, Block 5, Plunkett's 2nd Addition Zoned: R-5 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-259 to allow a deck with a reduced side setback and a porch/step structure with a reduced front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: Single Family Residential The R-5 zoned property at 103 S. Schiller Street is occupied by a two story frame single family residence which was moved to this lot approximately five (5) to six (6) years ago. There is a gravel drive at the southwest corner of the lot. There is also an unpaved alley right-of-way along the rear (east) property line. The front door of the residence is located seven(7) to eight (8) feet above grade, as the property slopes upward from Schiller Street. There is a first floor side door (north side) which is approximately nine (9) feet above grade. There is also a third floor, attic -type, door on the north side of the structure, within the roofline of the structure. The applicant recently constructed a covered porch and uncovered deck structure on front of the house, as noted on the attached site plan. The porch/deck structure is located approximately 21 feet back from the front (west) property line. An uncovered step structure leads from the porch/deck AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) structure down to the grade of the front yard. The step structure is located approximately 13 feet back from the front property line. The applicant is also in the process of constructing deck structures (balcony - type) on the north side of the house at both doors. The lower deck will be five (5) feet wide by 22 feet long and serve the first floor side door. This deck is located three (3) feet from the side (north) property line. The upper deck serves the third floor attic -type door and is four (4) feet wide by 16 feet long. This upper deck is located four (4) feet from the north side property line. No steps are shown for either of the side decks. Section 36-259(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for this lot. Section 36-259(d)(2) requires a minimum side setback five (5) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the porch, deck and step structures with reduced front and side setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as reasonable. Given the elevation of the front and side doors, it would be difficult to provide adequate deck widths and meet the front and side setback requirements. The applicant has kept the porch and deck widths to a minimum, with the front deck being six (6) feet wide and the side decks having widths of four (4) feet and five (5) feet. Additionally, the structures within this block on the east side of S. Schiller Street are not aligned, with a few of the structures to the south being closer to the front property lines that the front fagade of this residential structure. The proposed porch/deck structures will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed porch, deck and step additions will have no adverse impact 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. A building permit must be obtained for all construction. 2. The portion of the front porch/deck which is not covered must remain uncovered. 3. The front porch/deck must remain unenclosed. 4. The front steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed. 5. The side decks must remain uncovered and unenclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2007) Robert Walsh was present, representing the application. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. AUGUST 27, 2007 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) Robert Walsh addressed the Board in support of the application. Mr. Walsh made no additional comments to the staff presentation. Joe Flye addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that he lived at 103 S. Summit Street, behind the subject property. He explained that the applicant had obtained no permits to do construction on the house. Greg Conley, of 110 S. Schiller Street, also addressed the Board in opposition. He explained that he had no problem with Mr. Walsh's plans for the house. He noted that he had a problem with Mr. Walsh not finishing the construction project. He stated construction had been going on for several years. Chairman Francis asked how long it would be before the construction is finished. Mr. Walsh noted that the exterior is 90 to95 percent finished. He stated that the exterior would be complete if he had not been issued a stop work order by the City. James Van Dover asked when the house was moved to the property. Mr. Walsh stated that it was in 2002 or 2003. Mr. Van Dover asked when the construction would be finished. Mr. Walsh stated that the first floor would be finished by the end of 2007. This issue was further discussed. The issue of obtaining a building permit was discussed. Mr. Flye made additional comments to the Board. There was a motion to approve the requested variances, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The variances were approved. July /6, 2007 Mr- Monte Moore City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR Mr. Moore, 7 - The purpose of this letter is to request a variance of the five-foot side setbacks for single-- family residences (two decks: one is a third floor cantilevered deck which comes four feet off the wall, the second is a five foot by twenty two foot deck on the first floor of the residence). There may also be a front setback issue with the stairway leading off the front porch. This third variance is also requested (see survey). The setbacks of 5 feet on the north side are not being met. The requested variance is in response to a complaint by a neighbor across the street who is unaffected by the decks in question (we can only suppose as to what his motivation is). The neighbor who the decks might affect has the front comer of his house 'lying on our lot (.see survey), Although this is a grand fathered situation (her house was built in the 1890's), it seems as though she might as well let me come to within two and a half to three feet of the property line since they might want to walk on any property to get to the back of -their property. We don't have a problem with this yet, but we may. The house on which we are requesting this variance had been moved to this location approximately five to six years ago. The house mover (Mr. David Covey of Hot Springs) had an exterior side porch removed before, the move, and somewhere in the building application/ permit process the deck was either included as a possibility or a probability in one of those permits a few years back. Either way, the exterior door has remained on the house, and the plan from the get go was to put another deck/porch back on the residence. if it pleases the powers to be, we could cut these proposed porches off to meet the side setbacks, but that would only make them two feet wide. Not much to be excited about. Res ctfully submitted Robert and Susan Walsh 406 E_ North Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 n ,! 10, U :z LU �Q UJ 0 W Ua a ►- LL. 0 0 a �J 0 m -Z) a ►c 1K J z z W U) m Q Q W z 02 W Ell Ell 1 11 1111 Ell 11 Ills a ►c 1K J z z W U) m Q Q W z 02 W August 27, 2007 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m. Date: 09/z4/6� Chairman