Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_05 22 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES May 22, 2000 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being four (4) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings The Minutes of the April 24, 2000 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman William Ruck, Vice Chairman Norm Floyd Fred Gray Members Absent: Scott Richburg City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA MAY 22, 2000 2:00 P.M. I. VARIANCE ITEMS 1. Z-6844 2. Z-6853 3. Z-6854 4. Z-6855 8507 Shelly Drive 6111 Kavanaugh Blvd. 11,915 Shady Ridge Dr. 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road 1 May z2, 2000 Item No.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Z-6844 Nancy Mae Ivy 8507 Shelly Drive Lot 73, Windamere R-2 Variances are requested from the accessory structure area and separation requirements of Section 36-156 to permit a detached carport with reduced front and side yard setbacks and reduced separation from the principal structure. Justification: The house has only a single -car carport. Additional covered parking was needed to protect the applicant's vehicle. The carport has been in place since November 1998. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: Single Family Single Family New driveway must have a paved apron to avoid gravel being dragged onto the street. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property located at 8507 Shelly Drive is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. In November 1998 the property owner placed a free-standing, 10' X 20' carport structure adjacent to the north side of the house. The carport has a side yard setback of 1.5 feet, a front yard setback of 32.3 feet, is separated from the residence by 1 foot and has been placed May t2, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) over a 5 foot easement. Accessory structures are required to have side and front yard setbacks of 3 feet and 60 feet respectively and are to be separated from the residence by a minimum of 6 feet. Approval must be given by all utilities and Public Works for encroachments over easements. The violation was found by Codes Enforcement. Once the applicant was notified of the violation, she applied to the Board of Adjustment for variances. The applicant has stated that additional covered parking was needed to protect her vehicles since she had only a single -car carport. Staff does have concerns about the placement of the structure. This lot is typical of those in the neighborhood in that the home has been pushed closer to one side, resulting in one reduced side yard and one larger side yard. The house adjacent to the north has the reduced side closest to the applicant's property. Placing the carport between the two homes does create congestion which is compounded by the structure being placed over the easement. The reduced separation between the carport and the applicant's home is, in and of itself, not an issue since the carport is constructed of metal and is open on all sides. The separation requirement is primarily to address fire department access and to allow passage of light and air. The metal, open -sided carport does not appear to impact those issues. Moving the carport to the rear yard would address the congestion issue but it would require removal of a large, mature tree. Staff does not want to see the tree removed for the sake of the carport. One option is to relocate the carport to the paved driveway at a point in front of the house's carport. Placing the carport adjacent to the front of the house would result in a front yard setback of 12± feet with the carport being 22-23 feet from the curb of the street. The visual impact of the carport would be greater if it was placed in front of the house but the issues of congestion and the easement encroachment would be resolved. Since the carport is a "portable" structure, no replat would be required to allow the carport to cross the building line. There has been no public notification of the alternative suggested by staff. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances as filed. PA May z2, 2000 Item No.: 1 (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 2000) The applicant, Ms. Ivy, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, explained staff's concerns. Ms. Ivy briefly described the placement of the carport. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Ms. Ivy stated that the carport was not permanently anchored and could be moved if utility companies needed access to the easement. Ms. Ivy stated that she owned the property and had lived in the home since 1992. At the request of Fred Gray, Tad Borkowski of the Public Works Department explained the requirement to provide a paved driveway apron to prevent gravel being dragged into the street. Gary Langlais asked Ms. Ivy if she had considered an alternative location. Ms. Ivy responded that the structure could not be placed in the rear yard without removing a mature tree and that placing the carport in front of the house would be more obtrusive. William Ruck asked Ms. Ivy if she had spoken with her neighbor to the north. Ms. Ivy responded that they spoke "in passing" and that there was no word of objection from them. A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The carport is to remain open and unenclosed. 2. A paved driveway apron is to be installed per Public Works requirements. 3. Approval must be received from all utility companies to allow the carport to remain over the easement. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 May C2, 2000 Item No.: 2 File No.: Z-6853 Owner: Thomas Cline Owen, III and April H. Owen Address: 6111 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lot 130, McMillen's Replat Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit construction of an addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The lot is very irregularly shaped, with shallow side lot lines. The existing house has a front yard setback well in excess of the required 25 feet, pushing the home more toward the rear yard. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analvsis: The R-2 zoned property at 6111 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a one-story, rock and frame, single family residence. The owners propose to expand the home by adding onto the rear of the structure. One of the proposed additions will result in a rear yard setback of 20 feet. The Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet for this lot. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The lot is unusually shaped, with shallow side lot lines ending at an May z-2, 2000 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) arced rear lot line. Only a small corner of the proposed addition extends into the required rear yard setback. The remainder of the house exceeds all required setbacks. The house has a front yard setback of 48 feet, well beyond the 25 foot front yard setback requirement. Since the house has been pushed back 23 feet beyond the front setback requirement, it has reduced the available rear yard area. Staff does not believe that allowing this minor rear yard setback variance will negatively impact adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 2000) 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 by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 May z2, 2000 Item No.: 3 File No.: Z-6854 Owner: Walloch Construction, Inc. Address: 11915 Shady Ridge Drive Description: Lot 82, Sandpiper Creek Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a deck addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: Due to the slope of the lot, the applicant is unable to pour a patio. The rear of the house is several feet above grade. The property to the rear is undeveloped and wooded and should not be impacted by the proposal. Present Use of Property: Single Family under construction Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: A new, one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence is currently being constructed on the R-2 zoned lot located at 11915 Shady Ridge Drive. The builder proposes to add an 8' X 13' deck onto the rear of the house. The deck will be several feet above grade and will result in a rear yard setback of 17.5 feet. Stairs are proposed to come off the side of the deck, lessening the encroachment into the rear yard. May -2, 2000 Item No.: 3 (Cont.) Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The lot slopes severely from the street down to the rear, causing the main floor of the house to be several feet above grade on the back. Without the deck, there is no access to the rear of the house. The property to the rear is undeveloped and heavily wooded. Allowing the encroachment of this minimally sized deck (8' X 13') into the required rear yard should have no effect on the adjacent properties. The deck will remain open and uncovered. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance subject to the proposed deck remaining uncovered and unenclosed on all sides other than at the point it adjoins the house. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to the deck remaining uncovered and unenclosed on all sides other than at the point it adjoins the house. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had completed the required notices on May 16, 2000; 6 days prior to the hearing, not 10 days as required by the Board's bylaws. The Board briefly discussed the lack of impact on adjacent properties by the proposed deck. Staff noted that there had been several telephone calls in response to the sign which had been placed on the property and that there were no calls in opposition. A motion was made to waive the bylaws and to accept the notices as performed by the applicant. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The variance request was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 1 May ,�2, 2000 Item No.: 4 File No.: Z-6855 Owner: Daniel Clayton Address: 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road Description: Lot "A", Berg Subdivision Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The house is existing. The survey used to construct the house incorrectly indicated the building line measured from the previous right-of-way and did not account for right-of-way dedication. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Staff Report A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: A one-story, brick and frame, single family residence has recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned property located at 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road. The home was built with a front yard setback of 15± feet and has been built across a 35 foot platted building line. The Code requires a 25 foot front yard setback in the R-2 district. Variances are requested to accommodate the existing residence. May �2, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) The hardship presented for the variances is obvious in that the only other option is to remove a portion of the residence. This .75 acre lot was platted in 1998 when an 11.76 acre tract was subdivided into 2 lots. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified by the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial street and a 20 foot right-of-way dedication was required to bring the right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline. Section 31-256(2) requires residential lots fronting on a minor arterial street to have a building line of not less than 35 feet from the right-of-way line. The preliminary plat and the final plat for this lot were approved with the appropriate right-of-way and building line. Subsequently, a building permit was applied for to construct a single family residence on the lot. The survey submitted for the building permit was prepared by a different firm than that one which prepared the plat. Unbeknownst to all parties, the survey submitted for the building permit measured all setbacks and the 35 foot building line from the old right-of-way and did not take into account the additional 20 feet of right-of-way dedication. All clearances, permits and inspections were made based on the erroneous survey. The error was not discovered until after the house was constructed and an as - built survey was prepared. Fortunately, only a relatively small portion of the house is built across the platted building line. The home's garage is located behind the building line and is side -loaded, so that vehicles do not back directly out of the structure into the right-of-way. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, and building line variances subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 2000) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had not completed the 2 May ,�2, 2000 Item No.: 4 (Cont.) 11 required notices and had requested that the item be deferred to the June 26, 2000 meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 26, 2000 meeting. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 0 f WE VA SO 1-i ka W Q Z J I i u 't F- 9 H O � Q 0 0 a°�U)0J LL Z d 0] § z f - O � < Q U � Q O 0 W U J W z C Q 0 W O J Q z Q U U f WE VA SO 1-i ka W Q Z J I i 't F- O H O � Q 0 0 a°�U)0J LL Z d 0] § z U f WE VA SO 1-i ka W Q Z J I May 22, 2000 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:23 p.m. Date : 2(�J',, . o u Chairm