Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_05 26 2004LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES MAY 26, 2004 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 26, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Fred Gray, Chairman Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman Terry Burruss Debra Harris David Wilbourn City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MAY 26, 2004 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7615 B. Z-7616 II. NEW ITEMS: 2317 East 6t" Street 1020 West 4t" Street 1. Z-2241 -A 925 S. University Avenue 2. Z -4724-A 5408 Centerwood Road 3. Z -5462-A 5226 Edgewood Road 4. Z-7636 1211 S. Shackleford Road 5. Z-7637 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. 6. Z-7638 3511 Dorset Drive 7. Z-7639 620 N. Filmore Street 8. Z-7640 3105 Mossy Creek Drive 9. Z-7641 2205 Sawgrass Drive 10. Z-7642 40 Pine Manor Drive 11. Z-7643 415 Wellington Woods Loop 12. Z-7644 5817 Kavanaugh Blvd. o o � N _ 3MId N31ZYN3 r�, nnvelHt ✓� a � ^ 1 ` V s 5 Z R u NYwN30 /\ LO AYMOVONB 53RD IJpf 83H3N0 M ^ oNul iw a � R MONNid OOOM g 3NId 1, s rQ , C-4 Non uons r v / Z 04 3 v( *0i e� �+ x NIYd kIISOINny✓� AlIRM1Nn � SONINdS UA30 Q O S3NOnH € r IddISS Iw lOOiFq MONNVB MKK' ANON ' 0 Y 0NOgwyH5 $ 31 SIOWS yg� _� HWd A3NO08 Z NYwMOB Sliwfl Ain a OX0 qE �+ 3OOId ANN S1Iwn Alq ,A Yls C R S1Iwn An c NVAMrS J 1WM3LS YM on IH sllwn uu n0 31VONN33 y r� � O o Z� � O May 26, .4 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z-7615 Owner: James Terry Address: 2317 East 6th Street Description: The west 25 feet of Lot 15, Block 8, East End Addition Zoned: 1-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-321 to allow construction of a building with reduced setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 1. Drainage and Grading plans must be approved by Public Works Engineering, David Hamilton (501) 244-5402, prior to construction. Do not obstruct drainage from adjacent property to the west and the ditch located in the 7th Street right-of-way. B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: Area set aside for buffers and landscaping appear to meet with ordinance requirements. C. Staff Analysis: The 1-3 zoned property at 2317 E. 6th Street is occupied by a one-story frame commercial building which is in a state of disrepair. The property is located at the southwest corner of E. 6th and Calhoun Streets. The site May 26, ( .4 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) contains no off-street parking. The remainder of the property is mostly grass covered. The lot has dimensions of 25 feet wide and 144 feet deep. The lot was originally platted as 50 feet wide, but the east 25 feet of the lot was taken for Calhoun Street right-of-way at some point in the past. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and construct a 20 foot by 30 foot building within the north 'h of the property for use as an office. The building will be located 40 feet from the front property line and 5 feet from the side (west) property line. The applicant proposes to locate the building on the east property line with a 0 side setback. As part of the lot redevelopment, the applicant proposes to construct two (2) paved parking spaces on the south side of the proposed building. The parking will be accessed by way of a new drive from Calhoun Street. The proposed use of the building as office requires one (1) off-street parking space. Section 36-321(e)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback off 50 feet. Section 36-321(e)(2) requires side yard setbacks (east and west sides) of 30 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff does not support the requested variances. Although staff recognizes the fact that the right-of-way dedication for Calhoun Street cut the size of the lot in half some time in the past, staff has informed the applicant that the appropriate way to request a re -development plan for the property would be through the PZD (Planned Zoning Development) rezoning process. However, the applicant chose to file a variance application to the Board of Adjustment. Staff's main reason for requesting the PZD process be used is so that the use of the property could be tied down. The applicant is proposing office use for the building. Other 1-3 permitted uses (such as warehouse) require more parking. The Board of Adjustment does not handle use issues and cannot restrict the use of the proposed building, as the zoning controls the use. Staff suggests that the applicant file a PZD rezoning application for the property, so that the use issues, as well as other possible site design issues, can be addressed. D. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. 04, May 26, ( )4 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the "staff recommendation" had changed to approval with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. 3. Any future uses of the building which require (as per section 36-502) more than two (2) off-street parking spaces, must be brought back to the Board of Adjustment for a parking variance to be addressed. The item was place on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 AN4 ARCHITECTURE, INC. 401 Main Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 26 March 2004 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 2317 West 6t' Street Dear Sir or Madam: ;2 - 7�, i s - We have been contracted by Mr. James Terry to provide architectural services for his property at 2317 E. 6t' Street. To date, we have completed a site study and have made our recommendations to Mr. Terry. The existing structure, as shown on the survey will require a large budget to renovate and bring to code standards. For this reason, Mr. Terry would like to re -develop the site, as shown on Arl# However, existing side setback requirements overlap and preclude any new development of the site. At this point, Mr. Terry would like to request a variance of side setbacks, as shown on Al- - one being adjacent to the property on the west and the other being a side street setback to the east. We would request that the matter be added to the 26 April 2004 agenda. Sincerely, Andrew F. McCauley, AIA Ph: 501.374.5500 Fx: 501.374.5501 www.amarchitecture.com AM ARCHITECTURE, INC. 401 Main Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment - Department of Planning and development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 CC: Fred J. Gray, Chairman Grayson Property Co. 1610 West 3rd Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (B) 374-2434 Andrew Francis, Vice Chairman 2311 Biscayne Dr., Suite 205 Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 (B) 954-7390 (F) 954-7385 Terry Burruss Terry Burruss, Architects 1202 Main Street, Suite 230 Little Rock, AR 72202 (B) 376-3676 (F) 376-3766 Debra B. Harris 1 Capitol Mall 3403 Malloy Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (B) 682-4913 (F) 682-4310 David C. Wilbourn Garver & Garver P. O. Box 50 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (B) 376-3633 (F) 372-8042 RE: ITEM #10, File #Z-7615, April 26, 2004 Agenda Ph: 501.374.5500 Fx: 501.374.5501 www.amarcbitecture.com AM ARCHITECTURE, INC. 401 Main Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Dear Sir or Madam: We have received a copy of the Staff Report and attachments. After looking at the mail out, we have the following concerns and replies: C, Staff Anal 1St Paragraph: We have been unable to find any evidence of proper condemnation and/or platting of the west 25 feet (half) of the property now owned by Mr. Terry. 5th Paragraph: The property is currently zoned 1-3. This zoning allows for office use. To require our client to plan for future, unknown uses is a burden that cannot be reasonably met. In line with Staff's reasoning, each time a developer requested a variance, the developer would be required to plan for the most stringent use imaginable under the code. In this flawed line of reasoning, the next step of requiring the most stringent zoning for every future development would not be above asking. The existing setback requirements exceed the width of the property, even at the original fifty foot width. How was the property zoned as I-3 without meeting the design requirements? Our guess - - as Staff refused to meet with us to discuss the property - - is that the zoning is recent and imposed, without regard to future usability, making the property unknowingly useless and valueless for any purchaser, except in rejuvenating the existing structure, which sits within current platted and un -platted rights-of-way. Additionally, future use of the proposed structure as a warehouse would require the demolition of (intended) interior bearing walls and a rework of the roof structure, in turn requiring a building permit from the City, which would require upgrade of the site parking. Staff's drawing: Staff's refusal to meet with us to discuss the proposed re -development of the site, until time of submission, necessitated last-minute, hand drawn changes to our design, and scrapping of the drawings and work effort for drawing sheets A-2 through A-4, which provided additional information for your consideration. The Staff's unreasonable, incomplete, and incorrect re -drawing of our copyrighted design drawings - - rather than reasonable photocopying - - has not accurately provided information needed for your consideration. Therefore, we have attached the original submitted drawing, as updated using cad software. Sincerely, Andrew F. McCauley, - I AIA Ph: 501.374.5500 www.amarchitecture.com Fx: 501.374.5501 AM ARCHITECTURE, INC. 401 Main Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 26 March 2004 (updated) City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: 2317 West 6"' Street Dear Sir or Madam: We have been contracted by Mr. James Terry to provide architectural services for his property at 2317 E. 6t' Street. To date, we have completed a site study and have made our recommendations to Mr. Terry. The existing structure, as shown on the survey will require a large budget to renovate and bring to code standards. For this reason, Mr. Terry would like to re -develop the site, as shown on Al. However, existing side setback requirements overlap and preclude any new development of the site. At this point, Mr. Terry would like to request variance of front and side setbacks, as shown on Al- - one being adjacent to the property on the west, the other being a side street setback to the east, and a front setback to the north. We would request that the matter be added to the 26 April 2004 agenda. Sincerely, Andrew F. McCauley, AIA Ph: 501.374.5500 www.amarchitecture.com Fx: 501.374.5501 E. 6TH STREET 50' RIGHT OF WAY LAT) — LOT 16 LOT 15 . 0 I 140 0" SETBACK BLDG #1 20'x30' I Y U S I 0] W (% J Ln I I I F30 0" SETBACK I I E. 7TH STREET 40' RIGHT OF WAY (PLAT) 019-04 Building Proposal 26 MARE2003 TERRY PROPERTY NOT FOR 2317 EAST 6th STREET ONSTRUCTION AM ARM INC.LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS W V LL U- O w W Q a Q � v � W LJ Q V U) LL- Q Z0 W Q� V C) tA 0 to LOT 14 I Andrew F McCauley AIA 401 MAIN STREET Nath We RA AR 12114 Ph: 501.374.5500 Fx: 501.374.5501 www.amarchitecture.com E. 6TH STREET 50' RIGHT OF WAY (P T) F — —1 40' FRONT SET $ACK I I LOT 15 IQ U I 16 I m L- O T 14 IUj w I �- z ILO of w a wQ 30' REAR SET ( ACK Ld Of �-o i z� Zr_ O E. 7TH STREET 40' RIGHT OF WAY (PLAT) 1177711111 019-04 1111 11 1111111111111 1111111111111 Building Proposal TERRY PROPERTY 2317 EAST 6th STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS _J1 Andrew F. McCauley AIA 401 MAIN STREET Nath little Rod4 AR 72114 Ph: 501.374.5500 Fx: 501.374.5501 . www.amorchitecture.com DAT26 MARE2003 NOT POR CONSTRUCTION CMA AM ARCHnEaPiRF,. va. ALL MI. May 26, 4 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7616 Owner: Comcast Address: 1020 W. 4th Street Description: Northeast corner of W. 4th and Ringo Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the development provisions of Section 36-342.1 to allow a ground -mounted sign. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Office Office 1. Place signs out of the street right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 1020 W. 4th Street is occupied by a four (4) story office building. There is parking along the north, east and west sides of the building, with access drives from W. 3rd, Ringo and W. 4th Streets. The building occupant, Comcast Cable, recently installed two (2) ground - mounted signs along the west (Ringo Street) property line within landscaped areas. The larger sign is located at the northwest corner of the property, and has a height of eight (8) feet and an area of 40 square feet. This is the main identification sign for the property. The smaller sign is also located along the west property line, and serves as a directional (entrance) sign. Both signs appear to be located relatively close (within a foot or two) to the west property line. May 26, 4 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. Section 36-342.1(c)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits ground - mounted signs within the UU (Urban Use) zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the signs. Although staff is not opposed to the applicant having signage so that their customers can locate and identify the property, staff has some concerns with the specific proposal. Typically when ground -mounted signs are allowed in the UU district, they must conform to the office standards as found in Section 36-553 of the Ordinance. This section allows ground - mounted signs with maximum heights of six (6) feet and maximum areas of 64 square feet. Signs must also be located at least five (5) feet back from property lines. Therefore, staff could support the larger identification sign if it were reduced two (2) feet in height and moved back at least five (5) feet from the west property line. Additionally, the smaller directional sign must be also be moved back at least five (5) feet from the west property line. The size of the directional sign conforms to the ordinance allowance for incidental signage. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the sign variance, as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on April 23, 2004 agreeing with staff's recommendation. The monument sign will be reduced to a height of six (6) feet, and both the monument sign and directional sign will be moved to meet a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. Staff recommended approval of the application as revised by the applicant. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as revised by the applicant and recommended by staff, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 03/26/2004 15;11 8707931944 DODD SIGNS, INC. 701 Harrison St. Batesville, AR 72501 870-793-4424 3-28-04 TO THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK VARIANCE COMMITTEE: PAGE 02 WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER TO REQUEST A VARIANCE. ON 2 SIGNS AT COMCAST CABLE WHERE THEY RECENTLY MOVED TO THEIR NEW LOCATION AT 3RD & RINGO. THE TWO SIGNS ARE LOCATED ON RINGO STREET AT THE ENTRANCE OF THEIR CUSTOMER PARKING. ONE SIGN IS AN IDENTIFICATION SIGN AND ONE IS A DIRECTIONAL SIGN, THESE SIGNS ARE NEEDED IN ORDER FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BE ABLE TO LOCATE THEM AND BE DIRECTED TO THE RIGHT OFFICE. THEY ARE THE SAME SIGNAGE THAT COMCAST USES AT OTHER LOCATIONS, THE SIGNS ARE ATTRACTIVE AND DO NOT BLOCK VISION OF TRAFFIC AND SUIT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED. WHEN WE WERE NOTIFIED OF THEIR MOVE AND THE NEED FOR NEW SIGNAGE, WE CHECKED ON CITY PERMITS AND WERE TOLD THAT NONE WERE NEEDED BECAUSE THE SIGNS WERE NOT ELECTRICAL, AND THEREFORE WE BEGAN WORKING ON THE PROJECT. AFTER THE JOB WAS COMPLETED, WE WERE INFORMED THAT THERE HAD BEEN CHANGES MADE IN REGULATIONS RESTRICTING THE USE OF MONUMENT SIGNS THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF. SINCE THESE SIGNS ARE NEEDED BY COMCAST, WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU WOULD GRANT A VARIANCE AND ALLOW THESE SIGNS TO REMAIN.WE REGRET THAT THERE WERE ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HELP IN THIS MATTER. SINCERELY, 1"! GO V CTOM DODD 0000 SIGNS, INC. 04/23/2004 14:10 8707931944 PAGE 02 INC- -7 ky / 701 Harrison St. Saetesvik AR 725M Ph. 870-793-4424 Fax 870-793-1944 2-23-04 To Whom It May Concern: We agree to meet the City's Zoning Ordinance by reducing the Comcast Monument sign to six feet in height. We will also move the Comcast Monument and the Customer Entrance sign fine feet within the property line. Sincerely, 0Lad) Tom Dodd Dodd Signs, Inc. n EIVEI�. 33 2004 MAY 26,( J4 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Z-2241 -A Owner: HLR, LLC Address: 925 S. University Avenue Description: Southeast corner of S. University Ave. and Interstate 630 Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-555 to allow a ground -mounted sign which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Hotel (being remodeled) Hotel A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 925 S. University Avenue is occupied by a two-story hotel building (Hilton Little Rock West) which is currently being remodeled. The site is accessed by way of driveways from University Avenue and W. 10th Street. Interstate 630 right-of-way is located along the property's north boundary. There is an existing 48 foot tall ground -mounted sign at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant proposes to remove the existing sign and replace it with a 70 foot tall sign at the same location. The proposed sign will have an area of 160 square feet. According to the applicant, the engineer for Hilton notes that the elevation of the 1-630 overpass is 29 feet above the base of the proposed sign. Therefore, the proposed sign would extend approximately 41 feet above the elevation of the Interstate. MAY 26,( J4 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) Section 36-555(a)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign height of 36 feet in Commercial Zoning. Section 36-557 (b) reads as follows: (b) Sign heights for all ground -mounted on -premises signs located on properties immediately adjacent to and contiguous to an expressway or freeway may be measured from the elevation of the centerline of the traffic lanes (excluding frontage roads) adjacent to subject property to the top of the sign structure. It shall be the responsibility of the sign owner to submit all necessary information when this approach is used. The maximum allowable height in any zone and under any condition shall be thirty-six (36) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed 70 foot sign height. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff feels that a 70 foot tall sign is in excess of what is a reasonable sign height for the property. According to the applicant's engineer calculations, the existing 48 foot tall sign extends approximately 19 feet above the elevation of the 1-630 overpass. The sign is visable to interstate traffic traveling east and west. The hotel has functioned for a number of years with a 48 foot high sign. Therefore, staff feels that a 48 foot height would be reasonable for the new sign, and would support a variance for such. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign height variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the June 28, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 28, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. PAI Jeb H. Joyce jjoyce@ggtb.com Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow A PROFESSIONAL LBMED LIABILITY COMPANY 111 Center Street Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 April 21, 2004 (501) 379-1700 Telecopier (501) 379-1701 Writer's Direct Dial (501) 379-1758 Little Rock Board of Adjustment via HAND DELIVERY Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: HLR, LLC/ Hilton Little Rock West Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Conditional Use Permit To whom it may concern: The Hilton Little Rock West ("Hilton"), owned by HLR, LLC, is a hotel located at 925 South University Avenue, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The intent of this letter is to respectfully request a variance to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Section 36-555 (signs permitted in commercial zones). Only one sign is involved in this variance request. The Hilton is zoned C-3, general commercial. Section 36-555(a)(2) allows "one (1) freestanding sign per premises, not to exceed two (2) square feet in sign area for each linear foot of main street frontage up to a maximum of one hundred sixty (160) square feet. Such sign shall not exceed a height of thirty-six (36) feet." The sign currently located on the Hilton property is forty eight (48) feet in height, and is almost even in height with Interstate 630, which passes along the north side of the Hilton property. Because the sign is nearly the same height as the interstate, travelers are unable to clearly see the Hilton sign, and consequently are unable to determine where the Hilton is located. Hilton simply wishes to replace the current sign with'a seventy (70) foot sign, to eliminate the lack of visibility caused by Interstate 630. Therefore, we respectfully request a variance to erect a freestanding seventy (70) foot sign on the property, in the same location as the current forty eight (48) foot sign. In connection with our application, please find enclosed three (3) copies of a Site Plan for the Hilton location. The Site Plan shows the proposed location of the sign. Also enclosed is a document showing the graphics and dimensions of the proposed sign. Thank you for your consideration and please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, QUATT.LEBAUM, GROOMS, /,+1 VLL BURROW PL'LC H. Enclosures Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Attn: Mr. Monte Moore Re: HLR, LLC/ Hilton Little Rock West Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Conditional Use Permit Mr. Moore: In our recent conversation regarding the above referenced variance application, you had requested the difference in elevation between the base of the proposed sign, and the highest elevation of the Interstate 630 overpass directly adjacent to the Hilton Little Rock West ("Hilton") property. The engineer for Hilton informs me the highest elevation of the overpass is twenty nine (29) feet higher than the base of the proposed sign. Therefore, the difference between the highest elevation of the overpass and the highest elevation of the proposed sign would be forty one (41) feet. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Q LEBAUM, GROOMS, /,," BURROW PLLC (1 -T,44, --#� I Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow A PROFESSIONAL LIIv1IM LIABILITY COMPANY 111 Center Street Suite 1900 Jeb H. Joyce Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 379-1700 jjoyce@ggtb.com Telecopier (501) 379-1701 May 7, 2004 Writer's Direct Dial (501) 379-1758 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Attn: Mr. Monte Moore Re: HLR, LLC/ Hilton Little Rock West Application for Zoning Variance (Signs) Conditional Use Permit Mr. Moore: In our recent conversation regarding the above referenced variance application, you had requested the difference in elevation between the base of the proposed sign, and the highest elevation of the Interstate 630 overpass directly adjacent to the Hilton Little Rock West ("Hilton") property. The engineer for Hilton informs me the highest elevation of the overpass is twenty nine (29) feet higher than the base of the proposed sign. Therefore, the difference between the highest elevation of the overpass and the highest elevation of the proposed sign would be forty one (41) feet. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Q LEBAUM, GROOMS, /,," BURROW PLLC MAY 26,x. J4 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z -4724-A Owner: Dale and Judi Dawson Address: 5408 Centerwood Road Description: Lot 93, Prospect Terrace 2nd Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Sections 36-156 and 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 associated with proposed building and carport additions. 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: The proposed carport location on the right-of-way of O Street creates a potential traffic hazard when cars back out of the carport. A minimum of 20' clear area is needed from the carport wall to the edge of pavement of O Street. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 5408 Centerwood Road is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Centerwood Road and a one -car drive from "O" Street. "O" Street runs along the property's north boundary. There is a 30 foot platted building line along the front (south) property line. The applicants propose to make several building additions to the property. First, the applicants propose to construct an 8 foot by 10 foot covered porch structure on the front of the house. The proposed porch will extend across the platted building line by approximately 6 feet. The resulting front setback would be approximately 24 feet. MAY 26,(. J4 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) The applicants also propose to remove an existing carport at the northwest corner of the residence and replace it with a new two-story room addition. A 16 foot by 18 foot one-story screened porch addition is also proposed at the northwest corner of the house. The proposed two-story addition will be located two (2) feet from the side (west) property line. The proposed screened porch will be located approximately four (4) feet from the side (west) property line and approximately 22 feet back from the rear (north) property line. The applicants also propose to construct a 22 foot by 27 foot detached carport structure with storage at the northwest corner of the property. The carport structure will be attached to the proposed screened porch addition, and be located two (2) feet from the side (west) property line and one (1) foot from the rear (north) property line. The detached carport structure will occupy 594 square feet or 47.5 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet). The applicants are requesting several variances for the proposed construction. 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 encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards for the proposed covered porch which crosses a platted building line, with a 24 foot front setback. Section 36-254 (d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet, and Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The applicants are requesting variances from these ordinance standards for the proposed two-story addition and screened porch addition at the northwest corner of the existing house. As noted previously, the proposed two-story addition will have a two (2) foot side setback. The proposed screened porch addition will have a four (4) foot side setback and a 22 foot rear setback. Section 36-156(a)(2)b. requires that accessory building be separated from principal structures by at least six (6) feet. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet and a minimum rear yard setback of 60 feet for the accessory building. The 60 foot rear setback is required due to the fact that there is street right-of-way along the rear property line. Additionally, this ordinance section allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent for accessory buildings. As noted earlier, the proposed carport structure will be attached to the screened porch addition, with a side setback of two (2) feet and a rear 2 MAY 26,x_ .J4 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) setback of one (1) foot. The accessory building will cover 47.5 percent of the required rear yard. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed building additions are excessive and represent an over- building of the lot. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, the Public Works staff feels that the location of the proposed carport structure will create a potential traffic hazard, with vehicles backing out of the carport onto "0" Street. There is an elementary school campus located across "O" Street to the north, with angled parking along the north side of "O" Street for the school. Although staff does not have a problem with the proposed porch addition (covered and unenclosed) to the front of the house, staff believes that the proposed construction within the rear yard should be scaled down. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building line for the proposed porch 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 Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the application as follows: 1. The carport structure is reduced to 22 feet by 24 feet. 2. The rear yard coverage is reduced from 47.5% to 40%. 3. The carport structure is moved back 3 feet to provide a 4 foot setback from the rear property line and a 20 foot setback from the edge of pavement of "0" street. Staff recommended approval of the revised application, subject to the following cohditions: 1. The carport structure must remain unenclosed on all sides, except where screened porch is attached. 2. The screened porch must remain as un -heated and un -cooled space, and can only be enclosed with non-opaque material. 3 MAY 26,� . J4 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) 3. A one -lot replat must be completed to adjust the front platted building line as approved by the Board. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, as revised by the applicant and recommended by staff, by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 0 Yeary Lindsey Architects April 21, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Zoning Variance Application for Dawson Residence, 5408 Centerwood Road Monte, 14,-4 2 5-t- 472-4-A We are requesting a zoning variance concerning the following three improvements at 5408 Centerwood Road. To enhance the front of the residence to the street, the Owner wishes to construct a more usable covered front porch. 8 feet of depth is desired in order to allow for the porch furniture and the column supports. To achieve this, an encroachment of 5.8 feet into the front yard setback of 30 feet is required. The adjacent neighbor to the east has a porch, which encroaches upon this same setback. 2. In an attempt to improve the internal spaces of the house, our client wishes to enclose the area of the existing carport and extend it to the second level for living space. A new 2 -car carport and screen porch are planned to align with the existing carport, which is located 2 feet from the west property line, and encroaches 3 feet into the 5 feet side yard setback. The impact of these additions to the west will be significantly reduced due the adjacent neighbor's driveway, which extends the full length of the west property line. Attached you will find a letter of support of these improvements from this neighbor, Ms. Quattlebaum. 3. The above-mentioned 2 -car carport is planned within the rear yard setback of 25 feet. Its placement will provide a buffer from the residence and the rear of the school to the north, where the trash dumpsters are located. The many neighboring properties along this street have constructed similar ancillary buildings, which access O Street. It is our opinion that these improvements can be achieved within the scale and character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Jim Yeary, AIA Attachment 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-372-5940 FX: 501-707-0118 April 21, 2004 Dale and Judi Dawson 5408 Centerwood Road Little Rock, AR 72207 Dale and Judi, I have reviewed and support your plans for a two-story addition to your house and am aware that the construction will align with the current carport, which is approximately 2 feet from our property line. It is also my understanding that you plan to construct a new carport and screen porch, which will be placed within 2 feet of the property line. Sincerely, Elizabeth Quattlebaum .5412 Centerwood Road MAY 26, -j4 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z -5462-A Owner: Thomas and Ginger Blackmon Address: 5226 Edgewood Road Description: Lot 46R, Prospect Terrace Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow additions to an existing accessory building. 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 5226 Edgewood Road is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Edgewood Road which serves as access. There is a one-story frame accessory building located in the rear yard, near the rear (north) property line. An inground pool is also located in the rear yard. A new covered porch structure is being constructed on the front of the house, which conforms to ordinance standards. "O" Street is located along the north property boundary. The applicants propose to add a second story to the existing accessory building, with a 12 foot by 14 foot two-story addition along its west side. The accessory structure will be used as a pool house and guest house. The structure will contain a wet bar,and not a "full kitchen" as mentioned in the applicants' cover letter. The existing accessory structure is located three (3) feet from the rear (north) property line, and 14 -plus feet from each of the side lines. The proposed addition will be located MAY 26, ( )4 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) five (5) feet from the west side property line, and 6.5 feet (at its nearest point) from the rear property line. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 60 feet from the rear (north) property line for an accessory structure, based on the fact that there is street right-of-way along the rear property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. also allows accessory buildings to occupy a maximum of 30 percent of the required rear yard of a single family lot. The proposed accessory structure along with a small sliver of the existing pool which is located in the rear 25 feet of the lot will occupy almost exactly 30 percent. Therefore, no variance is needed for rear yard coverage. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff feels that the request is very reasonable. If the lot were not bordered by a street right-of-way along the rear (north) property line, no variance would be needed for the proposed accessory building. The property will have no vehicular access from "O" Street. The proposed accessory building will not be out of character with other accessory structures in the general area, and should have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) 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. K Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Blackmon, Jr. 5226 Edgewood Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 April 20, 2004 City of Little Rock Dear Committee Members: We currently have a small separate structure in our backyard that is a pump house, pool storage, kitchenette and bath. Due to the small size of this structure, we cannot use the space adequately. We are requesting approval to increase the space to include a full kitchen and a second story for guest quarters. The adjacent homes on our street and throughout our neighborhood have similar two story quarters on their property. This addition will provide us with the appropriate space to entertain and have guests, and use our pool house to its fullest potential. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact MG Remodeling for any further questions or additional information at 551-1021 or 551-1022. v1e fu eP kl;44v, 5//3 A, � MAY 26, ( )4 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Z-7636 Owner: Bancorp South Address: 1211 S. Shackleford Road Description: East side of Shackleford Road, South of Kanis Road Zoned: O-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow a wall sign with no direct street frontage. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Branch Bank (under construction) Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank Staff Note: Staff determined that no variance was needed for the wall sign on the north side of the building, due to the fact that the property has approximately 250 feet of street frontage along Kanis Road. Staff recommends that the application be withdrawn. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) Staff informed the Board that it had been determined that no variance was needed for the proposed signage. Staff recommended that the application be withdrawn. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nay and 1 absent. �--7G3t, Board of Adjustments Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Ark To Whom it May Concern, Bancorp South through Knight Sign Industries, Inc and their sub -contractor, Arkansas Sign Co., submit the following as reasons seeking a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. The bank building as designed and shown in attached documents has two main entrances to the property and into the building. One of the entrances enters the property from Shackleford with direct view of the building. The other entry is off of Kanis and has a more indirect view of the property. There are limited parking areas visible from either entrance. Signage over both entrances will allow persons entering from either road a parking option directly in front of the two entrance options. 2. Other businesses and banks in the area have two or more building signs currently. 3. The bank is a one-story building with eaves where the signage goes. The architectural design was done this way to display signage in a professional and esthetic manner. 4. Due to the location of the bank and how it sets on the lot, the north side entrance to the building is visible from the nearest intersection. The signage on this side of the building will be visible for motorist before the low profile monument sign is seen. MAY 26, LJ4 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Z-7637 Owner: David Hall Address: 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 13, Block 9, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow a deck addition with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Condominiums Proposed Use of Property: Condominiums STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 1319 Kavanaugh Blvd, is occupied by two (2), two-story brick and frame duplex/condominium structures. One (1) of the duplex/condo structures faces Kavanaugh Blvd., with the other fronting on Louise Street. A one -car wide driveway from Louise Street serves as access to the property. There is a one-story frame garage structure located in the rear yard, at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant recently constructed a 12 foot by 18 foot wood deck structure at the east end of the northernmost duplex/condo structure (facing Kavanaugh Blvd.). The northeast corner of the deck structure is located on the side (east) property line. The southeast corner of the deck extends across the side (east) property line by approximately two (2) feet. There is another multi -unit condominium type structure located on the lot immediately to the east. The floor of the new deck structure is approximately 10 feet above grade, as the property slopes downward MAY 26,',-�J4 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) from Kavanaugh Blvd. The deck is located between 12 feet and 15 feet back from the front (north) property line. Section 36-255(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-3 zoning. Section 36-255(d)(2) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the existing deck with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff does not feel that the requested variances are reasonable. Staff typically does not support zero (0) side setbacks for residential structures. Additionally, staff does not have the authority to recommend approval of nor does the Board of Adjustment have the authority to approve a structure which crosses a property line and extends into another property ownership. Given the fact that a driveway exists on the adjacent property to the east, between the deck and the adjacent condominium building, staff could support a minimum two (2) foot side yard setback for the deck structure. If the deck were moved back two (2) feet from the side property line, staff would also support the reduced front setback. As noted earlier, the deck is approximately 10 feet above grade. This should allow for proper maintenance of the yard area under and beside the deck structure. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested setback variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the June 28, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 28, 2004 Agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 4 S7 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2-7637 SUBJECT: ZONING VARIANCE FOR DECK AT 1319 KAVANAUGH I, David Hall, the owner of 1319 Kavanaugh request a zoning variance to the setback rule for construction on property lines. This variance is necessary in order for this property to have a deck, which is accessible to the owners via the back door, and is of area to sufficient enough provide room for a gazebo and deck furniture. This deck is also I believe of cosmetic value not only for this property but also for the neighboring properties. There are several reasons/justifications for a variance in this case. Photographs, the petitioning of surrounding neighbors, will support the justifications and other exhibits to be produced at the zoning meeting. Most importantly the allowance of a variance should have the greatest possible benefit to the most people. In my opinion there would be no loser in a positive decision for a variance. The justifications are as follows: • The internal structural configuration for this duplex places the back entryway on the east side of the property making this the prime place to put a deck. There is not another doorway for both duplexes except on the north side of the property facing a busy Kavanaugh blvd. with no available building space. • The Lot configuration is also unusual in that the building is very close proportionately to the east side of the property. The building is not parallel to the property line and is therefore at a slight angle, which further reduces building space. • The deck provides a positive environment and play space for the children of this residence to be outside and have a safe protected play area. • The deck does not interfere or restrict any activity, freedom, or daily function that my neighbors would undertake. • The deck provides a pleasant cosmetic covering for the side of my building, two storage rooms and our garbage receptacles. This is especially beneficial to one of my neighbors who has a dining room directly facing this area. MAY 26,x. J4 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.: Z-7638 Owner: Isaac Ross Address: 3511 Dorset Drive Description: Lot 226, Kensington Place Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provision of Section 36-254 to allow a new residence with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single-family residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned lot at 3511 Dorset Drive is currently undeveloped. The property owner proposes to construct a one-story brick single family residence on the lot. The proposed home will be located 25 feet from the front property line, 7 feet from the north side property line and 25+ feet from the rear property line. The southeast corner of the proposed structure will be located 3.5 feet from the south side property line, with the southwest corner being approximately 13 feet from the side property line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 7 feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this section for the proposed 3.5 foot south side setback. All other setbacks conform to ordinance standards. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the requested variance as very minor. The proposed residence will have a corner MAY 26,( ')4 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont. relationship with the south side property line, with only approximately 30 square feet of the proposed building footprint being located within the required side yard. Additionally, the shape of the lot is partly responsible for the variance request, as the lot narrows from front to back. If the south side property line were parallel to the north property line, the proposed residence would fit with no variances needed. Staff feels that the requested side yard setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) 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 T4-1011- 44- 7--743 April 23, 2004 City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Application for Residential Zoning Variance To Whom It May Concern: I am requesting a residential zoning variance for 3511 Dorset Drive, Lot 226, Kensington Place, an addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. According to Section 36-254(d)(2) which states: "There shall be a side yard setback on each side of the building having a width of not less than ten (10) percent of the average width of the lot, not to exceed eight (8) feet." The proposed residence (see enclosed survey) would have a side yard setback of 3.5 feet. Therefore, we are requesting a 3.5 feet variance on the side yard setback on the south side of the property. As you can very well see on the enclosed survey, the lot narrows somewhat in the rear having a width of 57 feet. Therefore, we need a variance to accommodate this difference. We ask you to please consider this zoning variance. We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely J Isaac Ross MAY 26,( J4 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Z-7639 Owner: Hang Thi Nguyen Address: 620 N. Filmore Street Description: North Y/2 of Lot 19 and all of Lot 20, Block 21, Lincoln Park Addition Zoned: R-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-255 to allow building additions with a reduced side yard 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 Analvsis: The R-3 zoned property at 620 N. Filmore Street is occupied by a one- story frame and rock single-family residence. There is a one -car driveway from "F" street which serves as access. There is an alley located along the west property line. The applicant proposes to construct two (2) small building additions near the southwest corner of the existing home, along the south side property line. The additions are 1.5 feet by 3.6 feet and 6 feet by 8 feet, for 53.4 square feet of additional floor space. The additions will maintain the same 2.5 foot side yard setback as the existing structure. Section 36-255(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 4.5 feet for this R-3 zoned lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the reduced side yard setback (south side) associated with the proposed building additions. MAY 26,( �4 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the variance as very minor in nature. The applicant proposes to add only 7.5 feet of building addition along the south side property line. This represents a very small amount of the overall 140 foot lot depth. The residential structure on the lot immediately to the south is located 6 to 7 feet back from the dividing side property line. Staff feels that the proposed building additions will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) 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 21, 2004 To whom it may concern, - -7 63 I am writing this letter for my mother. The proposal for the 1.5' extension is needed because the small old refrigerator barely fits in the existing area. My mother wants to purchase a new larger refrigerator to accommodate the family. The new refrigerator will not fit in the existing area. Also the proposal for the 6' x 8' addition is needed for the washing machine and dryer. The kitchen is too small for the existing washing machine and there is no space for the dryer. A stack up dryer and washing machine may fit; however, my mother cannot raise her arms due to her arthritis. Please have a mercy on her and let the aforementioned extension be done. Yours sincerely, Maria Middlebrook 7401 L Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 H: 663-4289 W:666-5683 MAY 26,( )4 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Z-7640 Owner: Washam Construction Co. Address: 3105 Mossy Creek Drive Description: Lot 26, Block 7, Woodland's Edge Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow a garage with a reduced front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single-family residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned lot at 3105 Mossy Creek Drive is currently undeveloped. The lot is mostly grass covered, with few mature trees. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the front property line. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story single family residence on the lot. The applicant also proposes to construct a one- story detached garage between the proposed house and the front (north) property line. The proposed detached garage will be located behind the platted building line and approximately 27 feet from the front property line. A covered (unenclosed) breezeway will connect the garage to the home. The proposed garage will be a side -loading structure, and will have the same architectural design as the principal structure. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for accessory structures. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. MAY 26,; 04 O.: 8 (Cont. Staff supports the requested variance. Staff views the variance request as relatively minor. If the garage were attached to the main structure by way of heated and cooled space, no variances would be needed. Staff feels that the covered breezeway will add to the appearance of the structures being attached. Additionally, the curve of Mossy Creek Drive at this location will lessen any visual impact the garage structure might have on adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted a letter from Rocket Properties, the Subdivision's architectural control, approving the proposed detached garage construction. Staff feels that the proposed detached garage structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) 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 21, 2004 Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR RE: Lot 26 Block 7 Woodlands Edge ---3105 Mossy Creek Board of Adjustment: T44.1- 44g �2- -71-L/O I am writing to request a variance on the above residential lot for new construction that would encompass a two-story dwelling with a side load detached two -car garage with a covered breezeway to connect the two structures. The garage is platted to be at the front of the property and will have the same architectural design as the main dwelling. The dimensions of the lot with the required set backs hamper putting the garage to the rear of the property. The original design for the house is to have the garage at the front of the property and it seems to work well with this lot configuration. To attach the garage to the house would hamper the style of the house and detract from the street appeal of the property. The rooflines of the garage and front porch would not allow for an ascetically pleasing combination by pushing the two structures together. If the two structures were forced together, the adjoining garage wall would set in front of the dinning room window and would obstruct any light from entering this area of the house. This plan has been approved by the architectural control of Woodlands Edge. A letter of support for the project has been written by Rocket Properties and sent to Mr. Moore with the City. My understanding is that Rocket Properties really liked the proposed project and has encouraged new and unique ideas in residential construction in Woodlands Edge. Those who have seen the plans have liked to proposed project. I ask for your consideration in granting a variance for this project. Gary Washam Washam Construction Company 15 Belle River Cir. Maumelle, AR 72113 Apr 20 04( 10:16a Tyne & Associates 501-834-02GB p.2 ROCKET PROPERTIES, LLC 8332 Windsor Valley Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 sol -835-2878 • Fax: sol -834-0268 April 20, 2004 Mr. Monte Moore Subdivision Administrator Department of Planning & Development City of Little Rock Re: Lot 26, Aleck 7 Woodlands Edge 3105 Mossy Creek Drive Dew Monte: Via Fax: 501-399-3435 We have reviewed the plot pian prepared by Donald Brooks- for the proposed .construction on Lot 26. Block 7 Woodlands Edge dated March 10, 2004 covering the above referenced lot. We nose the proposed detached garage lying at the front of tlx; lot but within all setbacks. We. have approved these proposed plans and have no problem with this proposed construction as shown on the survey. Please feel free to contact us if you should nccd additional information. Sincerely, ROCK T PROPERTIES, LLC Ronald C. Tyne RCT/vdt cc: Mr. Gary Masham, Washam Construction Company MAY 26, � _ J4 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7641 Owner: Chris and April Sanders Address: 2205 Sawgrass Drive Description: Lot 98, Phase III, Pebble Beach Estates Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow a swimming pool to be located within an easement. 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: A pool is proposed to be located in a platted easement. Public Works does not currently have any drainage structures located in this easement. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2205 Sawgrass Drive is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Sawgrass Drive which serves as access. The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north). There is a 20 foot wide easement located along the rear (north) property line. The applicants propose to construct an in -ground swimming pool near the northwest corner of the property. The pool would be located 8 feet from the rear property line, 5 feet from the west side property line and be separated from the house by 11 feet (6 feet from a deck step structure). The majority of the pool would be located within the 20 foot wide easement which runs along the rear property line. The pool will occupy approximately 15 percent of the required rear yard. A maximum 30 percent coverage is allowed by ordinance. A short retaining wall (approximately 2.5 feet in height) will be constructed along the north MAY 26,� -J4 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) side of the proposed pool. There will be a concrete slab (at grade) surrounding the pool structure. Section 36-11 (f) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that proposed building encroachments into existing easements be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the proposed pool to be constructed within the 20 foot easement. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The applicant has submitted letters from all of the public utility companies to staff. None of the utility companies object to the proposed pool construction. Additionally, Public Works notes that there are no drainage structures located within this easement. Staff feels that the pool construction will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The proposed pool conforms to all of the ordinance required minimum setbacks. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested easement encroachment variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) The applicant, Chris Sanders, was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, as filed. At the applicant's request, the objector was asked to speak first. Dixie Whitfield spoke on behalf of her parents, the Littles, who live at the bottom of the hill behind the applicant's property. She presented photographs showing various types of drainage and water issues on her parent's property. She stated water from the applicant's property and other neighboring properties flows downhill and into her parents' house. Ms. Whitfield voiced concern that construction of the pool and alteration of the applicant's property could worsen the flooding problem. She stated there were run off problems even at the time the applicant's home was being constructed. Ms. Whitfield stated a leak in the pool could flood her parents' home. She stated a heavy rain could cause the pool to over fill and flood. Ms. Whitfield voiced concern about her parents' loss of privacy if the pool and deck were elevated. 2 MAY 26, ,j04 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) The applicant, Chris Sanders, stated this was the first he had ever heard of the Little's water issue. He stated he would be building a retaining wall to level the rear yard, slowing down the flow of water. Mr. Sanders stated he would utilize a Landscape Architect to help address the screening and privacy concerns. Mr. Sanders stated he would construct a 3 foot wide deck around the pool and might move the pool close to the house while maintaining he required 6 foot separation. In response to a question from Chairman Gray, Mr. Sanders stated he would obtain all required permits and would comply with all applicable City Codes. Mike Hood, of Public Works, responded to the questions about drainage. He stated his staff had been to the site. Mr. Hood commented that it was a steep site and he didn't doubt that the neighbor was "getting some water." He stated it appeared the Little's builder did not adequately prepare for development of the lot. Mr. Hood stated the City dealt with public water issues and this was a civil matter between property owners. He stated no grading permit would be required to build on this lot. In response to a question from Debra Harris, Mr. Sanders stated he would have a 6 foot fence on top of a 2 Y2 foot retaining wall. He stated he would work with the Little's to address their concerns, as best he could. Chairman Gray commended Mr. Sanders for offering to work with his neighbors. He asked Mr. Sanders to pay close attention to the details of construction of the pool to minimize any impact on his neighbors. Terry Burruss stated moving the pool over 4 feet, as Mr. Sanders suggested, could give some room to provide drainage improvements. Mr. Burruss voiced his support for the proposal. Andrew Francis recommended Mr. Sanders to comply with applicable City codes and urged him to work with his neighbors. Ms. Whitfield asked that detailed plans be submitted on the pool and drainage. Chairman Gray responded that the scope of the Board's review was limited and did not include what she was requesting. A motion was made to approve the application, as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 Chris and April Sanders 2205 Sawgrass Little Rock, AR 72212 April 2, 2004 City Of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR Re: Request for Variance To Whom It May Concern: - -76L11 We are requesting a variance of the utility easement in the back yard of our residence so that we may install an inground pool. The easement at this time is the back 20' of the property. This does not allow us room at this time to install the pool. Other than the easement the pool will meet all other city and neighborhood codes and restrictions. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request. With best regards, Chris Sanders MAY 26,E J4 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7642 Owner: Thomas and Martha Rimmer Address: 40 Pine Manor Drive Description: Lot 15, Pine Manor 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 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 40 Pine Manor Drive is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Pine Manor Drive which serves as access. The front yard is relatively flat, with the side and rear yards sloping downward from front to back. There is a 35 foot platted front building line on the single family lot. The front of the existing house is located on the front platted building line. The applicants propose to construct a 6 foot by 16 foot covered porch on the front of the existing single family residence. The proposed porch will be unenclosed, and will extend across the front 35 foot platted building line by six (6) feet. The porch will be constructed at grade, with no steps. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires the Board of Adjustment to review and approve any proposed building encroachments across platted building lines. Therefore, the applicants MAY 26,( )4 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont. are requesting a variance to allow the proposed encroachment. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the city's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. The proposed porch will be located 29 feet back from the front property line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance, staff views the variance request as reasonable. The existing residence is located in a curve of Pine Manor Drive, and is at an angle with the existing residences to the north and east. Therefore, the proposed small front porch should have very little, if any, visual impact on the adjacent properties. This is especially true given the fact that the porch will not be enclosed. Staff feels that the proposed porch will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties 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 front building line for the proposed porch 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 Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested building line variance, subject to the following conditions.- 1. onditions: 1. The porch structure must remain unenclosed. 2. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) 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. 6 April 12, 2004 �-�-�4410 Board of Adjustment Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas Request for Variance - 40 Pine Manor Drive, Little Rock This request is for the residence located at 40 Pine Manor Dr., Little Rock. The building line (35 feet from the front property line along Pine Manor Drive), is at the front of the house, making any increase in the size of the porch in need of a variance. We would like to increase the size of the existing porch from 8 feet wide x 3.5 feet deep (currently) to 16 feet wide x 6 feet deep (proposed), and to provide a roof overhang to cover this porch. Our reasons for wanting to build this porch are: 1. To make the appearance of the house conform to the typical houses in the neighborhood, most of which have covered porches with seating space such as we are requesting. 2. To be able to use the porch area for outdoor seating, protected from the weather and the western sun, in order to enjoy the neighborhood and socialize with the neighbors. Even with the additional extent of the new porch, it will still be 47 feet from the nearest paved edge of Pine Manor Drive, so we hope that this variance will be approved. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Martha W. Rimmer Thomas W. Rimmer Owners 40 Pine Manor Dr. Little Rock AR 72207 666-8607 MAY 26,( J4 M NO.: 11 File No.: Z-7643 Owner: R.B. Ewing Builders, Inc. Address: 415 Wellington Woods Loop Description: Lot 42, Block 11, Villages of Wellington Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a new residence which crosses a platted building line and has a reduced front setback. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single-family residence (under construction) Proposed Use of Property: Single-family residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 415 Wellington Woods Loop is occupied by a new single family structure which is under construction. There will be a driveway from Wellington Woods Loop which will serve as access. The property slopes downward from front to back (east to west). Because of the slope, the structure will have the appearance of a one-story structure from the front and a two-story structure from the rear. The lot has a 25 foot platted building line along the front property line. The proposed house is to be located 15 feet from the front property line. The lot is located within phase 7A of The Villages of Welllington Subdivision. The lots immediately to the north are in Phase 7A-2, a later phase of the subdivision. These lots on the west side of Wellington Woods Loop (Phase 7A-2) have 15 foot front platted building lines. This is due primarily to the slope of the property, and allowed by the hillside standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. MAY 26,( 14 ITEM NO.: 11 Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that proposed encroachments across platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from these ordinance standards for the proposed single family structure. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff feels that the request is reasonable, given the fact that the lots to the north on this side of Wellington Woods Loop have 15 foot platted front building lines. The proposed structure would line up with the existing houses to the north on the west side of Wellington Woods Loop. There are similar platted building line/setback situations within this subdivision, at the intersections of Wellington Woods Drive/Wellington Woods Court and Wellington Woods Drive/Wellington Woods Cove. Staff feels that the proposed front setback for the new residence 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 front building line for the proposed 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 Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) 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 R.B. Ewing Builders, Inc. 8124 Leatrice Drive Little Rock, AR 72227 (501) 954-7175 March 31, 2004 Luh&=MMT f • _ - City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Request for residential zoning variance Property: Villages of Wellington Lot 42, Block 11 (415 Wellington Woods Loop) Little Rock, AR Dear Mr. Moore, I am herein requesting a variance be granted for the referenced property, allowing the front set back/building line along Wellington Woods Loop to be changed from 25' to 15' so as to align symmetrically with adjacent properties along Wellington Woods Loop. I have attached two plat plans from Winrock Development Company for your reference. The first plat plan represents Phase 7A and includes my lot 42. Note that lot 42 on Wellington Woods Loop is the only lot in this phase facing Wellington Loop Road. It has a steep downward slope from front to rear. When Phase 7A-2 was developed, encompassing lots 43 through 54, each of these lots were platted with a 15' set back to accommodate construction implications of building on the steep sloping lots along Wellington Loop Road. Upon speaking with Mr. Doug McNeil, Vice President with Winrock Development, it was agreed that an oversight was apparent during the development of these two phases and that lot 42 should have been platted with a 15' setback to compliment the other homes on the street and facilitate construction. If need be, Mr. McNeil can be contacted at 663-5340. Pursuant to the City of Little Rock's zoning variance requirements, I have attached six (6) copies of the proposed survey by Marlar Engineering indicating the existing 25' set back as well as the 15' setback proposed by variance, and a check in the amount of $85.00 for administrative fees. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions what -so -ever please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or phone number. Sincerely, R.B. Ewing Builders, Inc. C3 • & Brad Ewing President xc Doug McNeil, VP, Winrock Development MAY 26, ( J4 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7644 Owner: Nancy Wade Address: 5817 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 9 and 10, Block 7, Mountain Park Addition Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-502 to allow a reduced number of off-street parking spaces associated with a building addition. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 5817 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by two (2) one-story commercial buildings. The building facing Kavanaugh Blvd. contains enclosed retail uses. The building in the rear appears to be vacant. There is a small paved parking area along the east property line, which contains six (6) off-street parking spaces. The parking is accessed by way of a paved alley between Grant and Pierce Steets. The applicant proposes to construct a 17 foot by 20 foot building addition at the southeast corner of the larger building which faces Kavanaugh Blvd. The additional building space will be used as an office for one of the existing retail uses. The proposed building addition conforms to all minimum setback requirements as per Section 36-301 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. As noted above, there are six (6) existing paved parking spaces along the property's east property line. The overall building area on this lot MAY 26,( 14 ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) would typically require a total of 13 off-street parking spaces, according to Section 36-502. Therefore, the property has a nonconforming number of parking spaces. According to Section 36-506, the proposed building expansion would require one (1) additional off-street parking space. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard based on the fact that there is no area on the site to provide an additional parking space. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The applicant notes that the additional building area will be used as office for an existing retail use, and not an additional retail use. The majority of the commercial uses along the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd., between University Ave. and Taylor street have very little or no off-street parking. Therefore, the applicant's request will not be out of character with the general area. Staff feels that the requested parking variance is reasonable and will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 26, 2004) 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. Vi Nancy W Dade 3623 Hill !load Lytle Rock, AR72205 avLj 2 1 ) ;->C-0c �- � ce C!8 2-c OUJ��aSA Cr" Y- c-ceLs& Can+ (50 1c-jav(� c� � � � �,� �, �►�.�. �- � r�� is � nsdq(��f � Lw qcws (,Co � �.cj) f. W�c1.e Wj .-. i .e C w Q z LU Q 1 a J On w o �� z w P 0 �o W � Z Z � w o � U U) LL C� W Z c< >- ' m J F- LL- m o 2 W j zz w P o W m 0 D W co U U) Z) L-(6 Q Q w � m LL m (� 2 Wj .-. i .e C w Q z LU Q O w w o �� z w P 0 �o W � Z Z � w o � U U) LL C� W Z c< >- ' m J F- LL- m o 2 Wj .-. i .e C w Q z LU Q May 26, 2004 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Date: 2-L airman S cret ry