HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Action Letter 070220 Approved as FiledEtCity of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
Henry Rice
1118 N. Monroe Street
Little Rock AR 72205
Date: July 06, 2020
Dear Mr. Rice:
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
Re: Case No. Z-9519 _
Location: 118 N. Monroe Street
Issue: Setback Variance
This is to advise you that in connection with your application case no. Z-9519, the following action was taken
by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting on July 02, 2020.
(a)
X
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Approved the application as filed.
Approved the application with conditions.
Denied the application.
Deferred the application to the meeting.
Withdrew the application.
See attached Board of Adjustment minute record for conditions.
Other:
If a variance application is approved by the Board of Adjustment, all permits necessary for the
initiation of work shall be obtained within two (2) years from the date of approval, unless an extension of time
is granted by the Board. Otherwise, the Board approval of the application shall be considered void.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-70:
"Appeals from the decision of the Board of Adjustment shall be filed with the appropriate court of
jurisdiction. This filing must occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by the Board of
Adjustment."
If you have any questions, please call me at 371-4792.
Sincerely,
Tim Herndon, Development Manager
Department of Planning and Development
MM/vh
JULY 2, 2020
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-95 1
File No.: Z-9519
Owner: Henry Rice
Applicant: Henry Rice
Address: 118 N. Monroe Street
Legal Description: S. 50' of the N. 100' of Block 5, Howard Adam's Addition
Zoned: R-3
Present Use: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use: Single Family Residential
Variance Requested: Variance request from area regulations of Section 36-
255(d)(1) to allow reduced single-family residential front yard
setback in an R-3 district from 25 feet to 15.41 feet.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in attached letter dated
May 4, 2020.
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering lssues:
No Comments-
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property located at 118 N. Monroe Street is occupied by an east
facing one-story, predominantly vinyl clad single-family residence. A single car
width concrete driveway exists along the north lot boundary; the driveway extends
from the street to an existing framed storage building situated near the rear of the
property.
This single-family zoning district features 25-foot front and rear yards with primarily 5-
foot side yards.
The applicant proposes to renovate the front fagade by replacing existing vinyl siding
and fireplace with wood and stone veneer, and by constructing a nine (9) foot deep by
17-foot wide bungalow -style front porch with pediment, roof and support columns.
The proposed covered porch will be open on three sides and only slightly elevated
above surrounding grades.
JULY 2, 2020
ITEM NO.: 5 (CON'T.
19
Section 36-255(d)(1) states, "There shall be a front yard setback having a depth of
not less than twenty-five (25) feet." The pre-existing home is constructed 24.41 feet
from the front lot line, therefore the nine (9) foot deep porch is proposed to extend
9.59 feet into the front yard, leaving 15.41 feet of front yard unencumbered. Across
the street, 115 and 117 Monroe St. homes measure between 15 and 20 feet
from their front property lines, as do numerous homes in this, the Midtown Design
Overlay District.
Staff views the request as reasonable, an improvement to existing conditions,
compatible with nearby residences and the neighborhood as a whole, and is therefore
supportive of the requested reduced front yard setback for the reasons previously
stated in this report.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the reduced front setback line variance as submitted.
Board of Adjustment
(July 02, 2020)
The applicant was present. There were no persons registered in support or opposition.
Staff presented the item and recommendation of approval as outlined in the "staff
recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff, including all staff comments
and conditions. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The application was
approved.
E