Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_09 29 2003LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 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 Meetings The Minutes of the August 25, 2003 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. Members Present: Members Absent: Scott Richburg, Vice Chairman Fred Gray Terry Burruss Andrew Francis William Ruck, Chairman City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7454 B. Z-7461 C. Z-7465 #2 Otter Creek Court 2300 Country Club Lane 10201 Kanis Road 1. Z -3446-A 5909 S. Country Club 2. Z -6342-A 5119 Sherwood Road 3. Z-7483 10009 Kane Drive 4. Z-7484 8705 Geyer Springs Road 5. Z-7485 3012 Hinson Road 6. Z-7486 5501 Stonewall Street 7. Z-7487 9 Chelle Cove 8. Z-7488 13 Blue Ridge Circle 9. Z-7489 1018 Beechwood Street 10. Z-7490 6504 Onyx Drive 11. Z-7491 1815 N. Tyler Street 12. Z-7492 #1 Pinehurst Circle 13. Z-7493 4901 E. Crestwood Drive 14. Z-7494 221 Ridgeway Avenue 15. Z -6315-A 5005 Stonewall Road r/ O N 3 nnva�u Z 0 € a ^ LO N AMO H)NY aaa m ONW a � i 00 o Ad Q •� NO171NY 1L�5 n5dy • :7-' • • �''yo `r "� d e S ALISMMI �— u6lblNn �'6 Q HDnH dd45 IN Imm —" M08WB NHOr aa0Si1M0YH5 HWd A3NODa W sLNpl ALD o 3Jga ANN � � SIINII Alp 1 f LO SEW uD pF NvmmrIs r L lavMaLs y OOC g M �' �J & sllllfl Alp 3 � � 371'ONN31 ,k� O �V O September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7454 Otter Creek Land Company #2 Otter Creek Court Lot 1, Otter Creek Commercial Subdivision C-1 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the temporary building provisions of Section 36-202 to allow a time extension. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Temporary Office Building Temporary Office Building, with future permanent office building The C-1 zoned property at #2 Otter Creek Court is occupied by a one- story temporary office building, located near the center of the lot. There is a small paved parking area on the east side of the building. A paved driveway from Otter Creek Court serves as access. Section 36-202 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for the placement of temporary buildings as follows: "(a) The director of the city department having planning authority and responsibility may allow a temporary building, preregulation mobile home or September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) manufactured home for commerce, or industry in any district where such building is used. (1) Incidental to construction on a site or development of a residential subdivision, or (2) As a temporary office, store, or other facility while the primary structure on the same site is being remodeled or constructed. (b) Such temporary building, mobile home, or manufactured home may be allowed for any period of time up to one (1) year, after which the board of zoning adjustment must rule on an extension of time." Staff became involved in this case a little over a year ago, by way of a citizen inquiry about the temporary building. On May 28, 2002, staff administratively allowed the property owner one (1) year to remove the structure. Staff was unable to determine how approval was originally given for placement of the structure. Tommy Hodges, the property owner, recently submitted a letter to staff, requesting an additional year to remove the structure. Based on the fact that staff has already given a time extension, the Board of Adjustment must approve any additional time. Mr. Hodges notes that a building plan has been proposed for a permanent building and a contractor has been selected. He expects to have the new building completed in one (1) year. Staff recommends approval of the requested time extension. Staff feels that an extension of time to remove the temporary office building is reasonable, however, one (1) year is the maximum time staff will support. Even though the temporary office building has proven to be a good holding use for the property, staff feels that it is time to begin construction of the permanent building and remove the temporary structure. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested one (1) year time extension for the placement of the temporary office building. The temporary building must be removed from the property no later than August 25, 2004. 2 September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the Otter Creek Neighborhood Association had requested that the application be deferred so that they could meet with the applicant and discuss the issue. Staff noted that Tommy Hodges, the applicant, had expressed no problem with a deferral. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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. 3 OTTERCREEK July 7, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Little Rock Planning Department 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Monte: I have been notified by the city code enforcement office that the time has expired on moving out of our temporary structure. To be honest, I thought we had more time. During the past year, we were so focused on the Bass Pro project that I simply lost track of time. We have prepared plans and have selected a contractor for our building. I am enclosing a copy of the elevation and floor plan. This is a request that the city give us an additional extension of one year to complete the building. Please let me know what is required and I will comply. Sincerely, tsJLodges Otter Creek Land Company • >2 Otter Creek Court • Little Rock, AR 72210 • Phone: (501) 455-3000 Fax: (501) 455-0525 E-mail: tlhodges@swbell.net • www.ottercreek.net September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: B File No.: Z-7461 Owner: Sidney M. Thom Address: 2300 Country Club Lane Description: Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with reduced side and rear yard setbacks. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 2300 Country Club Lane is occupied by a two- story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car driveway from Country Club Lane which serves as access. There is a two -car carport located at the northwest corner of the house, accessed by the driveway which runs along the north property line. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 foot by 46 foot (one-story) building addition on the rear of the house and a 24 foot by 22 foot attached garage (1 Y2 stories) at the northwest corner of the property. The additions will have a four (4) foot setback from the north (side) property line and a five (5) foot setback from the west (rear) property line. The five September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. (5) foot rear yard setback is by way of an alley right-of-way along the west property line which is noted as "closed" on the survey provided by the applicant. The 24 foot by 46 foot building addition will include a bedroom, sitting room and bathroom. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for this R-2 zoned lot. Section 36- 254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance requirements for the proposed building addition. Staff is not supportive of the proposed variances. Although staff is not necessarily opposed to the proposed side yard setback, staff cannot support the requested five (5) foot rear yard setback. The existing house to the west is located only approximately 10 from the common rear property line, providing for a separation of only approximately 15 feet from the proposed addition. Staff feels that given the large size of the houses in this general area, this type of reduced setback and separation proposed will have a negative impact on the property to the west. Staff feels that the applicant should re -design the building addition and utilize some of the yard space within the southwest portion of the lot. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred based on the fact that two (2) of the four (4) Board members present were going to abstain from the voting. Staff suggested deferral to the September 29, 2003 agenda. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Thom were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Fred Gray asked if an architect had designed the building addition and what the reasons were for the particular design. Mrs. Thom noted that a one-story 2 September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: B (Co building addition was needed because her husband could not easily ascend stairs. She stated that the proposed garage location was for direct access from Country Club Lane utilizing the existing driveway. She noted that building designs had been done. There was a brief discussion related to the proposed building addition. Mrs. Thom discussed other new homes and building additions in the general area with similar setbacks. She noted that the proposed building addition would have no negative impact on the general area, specifically the property to the west. Fred Gray asked if any of the neighbors there had been no phone calls received supported the proposal. had been heard from. Staff noted that Mrs. Thom stated that all her neighbors Mr. Thom explained that the neighbors to the north could not access their garage if the proposed garage and driveway were moved to the southern portion of the property. There was additional discussion related to the rear yard setback issue. Mrs. Thom presented photos of other properties in the area to the Board. The photos were briefly discussed by the Board and Mrs. Thom. There was a motion to approve the requested rear and side yard setback variances, as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richburg). 3 Sidney and Emily Thom 2300 Country Club Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Board of Adjustment 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Variance Request, 2300 Country Club Lane Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Board Members: July 22, 2003 My wife and I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustsment grant a . variance on the above captioned property for the purpose of constructing a one story bedroom, sitting room, bathroom and attached 1 and Y2 story two car garage. The proposed variance would maintain consistency with other properties in the neighborhood. A variance is requested because of my inability to negotiate steps in our present two story plus finished attic. My doctor, Dr. Lowry Barnes, has recommended a one story living situation following replacement surgery on both knees. We intend to use the existing carport location to construct the new addition to make appropriate use of available space. The proposed addition, as shown on the enclosed survey, mandates that the present driveway remain in place so as to accomodate the ingress and egress of our neighbor on the north. We presently have adjoining driveways which enables our neighbor to use our deriveway to turn into his garage and also enables us to use his driveway in order to leave our premises. Page 2, Variance Request The current driveway construction has been in place for 75 years, and our neighbor recently constructed a new home utilizing the original plan. It is not feasible to move the present driveway to the south side of the property because of physical characteristics and placement of the home, brick wall and mature landscaping. More importantly, it would take away our neighbors ability to negotiate the turn northward into his newly constructed home and garage. Please also note on the survey that the 10 foot alley is officially closed providing an additional five feet for our benefit that we are not currently using. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Sidne M. Thom Enclosure EST September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: C File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7465 Arkansas Otolaryngology Center Realty, LLC 10201 Kanis Road Lot 1, Baptist Health — Kanis South Addition O-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 to allow a ground -mounted sign in the public right-of- way. 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. Medical Offices Medical Offices 1. Prior to construction, obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (John Barr, 371-4646) for the improvements located in the right-of-way. B. Staff Analysis: The 0-2 zoned property at 10201 Kanis Road is occupied by a medical office building. There is existing paved parking on the site, and access drives from Kanis Road and Wilson Road. There is another medical office building on the property to the west, the Arkansas Baptist Foundation offices on the property across Wilson Road to the east, and undeveloped property to the south. The applicant, Arkansas Otolaryngology Center, proposes to install a monument -style ground -mounted sign along their Kanis Road frontage. September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) The proposed sign will have a height of six (6) feet and an area less than 60 square feet. The height and area conform to the ordinance standards for office signage. However, the applicant proposes to locate the sign entirely in the public right-of-way of Kanis Road. According to information provided by the applicant, the sign would be located approximately 15 feet back from the curbline of Kanis Road and 5 feet north of the north (front) property line. This would place the entire sign in the right-of-way. Section 36-553(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that ground -mounted signs be set back at least five (5) feet from any property line (to the closest edge of the sign). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard to allow the sign to be located in the right-of-way. Staff is not supportive of the variance request. The proposed sign will be located relatively close to the intersection of Kanis Road and Wilson Road. With this section of Kanis Road being very busy, staff feels that a sign located in the public right-of-way near the intersection could potentially create a blind corner situation. Staff feels that there is adequate space between the parking lot and the front property line to locate a sign and not be in the public right-of-way. Staff feels that the applicant should accurately locate the property lines and work with the existing landscaping and design a sign which is located out of the right-of- way and provides adequate identification of the property. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 25, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 29, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 ARKANSAS OTOLARYNGOLOGY CENTER, P.A. �h'0.SE•1� 0201 (canis Rd. July 23, 2003 .fttle Rock, AR 72205-6203 and is also consistent with placements of other signs along the corridor on Kanis road. 101.227.5050 City of Little Rock -'ax 501.227.5151 are closer to the road than you are allowing ,placement of ours to be. We serve patients .800.262.0142 Department of Planning and Development forth Little Rock, AR 72116 723 West Markham effrey Barber, MD and surgery center. oe Coiclasure, MD, FACS Kanis corridor. I have provided pictures of this tree line which extends for several blocks ohn Dickins, MD, FACS Dear Sirs: Iluy Gardner, MD, FACS clearing a large portion of trees, detracting from the existing natural landscape that is effrey Miller, MD We at Arkansas Otolaryngology are applying for a zoning variance for a proposed sign a Morris, to be laced at 10201 Kanis Road at the front of our clinic and ambulato surgery Thomas Smith, ACS . Th 3cottStern, MD, FACS center.. Enclosed with this letter you will find a picture of the area and the proposd site Adrian Williamson, 111, MD at which we wish to place the sign. i00 S. University, #423 The main purpose for the sign is clear identification of our clinic and our ambulatory .ittle Rock, AR 72205 surgery center, location: Placing the sign nearer the right of way would accomplish this 'raves Heamsberger, III, MD and is also consistent with placements of other signs along the corridor on Kanis road. 'rances Wilson, MD Enclosed you will find pictures of our neighbor clinics and other buildings, whose signs are closer to the road than you are allowing ,placement of ours to be. We serve patients 1504 McCain Blvd., #127 from all over the state of Arkansas and often the patients from out of town have difficulty forth Little Rock, AR 72116 locating our site. This is the reason for our investment in such a sign to identify our clinic 'erry Potts, MD and surgery center. I Medical Park Dr., #203 The drastic set back from the road which the city is recommending is detrimental to us in ienton, AR 72015 loss of identification of our clinic to our patients but will also contribute to hazardous Aichael McGhee, MD driving conditions on Kanis Road when patients are attempting to locate us. Our surgery center begins surgery.very early in the morning. During winter time, patients are attempting to find our site when it is still dark at 6:00-6:30 in the morning. emeritus 'ed Bailey, Jr., MD Additionally locating the sign further back from the road will require substantial clearing lames Pappas, MD, FACS of a large portion of trees, detracting from the natural landscape consistent all along the Kanis corridor. I have provided pictures of this tree line which extends for several blocks in addition to our property. Locating the sign further back from the road will require 'Administration clearing a large portion of trees, detracting from the existing natural landscape that is .haloBoguslawski Graham, MBA consistent with the properties in the corridor. I also understand that the city will not allow .ynda ki the removal of such trees without some other type of permit. Ambulatory Surgery Center loe Phillips, RN, BS We plan to be good neighbors in the medical community along Kanis Road for many, many years and have carefully selected a tasteful, noncommercial sign specifically just iearingand Balance Center lames Rippy, MS, AuD to identify our clinic and surgerycenter for our patients. We respectfully request that the city allow us a variance to place this sign where it is easily read by our patients. satellite Clinics Res pe ully submitted Arkadelphia ienton haron S. Graham, MS, MBA 3ryant :amden ieber Springs Jacksonville September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Anne Darby Kocinski Trust 5909 S. Country Club Road Lots 113-115, Forest Heights Place Addition M Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow construction of a portico. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5909 S. Country Club Road is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one-story frame garage structure in the rear yard which is currently being remodeled. There is a driveway from North University Avenue which serves as access. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot portico addition on the front (north side) of the existing house. The portico will be one- story masonry construction. The structure will be enclosed on the north side, with 18 foot openings on the east and west sides for vehicular access. The portico structure will be located 10 feet back from the north September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) (front) property line. There is a 25 foot platted building line along the north property line. As part of the project the applicant is proposing to construct a circular driveway from S. Country Club Road. As noted previously, the proposed addition will have a 10 foot setback from the front (north) property line, extending 15 feet over a platted building line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards. Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff feels that the proposed front yard encroachment will be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff observed no similar encroachments along South Country Club Road between North University Avenue and North Taylor Street. All of the homes appeared to be at or near the required 25 foot front setback line. Staff feels that the proposed portico addition will have an adverse visual impact on the properties in this 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 portico 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 front setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) Anne Kocinski and Gary France were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Anne Kocinski addressed the Board in support of the application. She stated that she wished to have the portico on the front of the house for safety reasons. She stated access to the rear yard from N. University Avenue was very difficult. She noted that vehicles could not turn around in the rear yard, and had to back out onto N. University Avenue. Gary France noted that the portico would be attached to the front of the house. 2 September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if a garage with additional driveway space could be provided in the rear yard. Ms. Kocinski further explained the need for the portico in front of the house. She presented photos of other homes in the area with similar additions. There was brief discussion related to the proposed portico. Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if the portico addition could be constructed at the east end of the residence. Ms. Kocinski explained that it could not because of the den located at that end of the house. There was a brief discussion related to the roof design. Mr. France noted that it would be a pitched roof with gables. Fred Gray expressed concern with the mass of the proposed structure in relation to the existing homes in the area. There was additional discussion concerning the proposed portico addition. Ms. Kocinski explained that the proposed placement was the best location for the structure. Andrew Francis also expressed concern with the portico addition. He asked about the proposed pillars at the northwest corner of the property. Ms. Kocinski explained that they were decorative pillars which would define the new proposed driveway from S. Country Club Road. This issue was briefly discussed. Mike Hood, of Public Works, noted that the pillars would typically need to be 50 feet back from the intersection. There was additional discussion related to the portico structure. There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. Fred Gray explained to the applicant that the application could be deferred to allow time to work out the issues. The applicant indicated no desire to defer. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied. 3 GARY FRANCE BUILDER, INC. P.O. Box 22238 3 Little Rock, AR 72221 (501) 227-7964 August 21, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Monte: Enclosed is an application for a variance to allow the building of a portico in front of existing structure at a residence located at 5909 South Country Club in Little Rock. This structure is of masonry construction and is intended to provide access to the kitchen area. The principal reason for the request is to allow improved access to the kitchen entry. Due to health reasons, the owner will have better accessibility. The existing garage is remote from the house. The structure is approximately 24' X 24', one level brick, tying into the existing structure. I appreciate your consideration in this matter, and if you need any additional information concerning this matter please contact me. Sincerely, GARY FRANCE BUILDER, INC. ,�'Y,�2 '� Gary France Owner GF/jd September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Owner- Address.- Description: wner:Address:Description: Zoned: Z -7342-A Alan and Ann Warrick 5119 Sherwood Road Lot 82, Prospect Terrace Addition Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the fence/wall provisions of Section 36-516 to allow construction of an eight (8) foot high wall. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5119 Sherwood Road is occupied by a newly constructed, two-story stucco single family residence. There is a detached garage located at the southwest corner of the property, with access from a paved alley along the rear (south) property line. There is a masonry wall currently under construction along the east and a portion of the south property lines. The masonry wall along the east property line ranges in height from 6'-0" at the northeast corner of the house, to 8'-4" at the southeast corner of the property. The wall is approximately eight (8) feet in height along the south property line. The wall will have a stucco finish with brick trim along the top. Columns will extend approximately eight (8) inches higher than the wall heights. September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence/wall height of six (6) feet in single family zones. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the proposed wall height. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed wall height will not be out of character with the neighborhood. There are other similar wallffence structures in this area and structures located along the paved alley. The existing slope of the property is the reason for the varying wall height. The wall will be approximately six (6) feet in height as viewed from the rear yard of the property. Staff feels that the proposed wall will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. There is a four (4) foot wide utility easement which runs along the rear (south) property line. A portion of the new wall is located within this easement. Staff feels that the applicant should obtain letters from the public utility companies, verifying that the wall construction will have no effect on any utility lines. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval letters from the public utility companies must be provided. 2. The wall height must not exceed the height as described in this report. 3. A building permit must be obtained for the wall construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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 MehlburoerThe Firm Engineers o Landscape Architects ❑ Surve'v, -, August 20, 2003 --L� 2-- z� � 7 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Monte, Enclosed is an application for a variance to allow a wall to be built to a height of 8'-0" at a residence at 5119 Sherwood Road in Little Rock. This wall is of masonry construction and is intended to provide enclosure and privacy to a rear yard area at that address. The principal reason for the request is due to the fact that the slope of the lot resulted in the finished floor elevation of the house to be approximately 4'-0" above finished grade at the rear of the house. A higher wall will provide some modicum of privacy to the rear yard area. The rear yard area will be filled resulting in a 6'-0" high wall on the inside of the wall, whereas it will 8'-0" on the outside. I think its important to note that an alley runs along the back of this property which provides separation from the neighbor to the rear. The wall is presently under construction and the applicant desires to continue work on the wall while the masons are available with the understanding that if he should not prevail at Board of Adjustment then the wall would be reduced to meet the height allowed by ordinance. I appreciate your consideration in this matter and if you need any additional information concerning this matter please contact me. Sincerely, THE EHLTJRGER FIRM, INC.. %% ASLA Vice September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-7483 Owner: A. Andr6 and Louise Rollefson Address: 10009 Kane Drive Description: Lot 3, Block 1, Breckenridge First Addition 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 construction of a garage structure. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicants' justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 10009 Kane Drive is occupied by a split level brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Warwick Drive which serves as access. It appears that a garage once existed at the west end of the structure, but was enclosed in the past for additional living area. There is a 25 -foot platted building setback line along the north and west property lines. The applicants propose to construct a 24 -foot by 24 -foot garage addition to the west end of the single family structure. The garage will be accessed by using the existing concrete drive. The proposed garage will be located 7.5 feet to 9.5 feet back from the exterior side (west) property line. It will extend over the platted building line by 15 to 16 feet. September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires an exterior side yard setback of 25 feet, based on the fact that the existing structure has a rear yard setback of less than 25 feet. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, the applicants are requesting variances to allow construction of the garage structure. Staff is not supportive of the requested variances. Staff knows of no other single family structures in this general area with similar types of encroachments. Although the proposed garage will have the appearance of lining with the structures immediately south, because of the curvature of the street (Warwick Road), staff feels that the requested encroachment will be out of character with 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 front building line for the proposed garage 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 front setback and building line variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) Louise Rollefson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that a letter of support from six (6) neighbors was submitted. Louise Rollefson addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that the garage was needed for safety reasons. She stated that her vehicles had been vandalized in the past. She explained that the proposed garage would be brick construction and would match the existing house. Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if the existing driveway would be used. Mrs. Rollefson explained that it would and noted that the garage door would face Kane Drive. She also noted that there would not be enough driveway space for turning a vehicle around. In response to another question, Mrs. Rollefson stated that there would be direct access from the garage to the house. 2 September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) Terry Burruss asked about the height of the garage addition. Mrs. Rollefson explained that it would be one (1) story with storage above, and would not exceed the height of the existing house. There was a motion to approve the requested variances, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the exterior side platted building line. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved. 3 __ 703 August 7, 2003 10009 Kane Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Gentle Persons, When we moved here in 1975, we bought the house as it is today, without a garage. The previous owners had made the garage into a bedroom/recreation room for their children, and we were told that in this climate, we would not need a garage. Now, however, in todays society, we need a garage for safety. we need it so that our cars will be protected. With the cost of cars and repairs so high today, we need to protect our belongings much more than when we first moved here. Our daughter's car was vandalized right in front of our house, not only once,but twice on two separate visits. Furthermore, now that we have gotten to the "golden years," we need to protect ourselves from danger when entering or leaving our home. Dangers include being attacked by strangers as well as hazards caused by inclement weather. Thank you for considering promptly this application for a residential zoning variance. Yours Truly, Louise G. Rollefson (Mrs. A. Andre Rollefson) 10009 Kane Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Neighbors, Andre and I are requesting the city allow us to build a garage. It will be attached to our house, and it will bliend with our style house. Please sign below to indicate your pleasure pertaining to this project. For the building of a garage. 1. Joe or Wilma Reed 62 Warwick Rd. P 2. Melissa or George B. Clark 64 Warwick d. 3. Jeremy or Jessica Flannigan 66 Warwick Rd 4.Tess or Richard Bell 83 Warwick 9d,/ —7— 6 s 5. Larry and Billie Jean Williams 79 Warwick Rd. 6. Joanne Kastel 10007 Kane Drive `' --7�-03 Against the building of a garage September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7484 Carolyn Hamra 8705 Geyer Springs Road Part of Lot 2, S & T Subdivision C-3 A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557 to allow wall signs without direct street frontage. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Auto Lube Shop Auto Lube Shop The C-3 zoned property at 8705 Geyer Springs Road is occupied by a small one-story block building which contains an auto lube shop (Pennzoil Fast Lube). There is an access drive from Geyer Springs Road, with paved parking and drives on all sides of the building. Pennzoil Fast Lube recently opened at this location after the building had been vacant for several years. Jiffy Lube occupied the building previously. When the business opened, the owners placed wall signage on the north, south and west sides of the building. There is also a small ground - mounted sign on the west side of the building. Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that wall -mounted signs face street rights-of-way. Based on the fact that the wall signs on the north and south sides of the building do not have direct street frontage, the applicant is September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Photos of the north and south sides of the building are attached for Board of Adjustment review. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff feels that signage on the north and south sides of the building will aid in identifying the business by north and south bound traffic on Geyer Springs Road. With the exception of the "Pennzoil' logo, the signs on the north and south sides of the building have a background color that matches the building color. Staff believes this makes the signs appear smaller than they actually are, and lessens any impact they might have on adjacent property. Staff feels that the signs without direct street frontage will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow wall signs without street frontage, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance be approved for this business owner only (Pennzoil Fast Lube). If this business vacates the building, the signs are to be removed. 2. With the exception of the "Pennzoil" logo, the signs are to have a background color that matches the building color. 3. Sign permits must be obtained for the signs. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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 August 4, 2003 To: Little Rock Board of Adjustment From: Pennzoil Fast Lube 8705 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 We are requesting a sign variance for signs located on the North and South side of our building located at 8705 Geyer Springs Road. Due to the location of the building and its relatively short distance from the street, and the speed of the traffic, the front of the building is not as suitable for signs as are the North and South sides. The sides of the building are highly visible to traffic moving along Geyer Springs Road North and South Bound. The building we are occupying at the above listed address had been closed for over 3 years until we opened in June of this year. We have put in many hours cleaning and painting to make this one of the most visibly appealing Fast Lube Locations in Arkansas. We appreciate the opportunity to present this article for your consideration. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Sincerely, Robert Edwards September 29, 2003 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7485 R. C. and Linda Fason 3012 Hinson Road Lot 913, Longlea Addition (Phase IX) GM Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow for construction of a swimming pool over a drainage easement. 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. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 1. The proposed swimming pool crosses a platted floodway easement, however, the 8' intrusion will not interfere with Public Works maintenance activities in the floodway. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3012 Hinson Road is occupied by a two-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a circular drive from Hinson Road which serves as access. A rather wide drainage easement (approximately 125 feet wide) is located along the rear of the property. A portion of the rear yard, including part of the drainage easement, is enclosed with a wood privacy fence. The applicants propose to construct a 16 foot by 35 foot in -ground swimming pool within the fenced rear yard area. The pool would be located approximately eight (8) feet back from a covered deck which is September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. located on the rear (southwest corner) of the single family residential structure. The pool would extend approximately eight (8) feet into the existing drainage easement. Section 36-11(f) of the City's Zoning Ordinance reads as follows: "(f) No building or structure as defined in this chapter shall be erected, converted, reconstructed or structurally altered that encroaches on, over or into any easement. This includes drainage, utility access or use easements within the boundary of any lot of record, platted or otherwise established. For purposes of fence placement within easements, fences shall not be construed to be a building or structure." Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement, to allow construction of the pool which extends into the drainage easement. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The pool will extend only eight (8) feet into a drainage easement which is well over 100 feet in width. As noted in paragraph A. of this report, the Public Works Department notes that the proposed pool will not interfere with Public Works maintenance activities in the floodway. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed pool will have no adverse impact on the drainage easement, the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested easement variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had slightly revised the application by adding a small outdoor fireplace within the patio area surrounding the pool. Staff noted that the fireplace would be within the drainage easement. Staff supported the revision to the application. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 08/18/03 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: R. C. AND LINDA FASON 3012 HINSON RD., LITTLE ROCK, AR BUSINESS: 501-228-5544 HOME: 501-224-4555 RE: APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE REASON: CONSTRUCT SWIMMJ NG POOL To Whom It May Concern: 7 We are making application to build a 35' X 16' swimming pool in our back yard. In order to build the pool in the ideal location would mean crossing a drainage easement by 8 feet. We would like to construct the pool 8' out from our existing wood deck We feel that if we build any closer to the deck it could be a safety hazard to try and walk around the pool on the deck side and we would not be able to see the pool from our den or kitchen windows. By building the pool in this location the only way not to cross the easement is to start the hole of the pool right next to the wood deck which would not allow for any concrete decking or the required 6 feet distance from the structure. If we were to build a pool on the south side of the house a very large old tree would have to be cut down, the fence moved forward and we would have limited concrete deck space around the pool due to the gas meter and a large air conditioner/heater unit being in this area, plus the fact that there are no windows on this side of our home that we could view the pool for pleasure or safety. If we were to build a pool on the north side of the wood deck it would have to bump up to the sidewalk and the fence would have to be moved forward. By having a pool this close to the walk, the entrance and exit stairs, and the outside gate this could create a safety hazard. We would only be able to view the pool from our kitchen door and windows without going outside. We are requesting that you give us permission to build a swimming pool 8' across the drainage easement as diagrammed on our survey. Thank You, R.C. aso Linda Fason September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.- Owner- Address- Description: o.:Owner:Address:Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues.- No ssues:No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7486 Judith G. Baldwin 5501 Stonewall Road Part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 22, Newton Addition :bM Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow the construction of a new single family residence. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5501 Stonewall Road (southwest corner of Stonewall Road and N. Polk Street) is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is a driveway from Stonewall Road which serves as access. The property owners recently petitioned the Planning Commission and City Board to abandon the west 15 feet of excess Polk Street right-of-way and the south 15 feet of the excess Stonewall Road right-of-way. The abandonment was requested to gain extra yard area for the development of a new house, which would comply with the setbacks for R-2 zoning. At the request of staff, the applicant withdrew the Stonewall abandonment request. The Polk Street abandonment was approved by the Planning Commission on August 7, 2003 and is currently September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) on the Board of Directors' October 7, 2003 agenda. Staff noted at the Planning Commission level that construction of a new residence with the same setback from Stonewall Road as the existing residence would be supported at the Board of Adjustment level. The property owners request to remove the existing house and construct a new one-story residence, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed residence will have the same 15 foot front setback from the north property line (Stonewall Road) as the existing structure. A 22.5 foot setback is proposed from the east (Polk Street) property line (after right- of-way abandonment). The structure will have eight (8) foot side and rear yard setbacks. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Section 36-254(d)(3) notes that when providing 25 foot setbacks along both street side property lines of a corner lot, the rear setback can be reduced to eight (8) feet. Therefore, the owners are requesting variances from the required 25 foot front and exterior side setbacks. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The proposed 15 foot front yard setback will essentially line up with other single family structures along Stonewall Road east of N. Taylor Street. The proposed 22.5 foot exterior side setback will not be out of character with other exterior side setbacks or other corner lots in the Heights area. Staff views the proposal as reasonable, as the lot is smaller than most of the other lots in the area. Staff feels that the proposed residence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance, subject to the Board of Directors approving the abandonment of the west 15 feet of Polk Street adjacent to this lot. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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 City of Little Rock_ Mr. Monte Moore Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 August 18, 2003 Re: Zoning Variance for 2022 North Polk Street, Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Mr. Moore: The applicant for a residential zoning variance of the above referenced property, is requesting that a setback of 15 feet from Stonewall Street, the north property line, be allowed. This is the same 15 foot setback as the existing house is set back. The applicant is also requesting a 22.5 foot setback from the east property line, which is Polk Street. The Staff has recommended approval of both. The Planning Commission approved a right-of-way abandonment of 15 feet along the East property line (Polk Street) at the August 7, 2003, meeting. These variances are needed so that the applicant will be able to construct a new home on the property of a size suitable to the applicant as well as be a compliment to the neighborhood. The lot configuration as platted is too small to build a home on using normal setbacks. If the variances are approved, the final buildable lot size(after the requested setbacks), will be 59.75 feet along Stonewall Street and 47.25 feet along Polk Street. This is about 2800 square feet. Allowing 550 square feet for a two car garage leaves about 2250 square feet of heated and cooled space. The house will have approximately 600 square feet upstairs. Since Stonewall Street has an unusually large right-of-way (80 feet) for a non -collector street, the proposed variance and setback from that street will still leave an extra large front yard for green space and landscaping, to further enhance the neighborhood's serenity. Thank you very much for your consideration. Mike Hedrick, Agent September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7487 Deltic Timber Corporation 9 Chelle Cove Lot 18, Block 61, Chenal Valley Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow construction of a single family residence with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Undeveloped Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 9 Chelle Cove is currently undeveloped and tree -covered. The lot slopes generally downward from front to back (north to south). All of the abutting property is zoned R-2 and is currently undeveloped. There are several single family homes under construction to the west, within this new subdivision of Chenal Valley. The applicant proposes to construct new a one-story single family residence on the lot at 9 Chelle Cove. The applicant is requesting one (1) variance with the proposed lot development. The rear yard setback for the proposed house ranges from 16.5 feet at the southeast corner of the structure to 19.5 feet at the structure's southwest corner. Section 36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The single family lot has a 15 foot front platted building line. Because of the irregular shape of the lot, the proposed house has been pushed back to approximately 24 feet from the front property line in order to provide the required eight (8) foot side yards. If the house were able to be located at the front building line, no variance for the rear yard setback would be required. The survey of the lot notes that the area immediately to the south is an open space buffer, which is typical of the Chenal Subdivisions. Based on this, staff feels that the requested rear yard setback variance will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Additionally, the applicant has received a letter from the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee approving of the proposed construction. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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 Sep 17 03 ( 43a RMTR-BUDGET (5011212-5182 SDH CUSTOM HOMES, LLC 611 Innsbroo�ke Cove Jacksonville, X R 72076 September 16, 2003 Lirde Rock Board of Adjustment Aan: Monty Moor: RL: Variance Request for Lot 18, Block 61 Challain Subdivision l p.i 'Skis request is made due to the irregular shape of the lot. In order to provide a reasonable sized aiwelling on a single lewei, it appears to be necessary to encroach upon the 25 feet set hack, Please Mote that the 15 feet easement restrction has not, nor will be violated. Thauk you for any :onsiderrdott given this request. eryl uie SDH (. tstom Homes, LLC REAL ESTATE DtvisioN 7 CHEMAL CL.Ija BOULEVARD LZTTLL ROCK, AR 72223 Thursday, Nfay 22, 2003 Sheryl D. Huieft 611 Innsbrook Cove Jacksonville, AR 72076 RE-, Lot 18, Block 61 - Challain Place Sheryl: -7 �2- 7�Y7 The rear setback waiver for Lot 19, Block 61 in Challain Place submitted at the regularly scheduled Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee meeting on May 21, 2003 was reviewed. ACC will approve building no closer than 15' of rear property line. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Tom Russell Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee TR.jw 501 8Zf-5757 C H E N A. L D 0 W N S Fax: S01-82 C L E v September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7488 Randall and Mickie Smyly 13 Blue Ridge Circle Lot 13, Scenic Heights Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 13 Blue Ridge Circle is occupied by a split- level brick and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Blue Ridge Circle which serves as access. A one-story frame carport is located at the southeast corner of the residential structure. The property slopes generally downward from front to back (north to south). The applicants propose to construct a 7'-0" by 22'-8" one-story building addition on the west side of the existing house. The addition will accommodate a master bath and closet. Because of an angled side (west) property line, the addition will have a side setback ranging from two (2) feet to seven (7) feet. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for this September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont. lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff typically likes to see a minimum side yard setback of at least three (3) feet, in order to provide area to construct and maintain structures without encroaching onto adjacent property. However, in this case the proposed addition has a corner relation to the side property line, with the proposed set back ranging from two (2) feet to seven (7) feet. Staff feels that this will allow adequate space to construct and maintain the addition without encroaching onto the single family property to the west. Additionally, the single family house immediately to the west is located 15 to 20 feet from the dividing side property line. Therefore, more than adequate spacing between the two (2) structures will exist. Staff feels that the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, subject to guttering being provided to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent property to the west. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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 Yeary Lindsey Architects August 12, 2003 i�W Monte Moore Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Residence of Randall E and Mickie W. Smyly, 13 Blue Ridge Drive, Little Rock, AR. Dear Monte, We are requesting a west side yard setback variance for the residence of Randy and Mickie Smyly at 13 Blue Ridge Drive. The Smylys plan to add a small master bathroom and closet addition to an existing bedroom that is located on the main level at the southwest corner of the house. This addition will be 7'-0" wide and will begin at the southwestern most corner running northward approximately 22'-8". Because the property is "pie shaped" the distance from the addition to the west property line will vary from 7'-3" at its widest point to 2'-0" from northwest corner of addition to the west property line. This addition will enable the owners to have their master bedroom on the main living level of the house and its location to the west of the bedroom enables the owners to retain the beautiful view that exists from the southern bedroom window. Although the main house has an existing deep overhang, the new bath/closet addition overhang will project no more than 6" and we will gutter it to prevent runoff onto the neighboring property. Thanks for your serious consideration of our variance request. Sincerely, Ellen Yeary IA 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Pock; AP 72201 531-�72- 940 FX: 501-707-0118 r � September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-7489 Owner: David and Lynna Schonert Address: 1018 Beechwood Street Description: Lot 2, Block 9, Hillcrest Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow a porch addition with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The applicants' 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 1018 Beechwood Street is occupied by a one- story frame single family residence. There is a one car driveway from Beechwood Street which serves as access. The existing house is located back from the front property line between 29 and 32 feet. The applicants propose to construct an 8 foot wide screened -in porch along the front of the structure. The porch will maintain the same width as the house and be located from 21 to 24 feet from the front property line. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. This general area of the Hillcrest neighborhood contains single family homes with varying setbacks from front property lines. There are houses with front setbacks of much greater and lesser distances than the minimum 25 feet as required by the ordinance. The house immediately to the north is located approximately 12 feet closer to its front property line than the house in question. Therefore, staff feels that the eight (8) foot wide porch addition on front of the residential structure will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The front porch must remain unenclosed, except for screening. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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. P - 7V9g David and Lynna Schonert 1018 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72205 August 19, 2003 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR To the Board of Adjustment, My name is David Schonert. I live at 1018 Beechwood, in the blocks that lie between Allsop Park. My wife, Lynna, and I have lived here since November of 1990. The size of our home is roughly 1200 square feet and we would like to increase our living space. Our current plan calls for an addition of approximately 500 square feet to the back of the house and a screened porch for the front of the house. The screened porch would extend the front of the house by 8 feet and it will run the length of the house. It is the porch that I am writing to you about. The problem we face is that part of the porch will extend beyond the so-called set -back line. Using the survey and drawn to scale, it appears that the northeast corner of the porch will sit roughly 1 foot beyond the set -back line and the southeast corner about 4 feet beyond the set -back line. The set -back line cuts through the porch area on a diagonal so that the porch extends beyond the set -back by approximately 105 square feet. This letter is a plea to the Board to relax the conditions and grant a variance for this project. It is our intent to preserve the integrity of the original house design and also the the "look" of our neighborhood in general. Our design will be consistent with the bungalow style found in the Hillcrest area. We also hope that our porch will promote good fellowship and provide a mosquito -free spot for gatherings. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, 71 o, � �G 4 David Schonert September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 10 File No.: Z-7490 Owner: Keith and Sharon Washington Address: 6504 Onyx Drive Description: Lot 24, Capital 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 applicants' 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 6504 Onyx Drive is occupied by a one-story rock and frame single family residence. There is a two -car driveway from Diamond Drive which serves as access. The rear yard of the property is enclosed with a four (4) foot high chain-link fence. There is an above ground swimming pool near the center of the rear yard, and a small metal accessory building at the northwest corner of the property. The applicants propose to remove the existing chain-link fence and replace it with six (6) foot high wood privacy fence, as shown on the attached site plan. A portion of the proposed fence will be located between a 25 foot platted building line and the Diamond Drive right-of- way. Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) maximum fence height of four (4) feet between a building setback line and a street right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Even though the single family residence immediately to the north has a front yard relationship with this property, staff feels that the proposed fence will have no adverse visual impact on the adjacent property. With the proposed fence being located 12 feet back from the curb line of Diamond Drive and the house to the north being back 32 to 40 feet from the dividing property line, a rather large side yard exists for the property to the north. Therefore, visually the fence will not have the appearance of being in the front yard of the adjacent property. Additionally, the location of the fence will cause no sight -distance problems at the intersection of Onyx Drive and Diamond Drive or the intersection of Diamond Drive and Gold Court. Staff feels that the proposed fence will have no adverse impact on the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance, subject to a building permit being obtained for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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 6504 Onyx Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 August 8, 2003 Board of Adjustments Dear Sir or Madam: �-- 710 Keith and Sharon Washington requests the boards permission to put a 6 foot privacy fence where the existing chain link fence is for the purpose of privacy from the public, and, because our back yard is viewable to the public from every angle. We are adding a swimming pool, basketball court and a deck for parties and get together. We currently have two dogs and three children and other children walking through the neighborhood taunt them at times. The privacy fence would give us the same private area that all of our neighbors have because their backyards face either, other homes or alleys. Sincerely, y _ Thanks k. _. a 0'A'-"z4- Washington September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 11 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7491 Maury and Lindy Mitchell 1815 N. Tyler Street Lot 23, Englewood Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section of 36-254 to allow a building addition with a reduced side yard setback. The applicants' justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 1815 N. Tyler Street is occupied by a two-story brick single family residence. There is an existing one-story frame garage in the rear yard. A one car driveway from N. Tyler Street serves as access. The applicants propose to remove the existing accessory garage and construct a one-story building addition on the rear of the existing house. The proposed addition will accommodate a new kitchen, family room, laundry and master bedroom with bath. The proposed addition will have a setback of 2.66 feet from the south property line. The existing garage structure is located approximately 2.4 feet from the south line. Section 36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont. yard setback of five (5) feet for this lot. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance standard. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. As noted earlier, the existing garage is located slightly closer to the side property line than the proposed addition. The proposed addition will only be approximately 11 feet wider (east to west) than the existing garage structure. The single family structure to the south is located approximately 8.5 feet from its north property line, so adequate spacing between the two structures should exist. Staff feels that based on the fact that a one-story addition is proposed, the 2.66 foot side yard setback should provide enough space for construction and maintenance of the structure. Staff believes the proposed building addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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 Yeary Lindsey Architects August 22, 2003 Mr. Monte Moore Department of Neighborhoods and Planning 723 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE. Zoning Variance Application for Mitchell Residence, 1815 N. Tyler Dear Monte, j-4 " --�f % 1 7�9/ Our proposed plan at 1815 N. Tyler consists of an addition to the rear of the house to accommodate a new kitchen, family room, laundry and master bedroom and bath. We are requesting a zoning variance to allow an encroachment into the south side yard setback for a master bedroom addition that will reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 2.66 feet at this location for a length of 23 feet. An existing garage that reduces the side yard setback in this area to 2.4 feet will be removed in order for the addition to be built. Due to the narrowness of the 50 feet wide lot, we feel moving the master bedroom suite portion of the addition as far to the south as possible allows us to maximize the remaining open back yard. We also feel that since the current garage encroaches already, we will not be worsening the existing situation. The southern neighbor also parks to the north of his lot, further distancing his house from the addition. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, �C Maury Mitchell Lindy Mitchell 319 President Clinton Ave., Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 701-372-7940 "Y: 7011-707-01 i S September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 12 File No.: Z-7492 Owner: Charles and Anita Fiser Address: 1 Pinehurst Circle Description: Lot 19, Block 6, Pleasant Valley Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Sections 31-12 to allow a building addition which crosses a platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicants' justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 1 Pinehurst Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a driveway from Valley Club Circle which serves as access. The applicants are currently remodeling and adding building area to the front of the residential structure. The lot has a 40 foot platted building line along the north and west property lines (street frontages). The applicant's plan is to add approximately 1,800 square feet of building area along the front of the existing home. The applicants also propose to add a new driveway from Pinehurst Circle. The proposed addition will adhere to the 40 foot setback from the north property line and extend over the west 40 foot platted building line by approximately nine (9) feet, September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont. resulting in a 31 foot setback from the west (Valley Club Circle) property line. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow the encroachment over the platted building line. Section 31-12 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of the building line variance. Staff views the encroachment as very minor. Only approximately 94 square feet of the proposed addition will encroach over the platted building line. As noted earlier, the structure will be located approximately 31 feet back from the west property line. The Zoning Ordinance would typically require a 25 foot setback from this property line. Staff feels that the proposed building line encroachment will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. The Pleasant Valley Golf Course is located immediately to the south and across Valley Club Circle from this residential property. 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 building addition. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the building line encroachment, subject to completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the front building as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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. Zoning Variance Located at 1 Pinehurst Circle in the City of the Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Presented by Chuck and Anita Piser August 21, 2003 1 Pinehurst Circle Little Rock, AR 72212 Page i 44 Zoning Variance Summary(P The following document represents the proposal for (1) Zoning Variance for the property located at #1 Pinehurst Circle. We are planning to construct an addition to our current house located at #1 Pinehurst Circle. Our addition consists of adding approximately 1,800 square feet to the front section of the house. However, due to the current position of the house on the lot, as well as the numerous angles of the existing house, our proposed pian requires that the northwest corner of the house extend over the stated 40 foot building line set -back by 9 feet. The reason that this area will extend beyond the building line is because we would like to square the house off in that area. We are also restricted by the two 40" building line setbacks because the house is located on a corner lot. By constructing the addition in this manner, the side of the house that adjoins Valley Club Circle will be much more conducive to the architectural style of the majority of the houses in the Pleasant Valley subdivision. Page 2 September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 13 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: Z-7493 Howard and Stacy Hurst 4901 E. Crestwood Drive Lot 18, Prospect Terrace Addition R-2 Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the area provisions of Section 36-254 to allow building additions with reduced setbacks and which cross a platted building line. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 4901 E. Crestwood Drive is occupied by a two- story brick and frame building single family residence. There is an existing frame garage in the rear yard, near the southeast corner of the property. There is a single car driveway from E. Crestwood Drive which serves as access. The property sits at a higher elevation than Kavanaugh Blvd. which runs along the north property line. There is a severe drop off at the rear of the property, which creates an earthen and rock wall next to Kavanaugh Blvd. The lot has a 25 foot platted building line which runs along the Kavanaugh and E. Crestwood street frontages. September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) The applicants propose to relocate the frame garage to near the intersection of Kavanaugh Blvd. and E. Crestwood Drive. The relocated garage would be connected to the house by way of additional garage space, with a 16'X 16' den addition at the northeast corner of the house. There will also be porch additions to the front and back of the residence. Associated with the garage relocation will be a new driveway from E. Crestwood Drive, which will be located further away from Kavanaugh Blvd. than the existing drive. The applicants also propose to construct a new eight (8) foot high masonry wall along the north property line, ten (10) feet back from Kavanaugh Blvd. The proposed new construction will extend over the 25 foot platted building line at several points. The relocated garage, garage addition and den addition will be located eight (8) feet to 13 feet back from the north (Kavanaugh Blvd.) property line, with the relocated garage being two (2) feet to nine (9) feet back from the western (E. Crestwood Drive) property line. The front porch addition will extend slightly over the platted building line, and have a front setback of approximately 22 feet. Section 36-254 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet, side setbacks of eight (8) feet and rear setback of 25 feet. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that encroachments over platted building lines be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, Section 36-516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence/wall height of four (4) feet between a street right-of-way and a building setback line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance sections in association with the planned construction. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The lot's topography and shape, with street right-of-way on three (3) sides, greatly restrict the amount of buildable area. Staff feels that the relocation of the garage and driveway will provide much safer vehicular access to the property. The proposed masonry wall along Kavanaugh Blvd. will be typical of those found along Kavanaugh to the south and west. The proposed garage location should cause no sight -distance problems, given the elevation of the property, and the fact that there is no left turn allowed from E. Crestwood Drive onto Kavanaugh Blvd. Staff feels that the variance requests are reasonable and that they will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the platted building line for the proposed building additions. The applicant should review the filing 2 September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) 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 setback, building line and wall height variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Completion of a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the platted building line as approved by the Board. 2. A building permit must be obtained for all construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) 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. August 22, 2003 Board of Adjustments City Of Little Rock 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom It May Concern: l 3 53 Our request is for a variance in the building line set back of 25 feet. Our lot is located on the corner of Kavanaugh and East Crestwood but our street address and frontage is on East Crestwood. All of our neighbors front East Crestwood and back up to Kavanaugh. These properties all have a severe drop off in the back, which creates an earthen and rock wall next to Kavanaugh . Our wish is to orient our garage to the front of the house, as our neighbors do, to eliminate the danger of a driveway at the dangerous intersection of a busy street. Due to the excessive slope at the rear of our property it is difficult to turn in and creates a hazardous situation. This slope continues up from the entrance of East Crestwood and Kavanaugh until the street meets the circular drive portion of East Crestwood. The driveway needs to be oriented off the level portion of our property which fronts this circular drive portion of E. Crestwood. There are two large oak trees and a heavily sloped embankment on the side of the property where the driveway enters now. We want to preserve these trees and add additional landscape buffer on this side just as our neighbor has done on the other side of the street. Because of the excessive speed and noise of cars driving by on Kavanaugh, we want to protect our property as much as possible. We hope to erect an 8 -foot masonry rock wall at a ten -foot set back from the curb the length of the rear of the property, . This is exactly what our neighbors have done, except most of their walls have little or no setback. Within this 10 -foot setback, we would propose heavy landscaping to effectively have an additional wall of greenery. This wall, along with the relocation of the present garage, would buffer our house from Kavanaugh and orient the house to East Crestwood.. By moving the garage from the rear of the property we would also regain our backyard. . This would allow us to much more effectively utilize the property and minimize the effects of being located on such a dangerous and busy curve. East Crestwood has a NO LEFT TURN at the intersection with Kavanaugh, thus sight lines to the east are not important. Large regional power poles are also located in this I Ofoot setback proposed for the Kavanaugh side of the property. They had been located on my property with no apparent easement on the survey. 7 z 12 - We L We want to preserve and utilize the original garage. To properly orient it so that a driveway can be built along with an additional single garage, the original garage must be oriented on the corner of the property. An additional garage stall is needed because the original garage has an internal stairway that effectively makes one stall only useable for very short cars. All the new garage additions would be in the same scale and architecture as the original. The front and rear porches would continue the present look of the existing porch. The new den on the rear of the house would have a porch appearance similar to the present side porch. The den would be added adjacent to the kitchen, in order to have the least effect on the current house layout, but also to help create a courtyard effect in the backyard. On the front of the house a new porch is requested that barely goes over the building line but creates a wonderful space on the front of an old home that overlooks our grassy island across the street. The porch would need a small extension to get around the current bay window. I have enclosed pictures and proposed drawings that help explain our plans. Thank you so much for your consideration. I believe we have proposed a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Howard C. Hurst September 29, 2003 19:4811,Lem Cl File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Z-7494 Chris and Lynn Parker 221 Ridgeway Avenue Lots 32 and 33, Block 13, Midland Hills Addition R-3 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow construction of a swimming pool which exceeds the maximum rear yard coverage. A variance is also requested from the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow a privacy fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicants' justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-3 zoned property at 221 Ridgeway Avenue is occupied by a two- story brick single family residence. There is a one car driveway from Ridgeway Avenue which serves as access. There is a small accessory building located near the northwest corner of the property. A paved alley is located along the north property line. September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont. The applicants propose to construct an in -ground swimming pool within the rear yard of the property. Additionally, an eight (8) foot high privacy fence is proposed along the rear (north) property line. The applicants are requesting two (2) variances in association with the pool/fence project. The first variance is from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. which allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent (rear 25 feet of the lot) for accessory structures. The pool structure combined with the existing accessory building will cover approximately 33 percent of the required rear yard. The second variance is from Section 36-516(e)(1)a. This section allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet in residential zones. As noted earlier, the applicants propose to construct an eight (8) foot high fence along the rear property line. Because of a slight slope, the fence will have a height of six (6) feet as viewed from the rear yard, and a height of eight (8) feet as viewed from the alley. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the rear yard coverage variance associated with the proposed pool as very minor. The proposed rear yard coverage will be over the 30 percent allowed by only approximately 65 square feet. This type of rear yard coverage will not be out of character with numerous other accessory structures in the neighborhood. The proposed in -ground pool will have a lessor impact on the surrounding properties than an above ground structure. The proposed eight (8) foot high fence should also prove to have no negative impact on the general area. There are numerous accessory structures and fences located along the alley right-of-way with heights of eight (8) feet and higher. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested coverage and fence variances, subject to a building permit being obtained for all construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the October 27, 2003 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the October 27, 2003 agenda by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 EICHENBAUM, LILES & HEISTER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 124 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1400 August 25, 2003 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Amended Cover Letter Proposed Variance from Backyard Coverage Requirement Lots 32 and 33, Block 13, Midland Hills Addition 221 Ridgeway, Little Rock, AR 72205 To Whom It May Concern: E. CHARLES EICHENBAUM (1907-1993) JOHN H. HALEY OF COUNSEL VIA: Hand Delivery The owners of the above -identified property, Chris and Lynn Parker, request a variance (if necessary) in order to conform to the required ratio for the rear 25 feet of undeveloped property in R-2 zones, and construct a fence measuring 6 feet in height from the inside and up to 8 feet in height from the rear alley. We understand that the proposed pool which is shown on the attached Donald W. Brooks land survey dated November 26, 2002 will slightly encroach upon the coverage ordinance requirements. The pool needs to be configured in the rear 25 feet of the lot because of the configuration of the existing house and to minimize the leveling and fill. The lot slopes toward the alley and any reconfiguration will require more fill to level. The need for the variance may be triggered by the existence of an approximately 12 x 12 existing storage building. The side and rear (alley facing) boundaries of the property are fenced and therefore the backyard is not visible except for from the second floor of the two immediately adjacent houses. Thank you very much for the board's consideration of this request. Yours ve ruly, hristo r O. rker COP:rll LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3736 PETER B. HEISTER POST OFFICE BOX 70 GARY F. LILES MARTHA JETT McALISTER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-0070 CHARLES D. McDANIEL TELEPHONE 501-376-4531 CHRISTOPHER 0. PARKER JAMES H. PENICK, III FACSIMILE 501-376-8433 JOE A. POLK RICHARD L. RAMSAY MITCHELL L. BERRY Writer's Extension: 106 cparker@elhlaw.com August 25, 2003 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Re: Amended Cover Letter Proposed Variance from Backyard Coverage Requirement Lots 32 and 33, Block 13, Midland Hills Addition 221 Ridgeway, Little Rock, AR 72205 To Whom It May Concern: E. CHARLES EICHENBAUM (1907-1993) JOHN H. HALEY OF COUNSEL VIA: Hand Delivery The owners of the above -identified property, Chris and Lynn Parker, request a variance (if necessary) in order to conform to the required ratio for the rear 25 feet of undeveloped property in R-2 zones, and construct a fence measuring 6 feet in height from the inside and up to 8 feet in height from the rear alley. We understand that the proposed pool which is shown on the attached Donald W. Brooks land survey dated November 26, 2002 will slightly encroach upon the coverage ordinance requirements. The pool needs to be configured in the rear 25 feet of the lot because of the configuration of the existing house and to minimize the leveling and fill. The lot slopes toward the alley and any reconfiguration will require more fill to level. The need for the variance may be triggered by the existence of an approximately 12 x 12 existing storage building. The side and rear (alley facing) boundaries of the property are fenced and therefore the backyard is not visible except for from the second floor of the two immediately adjacent houses. Thank you very much for the board's consideration of this request. Yours ve ruly, hristo r O. rker COP:rll September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 15 File No.: Z -6315-A Owner: Anthony W. Black Address: 5005 Stonewall Road Description: Lot 2, Block 27, Newton's Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to allow construction of an accessory building which exceeds the maximum rear yard coverage. Justification: Present Use of Property Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Single Family Residential The R-2 zoned property at 5005 Stonewall Road is occupied by a one- story brick and frame single family structure. There is a single car driveway from Stonewall Road which serves as access. An accessory garage structure which previously existed in the rear yard has been removed. On June 26, 1997 the applicant received approval from the Planning Commission (conditional use permit) for the construction of a 26 foot by 40 foot accessory structure (two stories) within the rear yard of the property. The first floor of the structure was to be used as a garage and storage, with the second level being utilized as an accessory dwelling. The structure was proposed to be set back five (5) feet from the rear September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) property line and each side property line. The Planning Commission granted a variance to allow the structure to occupy approximately 64 percent of the required rear yard (rear 25 feet of the lot). Section 36-156(a)(2)c. allows a maximum rear yard coverage of 30 percent. The approved conditional use permit has since expired, based on the fact that the structure was not constructed within three (3) years of the Planning Commission approval date. The applicant is now requesting to build the accessory garage structure (without the accessory dwelling), utilizing the same footprint as the previously approved structure. Therefore, the applicant is again requesting a variance from Section 36-156(a)(2)c. to allow the accessory garage structure to cover approximately 64 percent of the required rear yard. The applicant has noted that he did not know of the expiration date associated with the previous approval, otherwise he would have requested an extension. Staff supports the requested rear yard coverage variance. The proposed accessory building will not be out of character with other similar structures in the neighborhood. The adjacent property to the southeast (at the northwest corner of Club Road and Jackson Street) recently received a similar coverage variance for an accessory garage which is currently under construction. The proposed accessory garage exceeds all of the required minimum building setbacks, and should have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The accessory building must be no larger than 26 feet by 40 feet. 2. A building permit must be obtained for the construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2003) Anthony Black was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the notice to property owners was completed late by Mr. Black, and that a waiver of the bylaws was in order. There was a brief discussion related to the notice issue. Vice -Chairman Richburg asked if notices were given to all property owners within 200 feet. Mr. Black noted that they were and explained. E September 29, 2003 ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) Fred Gray noted that there were no addresses on Club Road on the notice form submitted by Mr. Black. Mr. Black stated that they were notified. He stated that a copy of the notice was left at the residences and explained. He stated that the neighbors knew of the proposed construction and supported the project. Fred Gray asked about the height of the proposed garage. Mr. Black stated that it would be one (1) story in height. Myra Jones, of the Heights Neighborhood Association, addressed the Board. She stated that her association had no opposition to the application and explained. There was a motion to waive the bylaws and accept the notification to property owners as completed by Mr. Black, subject to Mr. Black providing information as to which addresses notices were left at. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. There was a second motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved. 9 74,e .ANTHONY W. BLACK ATTORNEY AT LAW 5005 STONEWALL ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72207 RESIDENCE: (501) 663-9149 OFFICE: (501) 682-5312 FACSIMILE: (501) 682-2591 E-MAIL: ANTHONY.BLACK@AG.STATE.AR.US September 5, 2003 Board of Adjustment Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Residential Zoning Variance at 5005 Stonewall Road Gentlemen: Enclosed please find six copies of a survey of my residence, located at 5005 Stonewall Road, in support of my application for a residential zoning variance. The requested variance pertains to the rear yard coverage requirement in regard to a two -car garage and storage room that I am prepared to construct as a replacement for the pre-existing one -car garage and storage buildings. The new construction will be sited along the rear of the property in order to minimize the natural slope of the property, to accommodate the lot configuration, and to maximize the remaining space as an open courtyard between the new construction and the residence. The variance has been granted previously in conjunction with my application for Conditional Use Permit Z-6315, which file I have enclosed for your reference. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anthony W. Bl ck Enclosures n N� Fri O U W W F- 0 O Z W 5 a LL O 0 a O m • p!0 4�•y r 51 oll Pro z w m Q all W Q z September 29, 2003 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m. Date: Chairman c, 4 4— - Vie — e -11t<, iC,rc f�