Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_05 23 2005LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MAY 23, 2005 2:00 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the April 25, 2005 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present Members Absent: City Attorney Present: Andrew Francis, Chairman Terry Burruss, Vice Chairman Debra Harris David Wilbourn Fletcher Hanson Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MAY 23, 2005 2:00 P.M. I. OLD BUSINESS: A. Z-7809 3010 Painted Valley Drive B. Z-7747 5804 Scenic Drive C. Z-7829 2800 Longcoy Street II. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Z -6957-D 4900 Talley Road 2. Z-7834 5412 Edgewood Road 3. Z-7843 114 Ridge Road 4. Z-7844 12001 Interstate 30 5. Z-7845 9500 Satterfield Drive 6. Z-7846 Northeast Corner Kavanaugh Blvd. and Monroe Street 7. Z-7847 5425 Centerwood Road 8. Z-7848 1921 N. Spruce Street C) N • �, y = 3Md a31ZYaf '� nnYeHl cn b t= u h — Nnn N AN IS3 B HOW a 153H0 �=AOyj � a3H3a0 (� DNIN n a H m R A10a000M 3NId 3NId aY ` 6 Noll YH lloz rUUdy. s ,yam 'f0 Q acrd ane v 8+ °a � uxli3nlNn € ulsa3AlNn sONIadS a343D <C s3HDnH a � p7 kWISS in lODIHJ � WA MOaaY6 NHOf 3 S — Oa AIXOYHS s 3AMN Q = d NDY R —� SIONYS 3rR n Nava /aNaoa NY 00 Sllnll � P6 3DDIalnn ��+rs z SLIVIII Allo t stlnn Ala a � NYAll1nS w L 18YM31S ��b DOE ^o YM IH' IH Slinll A11D Ni 'r�rro nrana3d N 3 o � O 1 O MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7809 Owner: Robert Tanner Applicant: Mark Thomas Meador Address: 3010 Painted Valley Drive Description: Lot 7, Block 30, Pleasant 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 porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line, and a building addition with reduced side and rear setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3010 Painted Valley Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a circular drive from Painted Valley Drive which serves as access. The driveway extends along the south side of the residence to an attached carport at the southwest corner of the structure. The single family lot has a 25 foot front platted building line. The applicant proposes to make two (2) additions to the single family structure. The first addition is a proposed 20 foot by 20 foot porte-cochere addition to the front of the house, over a portion of the circular driveway. The proposed porte- cochere will extend across the front platted building line by approximately 15 feet, resulting in a 10 foot front setback. MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON The second proposed addition is a 21 foot by 43 foot addition at the southwest corner of the structure. This addition will include a garage for boat and trailer storage and an exercise/pool room next to an existing swimming pool in the rear yard. This addition will be located six (6) to eight (8) feet from the side (south) property line and 10 feet from the rear (west) property line. There is a 10 foot wide utility easement along the rear property line. The addition is not proposed to extend into the easement. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Section 36-254(d)(3) also requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) requires minimum side setbacks of eight (8) feet for this 100 foot wide lot. In addition, 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 proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses the front platted building line, and the proposed building addition at the southwest corner of the house with reduced side and rear setbacks. Staff does not support the variances, as requested. Staff does not oppose the proposed addition at the southwest corner of the residence, as the neighborhood contains large residential structures on lots which are above average in size. Staff feels that this addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff would require that the applicant obtain a letter of approval from the neighborhood property owners' association for the proposed addition. Staff does oppose the proposed porte-cochere addition. Staff feels this proposed addition will not be compatible with the neighborhood. On inspection of the general area, staff observed no other similar front encroachments in the neighborhood. 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 proposed porte-cochere 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 setback and building line variances, as requested. 2 I MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 28, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the April 25, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the April 25, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the May 23, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 23, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 ! r i `i t__�� __i i 1 � i I i i I I � i I i i I ' 10j� I � � � MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7747 Owner: Jenny Smith Address: 5804 Scenic Drive Description: Lot F, Block 3, East Palisades 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 carport 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 Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1. Because of the potential for future interference with utility and maintenance operations, Public Works recommends against a zero setback from the right-of-way line. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5804 Scenic Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence with finished basement level. The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north) and side to side (west to east). A circular driveway from Scenic Drive serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a 9 foot by 14 foot porte-cochere on the front of the house, covering a portion of the circular drive. The proposed porte- cochere will extend to the front property line with a zero front setback. There is a small landscaped area immediately south of the proposed porte-cochere within the street right-of-way. The porte-cochere will be unenclosed on the MAY 23, 2005 M NO.: B (CON'T. south, east and west sides. Additionally, this R-2 zoned lot contains a 20 foot front platted building line, which the proposed porte-cochere encroaches upon. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12( c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for 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 proposed porte-cochere addition with a reduced front setback and which crosses a platted building line. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff does not view the request as reasonable. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, Public Works notes that the proposed zero front setback would result in the potential for future interference with utility and Public Works street maintenance operations. Additionally, staff's inspection of the area resulted in the observation of no similar encroachments on the single family lots on the north side of Scenic Drive east and west of this property. 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 proposed porte-cochere. 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 front setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff recommended deferral of the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. A motion was made to defer the application to the December 20, 2004 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. 2 MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 20, 2004) Jenny Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Jenny Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that she would agree to remove the porte-cochere structure if the city or utilities had to work in the area. She noted that there was no other place on the property for covered parking. She explained that the porte-cochere was needed for sheltered parking and security. She referred to other structural encroachments in the area. Chairman Gray expressed concern with the proposed encroachment to the front property line. He stated that he would have a hard time supporting the variances as proposed. He stated that he could possibly support an amended application, moving the structure further back from the front property line. The issue of amending the application was discussed. Ms. Smith noted that she might need additional time to consider possible alternatives. Vice -Chairman Francis also expressed concern with the proposed encroachment. He noted that he would support a five (5) foot front setback and explained. Chris Wilbourn concurred with Gray and Francis. He explained that the proposed porte-cochere structure could be moved back from the front property line, and maintain the same structural appearance. Ms. Smith noted that she wished to defer the application. A motion was made to defer the application to the January 31, 2005 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 31, 2005) Jenny Smith was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application, noting that Ms. Smith had indicated that she would like to amend the application. Staff noted that Ms. Smith would need to present the change(s) to the Board. Jenny Smith addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that she had drawings indicating a five (5) foot front setback, but wished to request a two (2) foot front setback, and explained. She explained that a five (5) foot front setback would not allow her room to open her car door under the porte-cochere. The issue of a two (2) foot front setback was briefly discussed. 3 MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: B (CON'T.) Vice -Chairman Francis noted that he had a problem with the proposed two (2) foot front setback, with building construction in the Master Street Plan required right-of- way. Chairman Gray concurred with Mr. Francis and explained. The issue was discussed further. Ms. Smith noted that she would be willing to draft an agreement to remove the structure if future work was needed within the future right-of-way area. Chris Wilbourn noted that he could support an overhang into the front five (5) feet of the lot. Terry Burruss concurred with Mr. Wilbourn. The issue of a five (5) foot front setback to the columns, with a one (1) foot overhang into the front five (5) feet was discussed (4 foot front setback to overhang). Mr. Francis asked about the possible future impact on the City if the overhang were allowed within the Master Street Plan required right-of-way. The issue was briefly discussed. Ms. Smith indicated that she wished to defer the application to allow time to explore her options and have a full Board membership present. Staff noted that it could be the May agenda before a full Board would possibly be present. There was a motion to defer the application to the May 23, 2005 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 0 November 17, 2004 Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 RE: Variance request for 5804 Scenic Drive, Little Rock, AR 72207 I am requesting a variance for my property at 5804 Scenic Drive. I would like to extend the existing carport structure from my front door to the other side of the existing driveway. This will only extend the existing carport structure 14 feet. This will allow me to enter my home under cover when the weather is not permitting. I am a widow who lives alone and this would make me feel much safer getting in and out of my car. Thank you for your consideration. Jenny Smith December 20, 2004 Members of the Board of Adjustments: Please reconsider my request for a porte-cochere. As you can see from the attached photos there are other property owners on my street that do not comply with the building code setback. I am aware that the porte-cochere encroaches on the property line but am willing to remove it if it should ever interfere with utility and public works street maintenance. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Jenny Smith MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Z-7829 Owner: Willard and Marilee Williams Applicant: Mark S. Williams Address: 2800 Longcoy Street Description: Southwest corner of Longcoy Street and West 28th Street. Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to allow parking of a commercial vehicle in single family residential zoning. 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 2800 Longcoy Street contains a one-story frame single family residence. There is a two -car wide driveway from Longcoy Street which serves as access. A concrete parking pad was recently constructed along the south side of the house for parking a semi tractor truck. On February 15, 2005 the City's Enforcement staff observed the semi tractor truck parked on the residential property. A courtesy notice was issued to Mark Williams to cease parking the commercial vehicle on the residential property, as per Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. As per ordinance protocol, Mr. Williams appealed the commercial vehicle notice to the Director of Planning and Development on March 2, 2005. The appeal was subsequently denied. Therefore, MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) Mr. Williams is appealing the administrative denial to the Board of Adjustment. The applicant, Mark Williams, is requesting an appeal of the courtesy notice and administrative denial in order to park the semi tractor truck on the residential property at 2800 Longcoy Street. Mr. Williams notes in the attached letter that the truck would be parked at 2800 Longcoy Street approximately 48 hours every 14 days. Mr. Williams also notes that a parking pad exists to accommodate the truck parking. The Board of Adjustment is asked to determine if it is appropriate to allow the parking of a semi tractor truck on the R-3 zoned property at 2800 Longcoy Street. Photos of the truck are attached for Board review. As noted above, Mr. Williams was issued the notice for violation of Section 36-512 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-512 reads as follows: "Sec. 36-512. Commercial vehicle parking (prohibited). (a) Except as provided herein, no portion of any lot, tract or parcel of land zoned for residential usage, including districts "R-1" through "R -7a" and "MF -6" through "MF -24," shall be utilized for the parking of commercial vehicles with a load carrying capacity of one (1) ton or greater. (b) For the purposes of this section, the following types of vehicles are expressly prohibited at any time. (1) All commercial tow vehicles or vehicle carriers. (2) Dump trucks, trash haulers, bulldozers and other earth haulers or excavation equipment. (3) Flatbed or stake bed trucks. (4) Trailers whose designed intent is storage or transport of material or equipment. (5) Trucks or buses used in inter -or intrastate commerce. (6) Vans, of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. (7) School or church buses or vans of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. 2 MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) There was a brief discussion of allowing Mr. Williams time to find another location to park the truck. There was a motion to deny the requested appeal and grant 90 days to find an alternate location (properly zoned) to park the commercial vehicle. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The appeal was denied. .19 Angel Delivery, Inc. 2800 Long Coy Little Rock, AR 72204 March 2, 2005 Department of Planning and Development Ms. Alice Chaep 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: code violation 36-512 Dear Ms. Chaep, -7 V 2- I I am asking the City of Little Rock to grant Angel Delivery, Inc. a variance to park a commercial tractor in my driveway. I have adequate paved off-street parking. As a truck driver, I will need to park the tractor for approximately 48 hours every 14 days. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark Williams MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z -6957-D Owner: Swami Hotel Properties, LLC Applicant: Raj Mehta Address: 4900 Talley Road Description: West side of Talley Road, south of Colonel Glenn Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36-301 to allow a hotel building which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: Hotel STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with zoning buffer and landscape ordinance requirements. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. C. Staff Anal 4900 Talley Road is located on the west side of Talley Road, south of Colonel Glenn Road within the Colonel Glenn Centre Addition. The C-3 zoned property is currently undeveloped. Some site work has taken place (overall subdivision) in preparation of new development. MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T. The applicant proposes a hotel development for the property (Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites). A three-story hotel building is proposed to be located near the center of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. Paved parking will be located on the north, south and west sides of the proposed building. Two (2) shared access drives from Talley Road are proposed. The applicant is requesting one (1) variance with the proposed hotel development. The proposed building height is 40 feet — 2 inches, as measured from the lowest finished floor level to the mean height level of the sloped roof. Section 36-301(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet in C-3 zoning. The applicant explains in the attached letter that the hotel building has to be constructed to Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites franchise specifications which dictate the building's height. Staff is supported of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable. The requested increase in building height is very minor. All of the abutting property is zoned C-3 and will contain future commercial development. The property further south is zoned 0-3, which allows building heights of up to 60 feet. The property across Talley Road to the east is designated as "Light Industrial" on the City's Future Land Use Plan. Both the 1-1 and 1-2 Industrial Zoning Districts allow maximum building heights of 45 feet. Therefore, staff feels the proposed building height for the hotel development will not be out of character with the surrounding zoning, and will have no adverse impact on the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance, subject to compliance with the landscape and buffer comments in paragraph B. of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) 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. 2 Holiday inn Express Hotel & Suites 4900 Talley Road Little Rock, AR Dated: April 22 2005 Department of Planning & Development 723 west Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Sir,. We would like to request for a height variance waiver for the Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites which we are looking to build on Col. Glenn and Talley Rd. The property is currently zoned C-3. we are requesting only 5'2" variance in height. Our overall mean height of the building is 40'2". The current C-3 zoning allows 35'. we have to build the Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites as per Franchise Prototype and we must meet their specifications and requirements. We sincerely hope that you will grant our small request. Thanks, Raj Mehta 501-258-0141 4/306 6- MCGE!(N ftO y. L 1.rrL_rr a°cK , AP, MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-7834 Owner/Applicant: Charles and Rebecca Spohn Address: 5412 Edgewood Road Description: Lot 123, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a porch addition 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 5412 Edgewood Road is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence which is in the process of being remodeled. There is a one -car wide driveway from Edgewood Road which serves as access. There is a one-story frame garage at the northwest corner of the property. The property contains a 30 -foot front platted building line. The applicants propose to construct on 8 -foot wide porch on the front of the existing structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The porch will be covered and unenclosed. The porch will be located 27.5 to 30 feet back from the front property line, crossing the front platted building line by approximately 2.5 feet at its southeast corner. MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 (CON'T.) Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the building line encroachment. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is relatively minor and will not be out of character with the neighborhood. The existing house is located 5.5 to 8 feet behind the 30 -foot front platted building line. A number of the residences along Edgewood Road are located on the front building line or slightly over it. Staff believes the proposed building line encroachment will have no adverse impact on 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 proposed porch. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) 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. 2 April 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Members of the Board, 11-11-1- 4 z Iz- 78 33 We would appreciate your consideration of our application for a residential zoning variance at 5412 Edgewood Road in the Prospect Terrace subdivision of Pulaski County in Little Rock. We are in the process of carefully renovating this home, and our plans include the addition of a porch on the front exterior that would infringe upon the regulation 30 foot easement by approximately 2 1/2 feet. A porch built that stays within the easement would be inappropriate for two reasons: First, the porch would present an architectural eyesore for the neighborhood, based upon its lack of proper proportion to the home and lot. Second, the porch would introduce design and drainage issues to the home, as the angles of the roof would be inappropriate by conventional standards. We have taken the liberty to talk with our neighbors and measure porches on other homes in our area. Specifically, there are four front porches on our street alone that are at least 8 feet in length, very similar to our planned dimensions. These home owners agree that the size of the porch contributes greatly to the "curb appeal" of the home and the practicality of the space for their families. With all due respect, we request that you grant our variance and allow us to exceed the easement line by 2 I/2 feet. Sincerely, A cries and ebe a S ohn 5412 Edgewood Little Rock, AR 72207 501-217-9371 MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7843 Owner/Applicant: Michael and Amy Mueller Address: 114 Ridge Road Description: Part of Lots 351 and 352, Kingwood Place 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. Staff Note: 1. Entrance gate should be located one car length (20' minimum) back from the edge of street. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 114 Ridge Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Ridge Road which serves as access. A carport is located at the northwest corner of the residence. The property slopes downward from side to side (west to east). A drainage ditch is located along the east property line as well as running through the front portion of the property. The southeast corner of the property is located approximately 20 feet below the elevation (foundation) of the house. The single family lot contains a 25 -foot front platted building line. The applicants propose to construct an eight (8) foot high wood fence with two (2) gates along the front property line, as noted on the attached site plan. The eight (8) foot high fence will run along the front property line and along the side property lines to the 25 -foot front platted building MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 (CON'T.) line. The applicants note in the attached letter that the fence is needed for security and privacy. Section 36-516(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a residential fence located between a building setback line and a street right-of-way to have a maximum height of four (4) feet. Other residential fences may be constructed to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the eight (8) foot high fence. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff feels that a fence taller than four (4) feet within the required front setback will be out of character with the neighborhood. The home immediately to the east faces south and would have a front yard relationship to the proposed fence. Additionally, the driveway for that adjacent lot is located at its southwest corner. Staff feels the fence could create a sight -distance problem for that driveway. According to the survey, the house at 114 Ridge Road is located 75 feet back from the front property line. Staff feels the applicant could locate the eight (8) foot high fence on the 25 foot building setback line (by right) and achieve the desired effect. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance for increased fence height. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant completed the required notification to surrounding property owners several days late. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 , 3 - -7 3 To: State Board of Adjustments From: Mike and Amy Mueller Date: April 20, 2005 Memo: Code Variance Request Board of Adjustments, We are requesting a code variance for fence height on the property line at the Mueller residence located at 114 Ridge Road, Little Rock, AR 72207. The pro erty line that borders along Ridge Rd. and the intersection of Kingsrow requires a•6-+oWoot fence to enhance the safety and privacy of our property. The intersection is a major thoroughfare and the slope of the residential property is such that a fence of 4 feet high would be ineffective. The construction of a-F-�foot fence with two gates; one at the driveway and the other located at the lower parcel of land, would ameliorate this problem. As indicated in the survey, this property line is the Front access to the property but is not the direction in which the front of the home is faced. Additionally, the lower level of the property has no residence on it at all. Thank you for the consideration of this matter. Mike and Amy Mueller MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7844 Owner: TLC Properties, Inc. Applicant: Bram Keahey Address: 12001 Interstate 30 Description: Northeast corner of Otter Creek South Road and the 1-30 Frontage Road Zoned: 1-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the buffer provisions of Section 36-522 to allow a reduced interstate buffer. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: OfficeNVare house STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No comment on reduced buffer request. 2. Street improvements are to be constructed per plans approved January 13, 2005. Sidewalks not required in the Otter Creek Industrial Park area per City Ordinance. 3. A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186(c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Both landscape and zoning ordinances require a minimum 30 -foot wide on-site landscape buffer where adjacent to a freeway or expressway. The plan submitted proposes a landscape buffer along the interstate varying in width from approximately 21 feet to 50 feet. The City MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Beautiful Commission granted this variance request May 5, 2005, provided a combination of berming and shrubs 30 inches in height are installed near the on-site paved area along the interstate. The 30 -inch height is to be taken from the elevation of the adjacent on-site paving area. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide approved landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect, C. Staff Analysis: The 1-2 zoned property at 12001 Interstate 30 (Northeast corner of 1-30 and Otter Creek South Road) is currently undeveloped and wooded. However, on-site trees along Otter Creek South Road and Interstate 30 have recently been removed prior to receiving approval from the Public Works Department. The clearing was performed by Boyle Construction Company, hired by the seller of the property to Lamar Advertising. Boyle is installing utilities and widening Otter Creek South Road. Since the trees were removed without a grading permit, Boyle was issued a citation to appear in court by the Public Works Department. A grading permit has since been issued for only the previous work. The applicant is proposing to develop an office/warehouse and associated parking areas on this industrial zoned property. The adjacent properties are also zoned industrial with the exception of a portion of the adjacent property to the northeast, which is zoned for commercial use. The proposed building will be located near the center of the property with parking on its north side, adjacent to 1-30. Two (2) access drives from Otter Creek South Road are proposed. A truck access area will be located at the rear of the building. The applicant is proposing a landscape street buffer along 1-30 ranging in width from 21 feet to 50 feet. Section 36-522(a)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 30 -foot wide street buffer adjacent to an expressway. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the reduced street buffer. Staff is supportive of the requested buffer variance. Staff feels that the request is very minor. The City's Landscape Ordinance also requires a 30 -foot street buffer adjacent to an interstate. As noted in paragraph B., the City Beautiful Commission approved the variance from the MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 (CON'T.) Landscape Ordinance on May 5, 2005, subject to a combination of berming and shrubs 30 inches in height being installed near the on-site paved area along the interstate. The 30 -inch height is to be measured from the elevation of the adjacent on-site paved area. Staff feels this approach is reasonable, and will support the requested buffer variance accordingly. Staff believes the variance will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested buffer variance, subject to the following conditions: A combination of berming and shrubs 30 inches in height (minimum) shall be installed near the on-site paved area along the interstate. The 30 -inch height is to be measured from the elevation of the adjacent on-site paved area. 2. Compliance with the Public Works and Landscape/Buffer requirements as noted in paragraphs A and B of the staff report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) 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. M 21 April 2005 Little Rock Board of Adjustments City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: Lamar Advertising — New Facility Zoning Variance Dear Board of Adjustments, PARTNERS Charles D. Foster A.I.A. Jerry E. Currence A.I.A. George W. 'Bill" Gray A.I.A. ASSOCIATES Paul Michael Callahan A.I.A. Jay A. Gillespie Brom S. Keahey Gary D. Clough, A.I.A. Harold McGory, A.I.A. -78 The Owner of the above referenced project requests a variance to Section 36-522 of the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance requires a 30' Street Buffer along the Highway's Frontage Road. The Property Owner is requesting a variance of 9' to allow a 21' Street Buffer due to existing site features (an existing Billboard) and a constrained Site configuration (a tapering wedge shape). The parking configuration and site circulation, as seen in the Site Plan, is dictated by the Billboard and limited by the wedge shape of the Site. The Property will still maintain 56' of green space buffer and extensive planting (Landscaping) between the Frontage Road and the Site Improvements as shown on the Landscape Plans. Thank you for your consideration, TAGGART FOSTER CURRENCE GRAY ARCHITECTS, INC. Bram Keahey, AIA Project Manager Associate Cc: TLC Properties, Inc. TAGGART • FOSTER • CURRENCE • GRAY ARCHITECTS, INC. 4500 Burrow Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 ( e-mail ) foster@taggarch.com ( Phone) 501-758-7443 ( Fax ) 501-753-7309 � � l MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7845 Owner: Dollar General Stores Applicant: Condray Sign Co. Address: 9500 Satterfield Drive Description: West side of Satterfield Drive, north of Rodney Parham Road Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow a wall sign without street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial 6C1 "TA a 9 111004 a001 A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 9500 Satterfield Drive is occupied by a one- story commercial building which was recently constructed. The building is located near the southwest corner of the property, with paved parking on the north and east sides of the building. Two (2) drives from Satterfield Drive serve as access to the property. There is a wall sign on the front (east side) of the building and a ground -mounted sign near the southeast corner of the property. The ground sign is 35 feet tall, with an area of 96 square feet. The applicant is proposing to place an illuminated sign on the south wall of the building. The sign will be located near the rear section of the wall (west end) between the vertical gutters. The sign will have an area of 50 square feet (20 feet by 2.5 feet). MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.) Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all on - premise wall signs face required street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the wall sign on the south wall of the building, which has no direct street frontage. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, as long as there is no additional commercial signage or increase in the existing commercial signage on the property. The existing 96 square foot ground -mounted sign would otherwise be able to be increased to 160 square feet based on the Zoning Ordinance allowances for commercial zoning. This commercial property sits several feet above the property to the south along Rodney Parham Road. Staff feels that a sign on the south wall of the building will have good visibility from this arterial street. Staff believes the proposed wall sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. There is to be no additional commercial signage or increase in existing commercial signage on the property. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for the new wall sign. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda based on the fact that the applicant completed the required notification to surrounding property owners several days late. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 4'-V- -4 s 1107 E. Harding Avenue Pine Bluff, AR (870) 534-5210 phone (870) 534-5217 fax This letter is to explain the reasoning behind the variance that was filed for 9500 Satterfield Drive for the Dollar General location. Dollar General feels that we should install a 2'6" x 20' illuminated wall sign on the south wall of their building. The reason for this request is that the store sits on the side of a hill, and they feel that the sign would impact more potential customers traveling on Rodney Parham towards the store. MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7846 Owner: DRB Enterprise Applicant: Peter Beranek Address: Northeast corner of Kavanaugh Boulevard and Monroe Street Description: Next to 3000 Kavanaugh Boulevard Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested to allow placement of a temporary building (snow cone stand). Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Parking Lot Proposed Use of Property: Snow Cone Stand STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. No portion of the business activities should encroach into the right- of-way or block the sidewalk. B. Staff Analysis: The property at the northeast corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Monroe Street is zoned C-3 and contains a paved parking lot. The parking lot serves the commercial building which is located across the paved alley to the east, at the northwest corner of Kavanaugh Blvd. and Spruce Street. The paved parking lot will accommodate 30 vehicles, including the five (5) spaces on the east side of the alley. There is a billboard located within the south portion of the property. A temporary structure (snow cone stand) was recently placed on the property, along the south property line under the billboard sign. The snow cone stand is located within a 20 -foot by 20 -foot lease area and occupies two (2) paved parking spaces. MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T. Peter Beranek, owner of the snow cone stand, recently inquired of staff the possibility of obtaining a permit to locate the temporary building on the property. Staff informed Mr. Beranek that an application could not be approved based on the fact that the site does not conform to the minimum standards for the placement of temporary buildings. Staff's procedure guidelines, including the minimum siting standards for the placement of temporary buildings, are provided on an attached form for Board of Adjustment review. The snow cone stand in question has been relocated to this property from the Masonic Lodge property at 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. The applicant had to move from that property because it is in the process of being sold. The Board of Adjustment approved an administrative appeal to allow the snow cone stand at 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. for three (3) years on May 28, 2003. As noted in paragraph C. of the attached procedure guidelines, staff's review of the application ceases at the time certain circumstances exist. This particular site does not conform to items 2, 3, 6 and 7 as noted in paragraph C. The site is less than one (1) acre in size, and contains less than 50 parking spaces. Additionally, the temporary building as placed on the site does not meet the minimum 25 -foot front yard setback as required in C-3 zoning. The building is also proposed for placement on a site which does not contain an existing permanent building. Mr. Beranek asks that he be granted a permit to allow the placement of his snow cone stand at 2710 Kavanaugh Blvd. He notes in the attached letter, "The business was forced to move because the Masonic Lodge is selling the property Cajun Sno previously sat upon. The Hillcrest Neighborhood Association has informed me they think Cajun Sno is part of their neighborhood and would like it to stay." Therefore, Mr. Beranek is requesting an appeal from the administrative procedure/policy regarding the restrictions for the placement of a temporary building on commercial property. If the Board decides to allow the use of the temporary building on this site, the standards listed in paragraphs D and E of the attached procedure guideline will still apply, and Mr. Beranek and staff will need to follow through with the application procedure. 2 MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 (CON'T.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Peter Beranek was present, representing the application. There were two (2) persons present in support. Staff presented the requested administrative appeal. Peter Beranek addressed the Board in support of the appeal. He noted that this parking lot was larger than the lodge parking lot, and that the Kroger Store had denied his request to locate on their property. He stated that most of the traffic to the stand was foot traffic. He explained that the location of the stand on the property was the safest place. Chairman Francis noted that he had no problem with the placement of the snow cone stand. He stated that his only concern was to make sure that the step/deck structure associated with the snow cone stand was structurally sound. He stated that building codes should approve the structure. Dennis Burrow, President of the Hillcrest Merchant's Association, spoke in support of the appeal, noting that the stand had been leveled. There was a motion to approve the appeal, subject to the City's Building Codes approving the step/deck structure. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The administrative appeal was approved. 3 MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: C (CON'T.) (7) School or church buses or vans of one (1) ton or greater in load -carrying capacity. (8) Street sweepers and vehicle -mounted vacuum devices intended for the cleaning of streets or parking lots." BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 25, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the May 23, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 23, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Mark Williams was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the requested administrative appeal. Mark Williams addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that he had improved the property, constructing a parking pad for the truck. He stated he did not know that parking the truck at the residence was a violation of City Ordinance. He noted that he had no other place to park the truck. He stated that there were other commercial vehicle violations in the neighborhood and presented photos to the Board. He stated that no mechanical work would be done on the truck at the residence. Chairman Francis asked about commercial vehicles parked on the street. Staff noted that zoning goes to the centerline of the street and that it was a violation to park a commercial vehicle on the street in residential areas. Chairman Francis explained that he would have a hard time supporting the appeal. He noted that it was difficult to use other violations as grounds to approve an appeal or variance. David Wilbourn noted that he was impressed with the improvements Mr. Williams had made to the property. Mr. Williams explained that he had no other place to park the truck. 3 Tjeat'��*k6 To: The Board of Adjustment LJ Cajun Sno is requesting a variance to sit on the parking lot of 3000 Kavanaugh, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205. The business was forced to move because the Masonic Lodge is selling the property Cajun Sno previously sat upon. The Hillcrest Neighborhood Association has informed me they think Cajun Sno is part of their neighborhood and would like it to stay. As a former employee of Jason Files the former owner of Cajun Sno, I understand he received a variance three years ago. Revised 01-04-94 /to PROCEDURE OUTLINE \ The following procedural guideline is for the placement of temporary building on properties zoned C-4, C-3, C-2. A. Applicants will submit to zoning/privilege license staff a written request for the use placement. The request shall .consist of a photo or graphic depiction of the structure with dimensions, plus a survey of the existing site with all buildings shown or a detailed site plan by a design professional. The application shall .be submitted in four (4) copies. The payment of a filing fee is required in the amount of $50.00 and is non-refundable. This fee may be applied to an appeal. This application shall be forwarded to Building Codes and Traffic for their review B. The applicant shall quantify his/her project by the submittal.of a written request. The information shall include, but not be limited to: floor area; building height; number of•parking spaces required; hour of operation; number of employees; number of take out or drive thru windows; and the date that unit will be removed from the site. C. Staff review will cease at the time when one of the following circumstances exist: 1. The .chosen site is not zoned C-2, .0-3, C-4.. 2. The chosen site is .lessthan one acre in area. . 3. The chosen site..contains fewer than 50 parking spaces. 4. The chosen site contains an existing freestanding ancillary structure/building containing a business. 5. The use is proposed to be housed in any fashion other than a transportable structure with hard roof, walls and floor. 6. Fails to comply with district building setback. standards. 7. The building is proposed for placement on a site which does not contain an existing permanent building.' 8 Residential use is proposed for any portion of the .structure. 9 Failure to include a date the building will be removed from the site. D. The staff shall review the site for: 1. Vehicle access to a•public street. 2. Circulation conflicts on and off site, whether created by the intended business or existing. 3. Utility access and easement conflict. 4. Total parking needs of the chosen site. 5. Structural integrity of the building. I 6. Pedestrian safety... 7. Signage a. Noise, dust odor, smoke or other noxious emissions. 9. Certification of approval by State Health Department. 10. Provision of sanitary facilities. E. The.following conditions shall be places on the approval of applications. 1. Approval of permits to locate shall run with permit holder and shall not run with.the land or be transferrable. 2. The permit authorizes the use to occupy the site for a period of six (6) month and shall be reviewed upon renewal of privilege license. Permits may be revoked for violation of permit standards. 3. The use is limited to a single module structure. No multi -sectionals are permitted. 4.- The structure is limited to a maximum of one hundred (100) sq. ft. of ground coverage including areas beneath canopies or awnings attached to the building. 5. The site may not be fenced with opaque materials. 6d The temporary unit must be removed by the end of the sixth (6) month period. Approved as to form and content. Date Lawson-p,pfor rtment of Neighborhoods and Planning MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7847 Owner/Applicant: James Phillip Jaros Address: 5425 Centerwood Road Description: Lot 114, Prospect Terrace No. 2 Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 and the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow an accessory structure with reduced setbacks and which encroaches into a utility easement. 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 Work Issues: No Comments. B. Utility Company Issues: Single Family Residential Little Rock Wastewater Utility: Little Rock Wastewater Utility agrees to the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. That no permanent structure (Walls etc.) be built in place of the awning. 2. That the awning is supported by 4 X 4's and not any type of extensive foundation that may interfere with the existing sewer main. 3. That in the future if the Utility is required to perform maintenance on the existing sewer main you will remove and reinstall the awning at your expense allowing the Utility to perform any necessary work within the easement. MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T.) Entergy: Although we normally don't allow permanent structures within our easements, in this case we will not require removal or modification. Allowing this encroachment to remain, as currently placed and constructed, is contingent on the following conditions: 1. No additional encroachments are placed within the easement at the rear of your property. 2. The awning height is not modified such that the clearance to our conductors is reduced. 3. Entergy is not liable for any damage to the structure within the easement from falling material due to any reason including maintenance activities. Southwestern Bell: No objection to encroachment. Central Arkansas Water: No Comments received. Centerpoint Energy: No Comments received. C. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5425 Centerwood Road is occupied by a two-story frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Centerwood Road which serves as access. A one-story frame garage structure is located at the southeast corner of the property. The garage structure was recently moved back approximately 15 feet on an existing slab, as approved by staff. There is a four (4) foot wide utility easement along the rear (south) property line. The applicant recently constructed an awning on the rear (south side) of the garage structure, as noted on the attached site plan. The awning is 7 feet by 18 feet, and 8 feet in height. It was constructed using three (3) 4 X 4 posts and a shed roof. The awning structure is currently unenclosed. The applicant has plans to screen in the structure. The awning structure is located one (1) foot from the side (east) and rear (south) property lines. Additionally, the accessory structure, with awning, occupies approximately 35 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). The awning structure also encroaches into the four (4) foot wide utility easement by approximately three (3) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows an accessory structure to occupy a maximum of 30 percent of the required rear yard area. Section 36-156(a)(2)f. requires minimum three (3) foot E MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 (CON'T. side and rear setbacks for accessory buildings. Section 36-11(f) requires that encroachments into utility easements be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements to allow the awning structure. Staff does not support the requested variances. Although the size of the entire accessory structure is not out of character with the neighborhood, staff has concerns with the structure occupying almost the entire width of the utility easement and with the reduced setbacks. Water run-off associated with the shed roof could adversely affect the adjacent property. Staff feels that the awning structure as proposed is inappropriate for the property. Staff suggests moving the awning structure to the west side of the garage structure. This would eliminate the need for any variances. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback and easement encroachment variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) Staff informed the Board that the applicant requested to defer the application to the June 27, 2005 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 27, 2005 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 April 22, 2005 Monte Moore Little Rock Zoning Board of Adjustment RE: Zoning Variance J. Phillip Jaros 5425 Centerwood Road Little Bock, AR. 72207 Dear Sir, ale, ---v4 7 `— -7 9 4 I am requesting a zoning variance for an addition of a shed type structure on the back (south side) of my garage. The footprint of this awning structure is 7 feet deep, 18 feet wide, 8 feet high, and is noted on the attached survey. It is supported by 3 piers with 4x4's, where an existing fence once stood. It is bordered to the south by a 10.5 feet high by 32 feet wide brick garage wall. To the east by a 8 feet high stone wall with wood fence. On the west side is my yard. I agree to sign any release of liability that you may want in this matter, Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, n J. Phillip Jaros MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7848 Owner/Applicant: Joseph and Mimi Hurst Address: 1921 N. Spruce Street Description: Lot 90 and the North �Y2 of Lot 91, Shadowlawn Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a pool with a reduced street 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-2 zoned property at 1921 N. Spruce Street is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the southeast corner of N. Spruce Street and Club Road. There is a two -car wide driveway from Club Road which accesses a garage on the north side of the residence. The property sits several feet above the grade of Club Road. There is also a small alley (undeveloped) which runs along the east property line. The applicants propose to construct an in -ground swimming pool near the northeast corner of the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed pool will be located 13 to 14.5 feet from the house and 6.5 feet from the street side (north) property line. The pool will be surrounded by an at -grade concrete or rock walkway. MAY 23, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 (CON'T.) Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 15 foot street side setback for accessory structures (including in -ground pools) in single family zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable. The rear yard is enclosed by a privacy fence which, in combination with the slope of the property, will give the pool very little visibility from abutting property. Staff feels the proposed pool with reduced street side setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the setback variance for the proposed pool structure, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 23, 2005) 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. 4 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922.1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK $. URSERY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A, WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A, JONANN C. CHILES, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. Apri122, 2005 Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for Residential Zoning Variance To Whom It May Concern: I am respectfully requesting a zoning variance for my residence located at 1921 North Spruce. I am planning on constructing an in -ground swimming pool which will encroach into the side street set back of 15 feet. I have enclosed the following: 1. Application for Zoning Variance, 2. $85 for fees, and 3. six (6) copies of a survey, certified by a registered land surveyor, which shows all existing improvements on the property and the location of the proposed swimming pool. The property slopes from south to north and the proposed location of the swimming pool is on the portion of the rear year which slopes the least amount. The rear yard is currently and will remain enclosed by a privacy fence which will prevent the swimming pool from being viewable from outside the yard. FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. ALAN G. BRYAN CLIFFORD W, PLUNKETT, P.A. LINDSEY MITCHAM LORENCE A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP DANIELL. HERRINGTON. P.A. KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS www.fridayfirm.com J. MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. JOHN F. PEISERICH MARVIN L. CHILDERS AMANDA CAPPS ROSE K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR., P.A. STEVEN L. BROOKS 2000 REGIONS CENTER ALLISON J. CORNWELL, P.A. H. WAYNE YOUNG, JR. ELLEN M. OW ENS, P.A. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES 400 WEST CAPITOL JASON B. HENDREN, P.A. KIMBERLY A. DICKERSON LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 BRUCE B. TIDWELL, P.A. BRIAN C. SMITH TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 JOSEPH P.MCKAY,P.A. D. MICHAEL MOYERS ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH, P.A. SETH M. HAINES FAX 501-376-2147 JAY T. TAYLOR, P.A. ERIN E. CULLUM MARTIN A. KASTEN KRISTOPHER B. KNOX BRYAN W. DUKE 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 JOSEPH G. NICHOLS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703.4811 ROBERTT.SMITH OF COUNSEL RYAN A. BOWMAN WILLIAM L. TERRY TIMOTHY C. EZELL WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. TELEPHONE 479.895.2011 T. MICHELLE ATOR H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. FAX 479-695-2147 KAREN S. HALBERT DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870.762-2898 FAX 870-762.2918 JOSEPH B. HURST, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501.370.1590 FAX 501.244.5306 hurst@fec.net Apri122, 2005 Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Application for Residential Zoning Variance To Whom It May Concern: I am respectfully requesting a zoning variance for my residence located at 1921 North Spruce. I am planning on constructing an in -ground swimming pool which will encroach into the side street set back of 15 feet. I have enclosed the following: 1. Application for Zoning Variance, 2. $85 for fees, and 3. six (6) copies of a survey, certified by a registered land surveyor, which shows all existing improvements on the property and the location of the proposed swimming pool. The property slopes from south to north and the proposed location of the swimming pool is on the portion of the rear year which slopes the least amount. The rear yard is currently and will remain enclosed by a privacy fence which will prevent the swimming pool from being viewable from outside the yard. April 22, 2005 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, A Jose B. Hurst, r. JBH/jbh Enclosures • C tC u a LL H C 2 u H u c No u C C 12 G C a a� c L C� C z m z w m w ¢ z I- D w�} _ o O Z w w m 0 �e Q Lw w Z U U) O( O J J ¢ w z X U)[if m T- D Q Q =� P L m = 2 3: May 23, 2005 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Date: Chairman