HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-9310 Staff AnalysisMARCH 26, 2018
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-9310
Owner: Stephen D. Bryant
Applicant: Joe White, White-Daters and Associates
Address: 3816 Patrick Henry Drive
Description: Lot 16, American Manor Addition
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the fence provisions of Section
36-516 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow
a fence with increased height and an accessory structure
which encroaches into a utility easement.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
C
No Comments
Utility Issues:
AT&T: AT&T has no conflict with the placement of the accessory structure.
Centerpoint Energy: No conflict with placement of accessory structure.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection to easement encroachment.
Entergy: Entergy will allow the shed to remain in the easement since it does not
block access to the pole, nor does it cause a code violation at its current
height.
Little Rock Water Reclamation Authority: No objection to easement encroachment.
Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 3816 Patrick Henry Drive is occupied by a one-
story brick and frame single family residence. The property is located on the north
side of Patrick Henry Drive, east of Ithica Drive. A concrete driveway at the
MARCH 26, 2018
ITEM NO.: 7 ICON'T.
Z-93
southeast corner of the lot serves as access to the property. The lot contains a five
(5) foot wide utility easement along the west side property line and a 10 foot wide
utility easement along the rear (north) property line. The property is owned by
Stephen D. Bryant. Joe White is the authorized applicant.
The property resident, Jose Reyen, recently constructed a 16 foot by 16 foot
accessory storage building within the rear yard area, as noted on the attached site
plan. The accessory structure is located 10 feet back from the east side property
line and- 6.7 feet to 7.3 feet back from the rear (north) property line. The accessory
structure extends into the rear easement by 2.7 to 3.3 feet. The accessory structure
occupies 17 percent of the required rear yard area (rear 25 feet of the lot). The
property resident also recently constructed an eight (8) foot high wood fence
enclosing the rear yard area, also noted on the attached site plan.
Section 36-11(f) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that utility easement
encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-
516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for interior fences in
residential zoning. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these
ordinance standards to allow the accessory structure to encroach into the rear 10
foot utility easement, and the eight (8) foot high wood fence which encloses the rear
yard area.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff views the request as
reasonable. All of the public utility companies have approved the easement
encroachment for the accessory structure. The accessory structure complies with
all other setback and coverage requirements. Additionally, there are other
accessory structures on the lots to the east and west which encroach into the rear
utility easement. With respect to the proposed eight (8) foot high fence, the applicant
is requesting the additional fence height to provide additional privacy for the rear
yard area. Eight (8) foot high fences have become increasingly popular in single
family areas throughout Little Rock. Staff believes the existing accessory structure
which encroaches into the rear utility easement and the eight (8) foot high fence will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested easement and fence variances, as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (March 26, 2018)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion.
The application was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended
by staff. The Consent Agenda passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1
recusal (Allison). The application was approved
2