boa_07 30 2012LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JULY 30,2012
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5)in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the June 25,2012 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III.Members Present:Jeff Yates,Chairman
Scott Smith,Vice Chairman
Rajesh Mehta
Robert Winchester
Brad Wingfield
Members Absent:None
City Attorney Present:Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JULY 30,2012
2:00 P.M.
I.OLD BUSINESS:
A.Z-8674-A 207 W.3'treet
B.Z-8776 12 Palamino Court
II.NEW BUSINESS:
1.Z-4175-H 2901 Aldersgate Road
2.Z-7069-B 8500 W.Markham Street
3.Z-8056-A 1709 John Barrow Road
4.Z-8364-B 10914 Kanis Road
5.Z-8783 5700 N.Country Club Blvd.
6.Z-8784 1921 Country Club Lane
7.Z-8785 7 Ken Circle
8.Z-8786 1904 Shadow Lane
9.Z-8789 1 Allied Drive
10.Z-8790 6101 Lindsey Road
11.Z-8791 12 Bluestem Cove
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:A
File No.:Z-8674-A
Owner:207 West 3'evelopment LLC
Applicant:Ben Cox
Address:207 W.3"Street
Description:South side of W.3"Street,between Center and Louisiana Streets
Zoned:UU
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the development provisions of
Section 36-342.1 to allow the planting of street trees in above ground planters along all
street frontages.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Parking Lot
Proposed Use of Property:Parking Lot
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
1.A 3 foot wide space must remain unobstructed to comply with ADA
requirements.
2.Tree planters shall not be within 2 feet from back of curb.
3.A franchise permit is required for tree planters in the right-of-way.
Contact Bennie Nicolo at 501-371-4818 for permit.
B.Landscape and Buffer Comments by:
Christ Marvel Plans Develo ment Administrator
1.All the prior variances proposed the addition of the street trees per the UU
District Standards.These UU district standards are created to specify
standards for the safe addition of landscaping within Urban (high pedestrian
areas).This particular site is in an Urban environment and thus highly
pedestrian.
2.The City of Little Rocks Urban Forester has given feedback noting the
unlikelihood of tree survival in a planter.He highly discourages their use and
once located within the public right-of-way the trees become his to care for,
maintain,and remove when they become hazards to the public.Mr.Robbie
Hudson,Urban Forester for the City of I ittle Rock recommends denial,
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:A CON'T.
3.The UU district standards have been lined out with perimeters and I feel the
standards need to be followed.In my professional opinion,trees will not
survive in a planter located within such a hot,urban,metropolitan area.The
trees would certainly not thrive in such a contained area.The planters also
don't allow for proper drainage nor containment;making the plant saturate and
ultimately die.The tree wells allow more soil,space,i.e.growing area for the
trees root systems;thus the trees are more stable;less likely to fall.Tree wells
also allow for more nutrients,water retention and water percolation.
4.The planters are also a pedestrian hazard.The requirement for the trees being
put into the sidewalks,flush with the sidewalk,is due to the trip hazards
associated with additional objects being located on city sidewalks.They also
take up much more space,create an obstacle on the sidewalk,and become a
safety issue in addition to the other issues denoted above.I recommend denial
of the application.
5.It would also set precedent for other objects/obstructions within our public
rights-of-way.
C.
~Staff
Ana sis:
The UU zoned property at 207 W.3"Street contains a newly constructed surface
parking lot.The property is located on the south side of W.3"Street,between
Center and Louisiana Streets.The parking area on the east side of the alley serves
The Hatcher Agency and the lot west of the alley is used by Vratsinas Construction
Company.On July 25,2011,the Board of Adjustment granted several variances
for the new parking lot.The variances were from the development provisions of
Section 36-342.1,the parking provisions of Section 36-511 and the buffer
provisions of Section 36-522.
Section 36-342.1(c )(5)b.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires street trees in the
UU zoning district as follows:
b.Street trees a minimum of three-inch caliper shall be required (type of
trees as listed in landscape ordinance [chapter 15j).The trees shall be
located a minimum of two (2)feet off the back of a curb and shall be
thirty (30)feet on center and no closer than thirty (30)feet to a street
intersection with a water source provided.The tree canopy shall be
maintained at least eight (8)feet above the sidewalk.
On July 25,2011,the Board approved a variance to allow a reduced number of
street trees to be planted due to existing utility lines.One (1)tree at the northeast
corner of the lot west of the alley,and two (2)trees at the southwest corner of this
lot were approved to be eliminated.Otherwise,all of the other required street trees
were shown on the approved site plan.
The applicant is now back before the Board of Adjustment requesting another
variance with respect to the street trees.The applicant is proposing to plant the
required street trees in above ground planters rather than the in-ground tree wells
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NQ.:A CON'T
as required.The applicant proposes to construct 36-inch diameter concrete
planters on the sidewalk at the required street tree locations.The planters will be
36 inches in height.The applicant notes that the variety of tree for each planter will
be an approved variety by the City.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a
variance from Section 36-342.1(c )(5)to allow above ground planters rather than
the required in-ground tree wells.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance.As noted in paragraph B.of the
staff report,Robbie Hudson (City of Little Rock Urban Forester)nor Christy Marvel
(Plans Development Administrator)believe trees will survive in above-ground
planters as proposed by the applicant.The above-ground planters will not provide
an environment suitable for street trees as required by the ordinance,As such,
staff believes the applicant should construct the in-ground tree wells as required.
D.Staff
Recommendation'taff
recommends denial of the variance to allow above-ground planters for street
trees at 207 W.3"~Street.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(April 30,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on April 26,2012
requesting this application be deferred to the May 21,2012 agenda,so that additional
information could be submitted to staff and the Board.Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the May 21,2012 agenda
with a vote of 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(May 21,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a letter on May 16,2012
requesting this application be deferred to the June 25,2012 agenda,so that additional
information could be submitted to staff and the Board.Staff supported the deferral
request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 25,2012 agenda
with a vote of 4 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:A CON'T.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the July 30,2012
agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to send the required notifications to
surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 30,2012 agenda
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
Haitham Alley was present,representing the application.Staff noted that the applicant
needed to give an update to the Board as to the status of the application.Staff noted
that the applicant had indicated a need to have the application deferred.
Haitham Alley addressed the Board.He explained that AT&T,Centerpoint Energy and
Entergy had utility lines in the area where the street trees are required.He noted that
he was in the process of obtaining a price to relocate the utilities.He indicated that the
relocation was going to be very expensive.He asked for additional time to obtain
information for the Board.
Chairman Yates asked that Mr.Alley provide an alternate plan for planting the trees.
The issue was briefly discussed.
Chairman Yates noted that the plan needed to be submitted to staff within two (2)
weeks.Mr.Alley indicated that it would be submitted,
There was a motion to defer the application to the August 27,2012 agenda.The motion
passed with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.The application was deferred.
~-g(7 g-r-'I
207 West 3"Development LLC
City of little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR
Telephone:501-371-4790
Property Address:
207 West
3'ittleRock Ar 72201
To whom it may concern,
207 West 3'evelopment LLC is requesting a variance to put 11 Willow Oak trees
called out in the attached site plan in the green space in lieu ofgutting them in the steel
grates in the sidewalk areas.In lieu of this change 207 west 3'ill install 11 planters on
the sidewalk with an approved tree by the City of Little Rock in each planter.The
concrete planters (36"Dia x 36"H)will be above ground in locations based on the plan
approved by the board of adjustment.We are providing more than the original plans
show.
The reason for the change is the Lot west of us was not required to install trees in the
sidewalk;this will also create a trip hazard since this is a major intersection with the
school being across the street.Last but not least there are utilities below ground in the
proposed sidewalk.The utilities would have to be relocated if the tree grates were to be
installed at the locations noted on approved plans.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me 501-658-5796
Sincerely,
/
aitham Alley
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO '
File No.:Z-8776
Owner/Applicant:James Rhodes
Address:12 Palamino Court
Description:Lot 45,Phase 2-B,Perry Place Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a building addition with a reduced rear setback.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.~fftaff Anal eie:
The R-2 zoned property at 12 Palamino Court is occupied by a one-story brick and
frame single family residence,with living space on a second level within the roof
line.There is a one-car wide driveway from Palamino Court which serves as
access.A detached garage is located on the north side of the residence.The lot
contains a 25 foot front platted building line.
The applicant recently removed an 18 foot by 22 foot wood deck from the rear of
the residence,and began site work (footings)for a one-story addition,as noted on
the attached site plan.The proposed addition will occupy the same 18 foot by 22
foot footprint as the deck.The proposed addition will be located 10 feet to 16 feet
back from the rear (east)property line.It will not encroach into the 10 foot wide
utility easement which runs along the rear property line.The addition will be well
over 20 feet back from the south side property line and 65 feet from the north side
property line.
Section 36-254(d)(3)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear
setback of 25 feet for principal structures in R-2 zoning.Therefore,the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the room addition with a reduced rear setback.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:B CON'T.
Staff is supportive of the requested rear setback variance.Staff views the request
as reasonable.The single family lot in question has an irregular shape and a
relatively shallow depth of 79 feet along the south side property line.The typical
single family lot ranges in depth from 100 to 150 feet.The existing lot depth
greatly reduces the buildable area from front to back.Additionally,the proposed
addition will occupy the same footprint as a deck which was recently removed from
the rear of the residence.The residence immediately to the south has a small deck
which encroaches into the required rear setback.Staff believes the proposed
building addition with reduced rear setback will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.Ample separation will exist between the
proposed building addition and the residences to the east.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance,subject to the
following conditions:
1.A building permit must be obtained for the construction.
2.The addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
3.The addition is limited to one (1)story in height.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(June 25,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the July 30,2012
agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to send the required notifications to
surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 30,2012 agenda
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the August 27,
2012 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to send the required
notifications to surrounding property owners.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 27,2012
agenda with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
;g.mm
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;I'M z-s'77 L'-
PROPOSING TO ADD A MASTER
BEDROOM TO MY 3BEDROOM FAMILY
HOME.I'M A DISABLE VETERAN FROIVI
THE IRAQ,AFGANISTAN WAR AND MY
MASTER BEDROOM KNOW IS ON THE
SECOND FLOOR AND I'M HAVING
PROBLEM CLIMBIIVIG THE STAIRS THIS
WHY I WANT TO ADD A ROOM DOWN
ON THE FIRST FLOOR.THANK JAMES
RHODES
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO '
File No.:Z-4175-H
Owner:ERC Foundation,Inc.
Applicant:Terry Burruss
Address:2901 Aldersgate Road
Description:East side of Aldersgate Road,south of W.24rff Street
Zoned:MF-12/MF-18
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-552
to allow a ground mounted sign with increased height and area and reduced setback from
property line.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Elderly Housing Development
Proposed Use of Property:Elderly Housing Development
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.~fftaff Anal cia:
The MF-12/MF-18 zoned property at 2901 Aldersgate Road is occupied by a new
multi-building development for elderly housing (Cottages of Good Shepherd).The
development consists of 18 buildings on 20 acres,with a total of 104 living units,
Each building contains between four (4)and 10 living units.Portions of the project
are in the final stages of construction.One (1)access drive from Aldersgate Road
serves the project.
As part of the project,the applicant proposes to install a ground-mounted sign
along the south side of the access drive from Aldersgate Road.The proposed sign
will be approximately 10 feet in height,with an area of approximately 108 square
feet,as shown on the attached sketch plan.The sign area will be made up of
approximately 68 square feet of sign copy and 40 square feet of sign base.The
sign will be located slightly over two (2)feet from the property line along Aldersgate
Road,and about two (2)feet below the grade of the roadway.The applicant is
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.'CON'T
placing the sign closer to the property line because of the location of a water line
near the rear (east)edge of the sign base.
Sections 36-552(a)and (b)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows one (1)ground
sign per apartment/condominium complex with a maximum sign area of 24 square
feet and a maximum sign height of six (6)feet,with a minimum setback from
property lines of five (5)feet.Therefore,the applicant is requesting variances from
these ordinance standards for the proposed sign.
Staff supports the requested sign variances.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The proposed sign will serve a 20 acre elderly housing project with
one (1)access point from Aldersgate Road.The larger sign will help with
identifying the property to visitors and emergency responders,as the overall
property is deep from west to east with not a great deal of street frontage along
Aldersgate Road.The reduced setback from the Aldersgate Road property line is
due to a water line which is located 10 feet back from the front property line.The
front edge of the sign will be located approximately 13.5 feet back from the edge of
pavement of Aldersgate Road.Staff believes the sign as proposed will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances,subject to a permit
being obtained for the proposed sign.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
6 14 CENTER ST.
LITTLE ROCK,AR 72201 +/501-376-3676 FAX 376-3766 /
2-W/7&-0
design,planning andinleriors
June 26,2012
Mr.Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Department of Planning &Development
City of Little Rock
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
RE:Cottages of Good Shepherd
Sign Variance
2901 Aldersgate Road
Little Rock,Arkansas
A/E ¹1108/1109
Dear Mr.Moore:
Attached please find 6 copies of the Site Plan and the Signage Drawings on the above
referenced project.The subject project is a 104 unit cottage development for the elderly
located on acres with one main entry drive.Unfortunately,due to miscommunication,we did
not realize that a large sign was not approved during site plan review process.We are
requesting permission to install an 86.6 square foot sign.The sign is single sided with project
name and address and measures 10'ide x 8'8"tall.Because of the misplacement of a new
water main,we are also requesting to move the sign closer to the property line in order to miss
the utility easement.
We appreciate your consideration on this request.If there are any questions or additional
information is needed,please call.We can also be reached by email at
tbadesignplanning@sbcglobal.net.
Terry G.Burruss,AIA
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO '
File No.:Z-7069-B
Owner:Arkansas Bolt Company
Applicant:Melanic Gibson,Colliers International
Address:8500 W.Markham Street
Description:North side of W.Markham Street,approximately 300 feet west of
Rodney Parham Road
Zoned:0-3
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553
to allow additions to two (2)existing ground signs with increased area.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Office
Proposed Use of Property:Office
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
The proposed sign addition along Rodney Parham Road restricts sight distance for
cars pulling out of the driveway onto Rodney Parham Road.The new proposed
sign addition shall be moved back at least one foot off of Rodney Parham Road
from the proposed location.If you have any questions,contact the City's traffic
Engineer,Nat Banihatti at 379-1818.
B.~Btaff anal sis:
A multi-story office building and associated paved parking areas are located on the
0-3 zoned property at 8500 West Markham Street.The property has two (2)street
frontages,West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road.There is one (1)
existing ground-mounted sign along each street frontage.On July 30,2001,the
Board of Adjustment approved variances for both of the existing ground-mounted
signs for Simmons Bank.The sign along West Markham Street was approved with
a maximum height of 17.5 feet and a maximum area of approximately 70 square
feet.The sign along Rodney Parham Road was approved for a maximum height of
16 feet and area of 64 square feet.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:2 CON'T.
The applicant proposes to add a four (4)foot by eight (8)foot (32 square feet)
panel to each of the existing ground signs.The additional panel will be located
below the time/temperature box on the W.Markham Street sign and below the
smaller Simmons Bank panel along the Rodney Parham Road frontage.The new
panels will allow signage for tenants within the office building.The additional
signage will bring the sign area to 102 square feet for the sign along W.Markham
Street and 96 square feet for the Rodney Parham Road sign.
Section 36-553(a)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign height
of six (6)feet and a maximum sign area of 64 square feet for ground signs in the
office zones.One (1)sign is allowed per street frontage.Therefore,the applicant
is requesting a variance to allow the additional sign area for both existing ground
signs.The overall sign heights will not change and were previously approved by
the Board.
Staff is supportive of the requested sign variance.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The property is located along two major arterial roadways.The
adjacent property to the east is zoned C-3.C-3 zoning is also located across
Rodney Parham Road to the east and across W.Markham Street to the south.
There are numerous larger commercial ground signs in this general area,as well
as a billboard directly across W.Markham Street.Therefore,the proposed sign
areas will not be out of character with the area.Staff believes the proposed
additional sign area will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.As noted in paragraph A.of the staff report,Public Works is
requiring that the new sign panel on the Rodney Parharn Road sign be moved
back one (1)foot (from the roadway)from its proposed location on the existing sign
pole.This is to prevent any sight distance issues.Staffs recommendation of
approval is contingent upon compliance with this requirement.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance,subject to the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with the Public Works comment as noted in paragraph A.of
the staff report.
2.Sign permits must be obtained for the sign alterations.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Melanic Gibson,CCIM,CPM i.'.Shackleford,Suite 400 smm 501.221.0555
Little Rock,AR 72211 501.224.4539
Z-
June 26,2012 Z-7~i i-8
Mr.Monte Moore
Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 W.Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
Dear Monte:
The ownership of Markham West Plaza,8500 West Markham,would like to add
four (4)tenant identification panels to the existing Simmons Bank signs located on
West Markham and on Rodney Parham.The total size of the additional panel will
be 48"x 96"located below the time and temperature box on West Markham,as
shown on the attached drawing,and below the smaller Simmons First panel on
Rodney Parham.We are requesting the panels be the same size as what is currently
there.
Tenants in the building have requested the signage so that clients have an easier
time finding them.Many buildings along West Markham have tenant identification
signage,and we would like to have the signage for our tenants,too.
The existing bank signs are set back from the streets and the new panels should not
cause visibility problems for drivers.
Feel free to call me with any questions.We appreciate your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Melanic Gibson,CCIM,CPM
Colbers Arkansas,Inc,sn Arkansas corporaton,and certain of ils subsiCienes,is an independently owned end operated
buensss and a member firm of colkers International property consuesnls,an affiliation cf independent companies vnih over 460
offices throughout mors than 61 countries worldmde.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:3
File No.:Z-8056-A
Owner:Second Baptist Church
Applicant:Thomas R.Pownall
Address:1709 John Barrow Road
Description:East side of John Barrow Road,south of Kanis Road
Zoned:R-2 and 0-3
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-
507 to allow a church facility with more than twenty-five (25)percent of the parking
requirement off-site and off-site parking more than three hundred (300)feet from the
building it is to serve.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Church Campus
Proposed Use of Property:Church Campus with new Auditorium
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
1.The site is currently requesting a variance from the Land Alteration
Regulations along the north and east sides of the site to exceed the
minimum slope requirement.
2.Storm water detention is required at time of building permit.
B.~Staff Anal ala:
The R-2/0-3 zoned property at 1709 John Barrow Road is occupied by the Second
Baptist Church campus.A large church building is located on the R-2 zoned
property,the south half of the campus.Paved parking is located on the east and
west sides of the building.Paved parking is also located within the west half of the
0-3 zoned property,the north half of the development.Access drives from John
Barrow Road serve the site.The church also has an off-site paved parking lot at
the southeast corner of John Barrow Road and Labette Drive,approximately 250
feet from the existing church building.
The church is proposing to construct a new auditorium building within the east half
of the 0-3 portion of the campus,as noted on the attached site plan.The new
auditorium will have a seating capacity of 2,200.There are currently 317 on-site
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:3 CON'T.
parking spaces within the church campus.The new construction project will add
56 more on-site parking spaces,for a total of 373 on-site spaces.The off-site
parking lot at the southeast corner of John Barrow Road and Labette Drive
contains 68 parking spaces.The applicant has a written agreement with Pulaski
Technical College to use their parking lot along the south side of Kanis
Commercial Drive to the northwest.This lot contains 157 parking spaces.The
new church auditorium building will be located approximately 550 feet from the
Pulaski Technical College parking lot and approximately 600 feet from the off-site
parking lot along I abette Drive.
Section 36-502(b)(2)d.of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires 550 on-site parking
spaces for the proposed church auditorium.Section 36-507(a)allows for up to 25
percent of the total parking requirement to be located off-site,but within 300 feet of
the building the off-site parking is to serve.Therefore,the applicant is requesting
variances from Section 36-507 to allow 32 percent of the on-site parking
requirement to be located off-site,and for the off-site parking to be located more
than 300 feet from the proposed auditorium building.
Staff is supportive of the requested parking variance.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The church will be providing 598 total parking spaces for the new
auditorium use.The church has utilized the off-site parking along Labette Drive for
a number of years.Although the off-site parking areas are located more than 300
feet from the proposed auditorium building,they are only approximately 200 to 250
feet from the property boundary of the overall church campus.Staff feels that the
proposed parking arrangement will be adequate to serve the church campus,as
long as the parking agreement is maintained with Pulaski Technical College.If this
agreement is ever discontinued,the church will need to come back before the
Board of Adjustment with an alternate proposal.There are other satellite parking
options within this general area,Staff believes the proposed parking arrangement,
with slightly increased off-site parking,will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variances,subject to the off-
site parking agreement with Pulaski Technical College being maintained.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
THOMAS ENGINEERING COMPANY
,."::--',-'(yilrehg'ih'EEET'7-,7 Iahd SUfVefQfS
3810 LOOKOUT RD NORTH LITTLE ROCK,AR 72116 (501l 753-4463 FAX f501)753-6814
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
June 25,2012 —i
Board of Adjustment 3-T 4~3
c/0 Mr.Dana Carney
City of Little Rock Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
Re:New Auditorium for Second Baptist Church-John Barrow Road
Parking Variance Request
Dear Mr.Carney:
Please accept this letter to serve as our application for a Parking Variance Request for the above mentioned
project,We wish to be placed on the July 30th,2012 Board of Adjustment agenda.
The new church auditorium shown on the Site Plan will require 550 parking spaces.The campus currently has 385
spaces and will create 56 additional on-site spaces with the auditorium development.As propsed,the total on-site
parking will be 441 spaces (109 spaces short of the required 550).
Pulaski Technical College has agreed to allow Second Baptist Church to use its parking lot located at 8901 Kanis
Road as an off-site parking option.The Church has been using this lot for several years and is already experienced
with the traffic control associated with the off-site parking.The lot contains 157 spaces.A letter of agreement is
included with this submittal.
The topography of the site limits the amount of area for new parking development,therefore Second Baptist
Church would like to request a variance to allow for the off-site parking as described above.
Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
/
Thomas R.Pownall,P.E.
Project Engineer
Encl.
sk PDLASKI
Dedicated to your success
www.pulaskitech edu l
June 25,2012
Dr.Kevin A.Kelly,Pastor
Second Baptist Church
1709 John Barrow Road
Little Rock,AR 72204
Dear Dr.Kelly:
I am writing in response to your rcqucst dated June 6,2012,to utilize campus parking at
Pulaski Technical College's Little Rock-West location at 8901 Kanis Road,Little Rock,
to serve as an off-site parking option for your church.
You are welcome to use the parking lot as needed and available to accommodate large
events during times in which the college is closed;however,the college assumes no
liability for vehicles parking or traveling on college property,nor shall it be held
responsible for the loss of goods or property from vehicles parked on college property.
In addition,the college provides only limited maintenance to college parking lots during
periods of inclement weather.Persons using the college parking lots do so at their own
risk.The college will not be responsible for any liability or damage claims arising from
weather or other natural disaster-related causes or conditions.
The college reserves the right to revoke this offer in the event that the space is needed for
student parking and/or college activities,
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need additional information.
Best wishes for continued success in your endeavors.
Carol Langston
8ooo West Scenic Drive North Little Rock,AR 7ans Phone Sow8ta-aaoo Fax Sot-77t-aspic
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:4
File No.:Z-8364-B
Owner:Yogiji,Inc.
Applicant:Raju Vyas
Address:10914 Kanis Road
Description:North side of Kanis Road,west of Shackleford Road
Zoned;C-3
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the height provisions of Section 36-
301 to allow construction of a hotel building with increased height.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Undeveloped
Proposed Use of Property:Hotel
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
1.Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to this street including
5-foot sidewalk.
3.Storm water detention applies to this property at time of building permit.
4.A 30 foot access easement shall be provided from the west property line
at time of platting.
5.Applicant is responsible for the construction of half of a commercial street
within the 30 foot access easement with sidewalk.At least 20 feet from
back of curb to edge of asphalt must be provided.
B.Landsca e and Buffer Issues:
Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
All previous comments apply.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:4 CON'T.
The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8%of the paved areas be
landscaped with interior islands of a least 7 N feet in width and 150 square feet in
area.These islands must be evenly distributed throughout the site.
A controlled automatic irrigation system is required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as
feasible on this site.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements
can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
A sidewalk is being proposed along the northern perimeter of the site that
encroaches into the required landscape and buffer strip;remove the sidewalk out
of the nine foot wide (9')landscape strip.It appears the parking can easily be
shifted to accommodate this sidewalk.
C.~Staff Anal ala:
The C-3 zoned property at 10914 Kanis Road contains a vacant single family
residential structure within the south half of the property.The property is located
on the north side of Kanis Road,approximately 400 feet west of Shackleford Road.
A gravel driveway from Kanis Road serves as access to the property.There is a
vacant metal garage structure located on the north side of the residential structure.
Gravel parking is located in the rear yard area.The majority of the property is
undeveloped and wooded.There is a narrow paved (no curb and gutter)roadway
along the west property boundary which ends near the northwest corner of the
property.The property slopes downward from front to back (south to north).The
property is at a lower level than most of the surrounding properties.
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property and construct a new hotel
facility,as noted on the attached site plan.The proposed hotel building will be
located within the west half of the property,with parking on its east and south
sides.A driveway at the southwest corner of the property will serve as access to
the site.The hotel will consist of 76,083 square feet of building area on five (5)
floors.It will contain 132 guest rooms.
On May 24,2010,the Board of Adjustment approved a height variance for this
project.A building height of approximately 52 feet (4 floors)was approved.The
applicant has since obtained a building permit for the hotel project.
The applicant is back before the Board to request an amendment to the previously
approved building height variance.The applicant has determined that an
additional floor is needed for the proposed hotel building,Therefore,a five (5)
story hotel development is proposed.The overall height of the hotel building is
now proposed at approximately 61 feet (as measured from the lowest finished
floor to the main level between the eaves and ridge of he sloped roof).
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO 4 CON'T.
Section 36-301(d)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum building
height of 35 feet for C-3 zoning.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a variance
to allow the hotel building with an increased height of 61 feet.
Upon review of the project,staff observed two (2)minor revisions which need to be
made to the site plan.The proposed hotel use will require 145 parking spaces.
The plan shows 141 spaces.There is ample area within the south portion of the
property to add spaces.Also,a portion of a sidewalk is located within the
landscape buffer along the north property line.The sidewalk needs to be removed
from the buffer area.The applicant has been advised of the revisions and has
indicated that they will be addressed.
Staff is supportive of the requested building height variance.Staff views the
request as reasonable.The proposed building height for the hotel structure will not
be out of character with other sites in this general area along the Shackleford Road
corridor,from Financial Centre Parkway south to Interstate 430.There are
numerous buildings within this general area with heights of four (4)and five (5)
stories or greater.The property immediately to the north is zoned 0-3,with
building heights allowed up to 60 feet.The undeveloped property immediately to
the west is zoned C-2 and allows building heights up to 45 feet.Additionally,as
noted previously,the project basically sits at a lower elevation than most of the
surrounding properties,especially to the east and south.Staff believes the
proposed hotel building will be compatible with other existing buildings in this
general area,and that the overall hotel development will have no adverse impact
on the adjacent properties or the general area.
D.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building height variance,subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the Public Works condition as noted in paragraph A.of
the staff report.
2.Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer comments as noted in
paragraph B.of the staff report,including removal of the sidewalk from the
landscape buffer along the north property line.
3.A total of 145 parking spaces must be provided to serve the proposed
hotel.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
Raju Vyas was present,representing the application.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T.
Raju Vyas addressed the Board in support of the application.He explained that the
property is 10 to 12 feet lower in elevation than the surrounding properties,He noted
that retaining walls would be constructed as part of the development.
Vice-Chairman Smith asked what has changed about the property since the previous
approval for height variance.Mr.Vyas explained that the lower elevation of the property
created the decision to add another building level.
Vice-Chairman Smith asked what zonings allowed the proposed building height.Staff
noted that UU and 0-2 zoning allowed building heights of over 60 feet.The issue was
briefly discussed.
Vice-Chairman Smith asked about changing the ordinance to allow greater building
heights in C-3 zoning.Dana Carney,of the Planning staff,explained that every issue
before the Board is unique and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.He explained the
process for determining when an application goes to the Board of Adjustment or
Planning Commission.The issue was discussed further.Vice-Chairman Smith noted
that he did not support the application.
Brad Wingfield explained that the increased height as proposed was questionable.
Chairman Yates discussed the site's topography.Mr.Vyas noted that the lower areas
of the site would be raised by only two (2)to three (3)feet.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff.The motion
failed by a vote of 2 ayes,2 nays,0 absent and 1 abstention (Mehta).There was a brief
discussion related to the status of the application.Debra Weldon,City Attorney,noted
that the application was denied based on the Board's procedures.
z-res&-8
Raju Vyas
14 Caddo Court
Maumelle,AR 72113
June 25,2012
City of Little Rock
Planning and DevelopMent
723 West Markham St.1"Floor
Little Rock,AR 72201
Re:Height Variance for Proposed Hilton Garden inn at 10914 Kanis Road
To whom it may concern;
This letter is a request for a height variance for the proposed Hilton Garden Inn hotel in West Little Rock,
AR.The proposed building is on the comer of Kanis Road and Shacklsford Road and located in a C-3
construction zone.The height limitation for a C-3 zone building is 36ft.The proposed hotel,however,will
be a five story structure with a height of 61ft.Therefore,we are requesting for a variance of 25ft.
The variance is being requested for two reasons.The first reason is the topography of the land that the
proposed hotel will be located on.There are several low lying areas on the land that will need to be filled
before the hotel can be built.Therefore,the lowest possible height for this building will be 61ft
The second reason that a variance is being requested is that there are several buildings and other hotels
within the 2 mile radius of the proposed hotel that are much taller than the proposed Hilton Garden Inn.
For example,The Hampton Inn and Suites is less than 0.5 miles away from the proposed hotel and is a 5
story building.AddNonally,the Embassy Suites is 1 mile away from the proposed Hilton Garden Inn and
is a 9 story building.Therefore,we feel that the proposed hotel will not have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental condigons in this district.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best R s,
iu yas (501-269-8999 celky)
President,Yogiji Inc.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:5
File No.:Z-8783
Owner:Lee Holt
Applicant:Jacob White
Address:5700 N.Country Club Blvd.
Description:Lot 57,Forest Heights Place Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow a carport addition,room
addition and reconstruction of damaged portion of house with reduced front and side
setbacks and which crosses a front platted building line.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
S.~Staff Anal sls:
The R-2 zoned property at 5700 N.Country Club Blvd.is occupied by a one-story
rock and frame single family residence.The property is located at the northwest
corner of Country Club Blvd.and Forest Heights Drive.There is a two-car wide
driveway from Forest Heights Drive which serves as access.The northeast portion
of the house was recently removed due to storm damage from a fallen tree.The
lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct the portion of the residence which was
damaged and extend the addition slightly larger into the rear yard area,as noted
on the attached site plan.The applicant also proposes to construct a new
carport/porch area on the front corner of the residence.The overall addition will
maintain the same five (5)foot side setback as the portion of the house which was
removed.The enclosed portion of the overall addition crosses the front platted
building line by approximately one (1)foot at its northeast corner.The carport
portion of the addition will be located 11 feet to 19 feet back from the front property
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:5 CON'T.
line,crossing the front platted building line by six (6)to 14 feet.The overall
addition will be one (1)story in height.The carport/porch portion will be
unenclosed on its north,south and east sides.
Sections 36-254(d)(1)and (2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
front setback of 25 feet and a minimum side setback of 6.5 feet.Section 31-12(c )
of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be
reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment.Therefore,the applicant is
requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the building addition
with reduced front and side setbacks and which crosses a front platted building
line.
Staff does not support the overall addition as proposed.Staff has no problem with
the variances associated with the enclosed portion of the overall addition.Staff
views the enclosed portion as reasonable,as it will maintain the same side and
front setbacks as the portion of the house which was removed.Staff does not
support the front setback and building line encroachment proposed for the carport
portion of the addition.Staff feels that the proposed front setback is out of
character with this general area.Although minor front encroachments do exist in
this area,staff believes a 14 foot encroachment across the front 25 foot building
line is too much of an encroachment.The proposed carport will encroach too
much into the front yard area of the residence immediately to the north along
Forest Heights Drive.Staff believes this would create an adverse visual impact for
the adjacent property.
If the Board approves the building line variance,the applicant will have to complete
a one-lot replat reflecting the changed in the platted front building line for the
addition.The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk'
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed setback and building line variances,as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had revised the site plan for the proposed
addition.Staff explained that the addition had been pushed back further on the lot,
increasing the proposed front setback for the carport addition.Staff noted that the
southeast corner of the carport addition was located behind the 25 foot front platted
building line,with the northeast corner having a front setback of 18 feet.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T
Staff recommended approval of the requested setback and building line variances as
per the revised site plan,subject to the following conditions:
1.Completion of a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2.The building addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
3.The carport portion of the addition which crosses the front platted building
line must remain unenclosed on its north,south and east sides.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as revised and
recommended by staff with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
June 20,2012
To:Department of Planning and Development
~-CvV
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR
From:Jacob White Construction Company
2400 N.Pierce
Little Rock,AR 72207
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing this letter as a request for a residential zoning variance.I am a home builder
and am representing the homeowner for the lot at 5700 North Country Club Blvd.The
home had a tree fall on part of it,and destroys the North East end of the home.We are in
the process of beginning to demo and rebuild the home.The homeowner is requesting a
front carport area to park under.
The reason we are asking for a variance is that the carport that the family needs will be
over the front 25'etback.This lot has a unique design to it that has up to a 20'ight of
way from the front property line to the street.With the 25'uilding line and the exiting
right of way,the home is 49'rom the street.We are requesting the variance because the
proposed carport will be 32'at the closest point)to the street.This 32'rea is more than
most lots have even with the 25'etback.Allowing this variance will not compromise
the neighborhood.This house will not look out of place with the other homes in the
neighborhood.We realize that a Iront setback variance is not common,but this home on
this lot should be the exception.
I am requesting that a variance be granted to allow the homeowner to have this much
needed covered parking area.Granting this would allow for the homeowner to have
adequate parking as well as be aesthetically pleasing,while not compromising the look of
the neighborhood.This structure will be attached,and will be constructed to fit in with
the neighborhood.
If you have any questions please feel Iree to contact me.My cell phone number is 501-
912-2444.
Thanks,
Jacob White
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:6
File No.:Z-8784
Owner:Mary Elizabeth Barnett
Applicant:Wayne Moore
Address:1921 Country Club Lane
Description:Lot 6,Elmo Walker Replat
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11 to allow a building addition with a
reduced side setback and 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:
1.Provide a grading and drainage plan to show the proposed work.
B.Utilitt lasses:
AT&T —no objection.No facilities within 10 foot easement,
Center oint Ener —no objection.The only facility that may be located in this
easement is the service line that serves this house.If it has to be relocated,
contact utility.Cost of any relocation will be customer's responsibility.
Central Arkansas Water —no objection.No existing or planned facilities within
easement.
~Enter —no objection.No facilities within easement.
Little Rock Wastewater —no objection.No sewer main located within easement.
C.~BtaB Anal sis:
The R-2 zoned property at 1921 Country Club Lane is occupied by a two-story
brick and frame single family residence.There is a two-car wide driveway from
Country Club Lane at the northwest corner of the lot which serves a garage at the
north end of the residence.The property slopes downward from front to back
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO 'CON'T.
(west to east).The rear (east)half of the property is wooded.The lot contains a
20 foot front platted building line and a 10 foot platted building line along the south
side property line.A 10 foot wide utility easement is located along the north side
property line.
The applicant proposes to construct a single level building addition to the northeast
corner of the existing residence,as noted on the attached site plan.The addition
is planned to include a new master bedroom and will be approximately 1,240
square feet in area.The addition will be to the main,street level of the house,and
constructed above grade (stilt-type construction)because of the slope of the
property.The addition will be constructed five (5)feet back from the north side
property line.The addition will extend five (5)feet into the 10 foot wide utility
easement along the north side property line.
Section 36-254(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of eight (8)feet for this R-2 zoned lot.Section 36-11(f)requires that
building encroachments into utility easements be reviewed and approved by the
Board of Adjustment.Therefore,the applicant is requesting variances from these
ordinance standards to allow the room addition with a reduced side setback and
which encroaches into a utility easement.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances.Staff views the request as
reasonable.Staffs main reason for support is that the excessive slope of the
property and location of existing decks seems to dictate the location of the
proposed building addition.Only approximately 200 square feet of the proposed
addition will be located within the utility easement,and only approximately 120
square feet will be located within the required side setback.As noted in paragraph
B.,none of the utility companies object to the proposed easement encroachment.
Additionally,the property immediately to the north is an undeveloped wooded
portion of the overall Country Club of Little Rock property.Staff believes the
proposed building addition with side setback and easement encroachments will
have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area.
D.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback and easement
variances,subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the Public Works comment as noted in paragraph A.of
the staff report.
2.Compliance with the utility comments as noted in paragraph B.of the staff
report.
3.The proposed addition must be constructed to rnatch the existing
residence.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO 6 CON'T.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was not present.It was noted that Public Works needed additional
information on the project (grading and drainage plan).There was a motion to defer the
application to the August 27,2012 agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes,0
nays and 0 absent.The application was deferred.
WAYNE MOORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
2121 WAIT STREEE SUITE E /LITTLE ROCK,AR 72227 /501-228.5515 TELEPHONE /501-228-8787 FAX
(g
May 30,2012 z-~&sP
Mr.Dana Camey
Zoning &Subdivision Manager
City of Little Rock Planning &Development
723 West Markham,I"Floor
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
Re:Zoning Variance Application —Barnett Residence at 1921 Country Club Lane
AKA Lot 6,Elmo Walker Replat,Little Rock,AR
Dear Mr.Carney,
I am requesting two variances for the above described real property on behalf of Mary Elizabeth
"Boots"Barnett,Owner.I am enclosing a notarized aIITdavit authorizing me as her agent
regarding this request.
The first requested variance (Section 36-254)is for a revised 5'ide yard setback for the
proposed construction of a main level master suite.
The second requested variance (Section 36-11/fl is to allow for the master suite construction to
build over an existing utility easement.The previous side yard setback lies within this easement.
Please note the uniqueness of this lot's location as it relates to surrounding property owners.The
Country Club of Little Rock is the only neighboring property to the immediate north.
I am enclosing letters from all the appropriate unlines regarding the easement which includes
CenterPoint Energy,Entergy,AT&T,Little Rock Wastewater and Central Arkansas Water.
Thank you for your consideration of this applicauon.You may contact me by calling 228-5515
or emailing wmcc@sbcglobal.net should you have any questions.
Thank you.
n y,
ore,
Preside t
Cc:Boots Barnett
l3.SPECIALIST IN TIIE CONSTRUCTION OF I IN 8 HOMES /REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT H~
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:7
File No.:Z-8785
Owner/Applicant:Michael and Kelly McQueen
Address:7 Ken Circle
Description:Lot 2,and part of Lots 1 and 3,Rock Hill Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow additions which cross
a front platted building line and a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed.
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:
1.Prior to construction of retaining walls,a engineer's certification of design and
plans must be submitted to Public Works for approval.After construction,an
as-built certification is required for construction of the retaining wall.
~.~fftaff Anal sls:
The R-2 zoned property at 7 Ken Circle is occupied by a one-story brick and frame
single family residence.A two-car wide driveway from Ken Circle at the northwest
corner of the property serves as access.The property slopes upward from the
roadway.The property contains a front platted building line ranging from 27.9 feet
to 50 feet back from the front (west)property line.There is an existing eight (8)
foot high wood fence along a portion of the north side property line.
The applicant proposes to construct two (2)one-story additions to the front of the
residence,a new courtyard/patio area in the front and rear yards,and a new
retaining wall/fence along the north side property line.All improvements are noted
on an attached site plan.
A 22 foot by 27 foot garage addition is proposed at the front,northwest corner of
the residence.The garage addition will cross the front platted building line by 21
feet to 24 feet.It will have a front setback ranging from 26 feet to 29 feet.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO:7 CON'T
The proposed room addition at the front,southwest corner of the house will cross
the front platted building line by less than one (1)foot at its northwest corner.Both
additions will be located over 10 feet from the side property lines,A new
landscaped patio/courtyard area with raised planters will be located between the
two (2)front additions.
A new retaining wall is proposed along the north side property line.The new wall
will replace an older deteriorating rock retaining wall.The applicant plans to
replace an existing eight 8)foot high wood fence which runs along the top of the
retaining wall.The new retaining wall will allow for reconstruction of a patio area
along the north side of the residence.
Section 31-12(c)of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line
encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment.Section
36-516(e)(1)a.of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum fence height of
six (6)feet for R-2 zoned property.Therefore,the applicants are requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the additions which cross a
front platted building line and a fence with increased height.
Staff is supportive of the requested building line and fence variances.Staff views
the request as reasonable.The City's Zoning Ordinance typically requires a
minimum front setback of 25 feet for R-2 zoned lots,unless a platted building line
requires a greater setback,which is the case with the subject property.The
proposed additions would comply with the ordinance required typical setbacks.
The curvature of the roadway along the front property line will aid in the property
not having an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties.The houses along
Ken Circle have varying setbacks from their respective front property lines.
Additionally,the property immediately to the north is located approximately five (5)
feet above the grade of the subject property.Therefore,the overall height of the
retaining wall construction with fence along the north property line will be visible
only from within the subject property.Staff believes the proposed additions with
building line encroachments and fence height 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 changed in the platted front building line for the
additions.The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk'
office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:7 CON'T.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and fence variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1.Completion of a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2.Compliance with the Public Works condition as noted in paragraph A.of
the staff report.
3.The building additions must be constructed to match the existing
residence.
4.The fence along the north side property line must not extend closer to the
street than the front corner of the proposed garage addition.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
Kelly McQueen was present,representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval.
Kelly McQueen addressed the Board in support of the application.She explained the
proposed project.She noted that the platted building line was excessive as compared
to other lots in the area.She described the wall and fence construction along the north
property line.
Vice-Chairman Smith asked about the driveway to the proposed garage addition.Ms.
McQueen explained that the proposed garage addition will be constructed several feet
down into the slope to level the driveway.She noted that stairs at the rear of the garage
will access the main level of the house.
The issue of why the property was platted with an increased front building line was
discussed.
Robert Winchester asked the age of the house.Ms.McQueen noted that it was
constructed in 1957.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff.The motion
passed by a vote of 4 ayes,1 nay and 0 absent.The application was approved.
Kelly 8a Michael McQueen 2-F/v'57KenCircle,Little Rock,Arkansas
(501)580-3291 t'r -~.)I
June 22,2012
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock,AR 72201
Re:Cover Letter to Application for Variance —7 Ken Circle,Little Rock,
Arkansas 72207
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached please find the completed Application for Zoning Variance for 7
Ken Circle,Little Rock,Arkansas,requesting the Board of Adjustment grant
variances to allow the construction of a two car garage,master bedroom
addition,a series of patios and steps in the front of the home,a retaining wall
and fence;all of which are associated with a remodel of the home located on
the property,which is zone R2 and subject to platted restrictions.Also
attached,as part of the application,are:
(a)Six copies of a recent survey prepared and stamped by a
professional surveyor showing the existing and proposed
improvements;
(b)Six copies of a survey by the same surveyor showing just the
existing improvements;
(c)Six copies of the site plan showing the proposed improvements;
and
(d)Our neighbors'tatements of support for our variance application.
We request variances to the platted front building line,the zoned side
setback,and zoned fence height restriction.The requested variances are
necessary and warranted for the following reasons:
Gara e Addition with associated concrete drivewa
1.The current property does not have a carport or garage;thus
requiring vehicles to be parked,without cover,on the driveway or
I
on the street.Due to the relatively narrow lot configuration,it is
not possible to locate a garage in the rear of the home.
2.The platted front building line is excessively deep,exceeding 50
feet in the area of the proposed garage addition.City ordinance
(Section 36-254(d)(1))typically requires only a 25 foot front setback
for single family residential structures.As shown on the survey
and site plan,the proposed garage addition would be built greater
than 25 feet from the front property boundary and street.
3.The associated new concrete driveway would merely replace the
existing concrete driveway.
4.The distance between the street and the proposed garage addition
would be consistent with or greater than that for other homes on
the Ken Circle cul-de-sac as well as those in the Normandy
neighborhood.
Master Bedroom and Bath Addition:
1.As our family has grown,it became apparent that an additional
bedroom and bath would be necessary for us to stay in the home.
A particularly large and beautiful oak tree in the back yard,which
would likely not survive extensive subsurface disruption in the
backyard,prevents us from adding a bedroom/bath addition to the
rear of the home.
2.The proposed bedroom/bath addition only crosses the platted
building setback by a few inches.
Patios and Entrance Ste s:
To accommodate the sloping lot and integrate the new garage and
bedroom/bath additions into the existing home,a series of concrete
steps and patios are necessary to provide an aesthetically-pleasing
approach and entrance to the home.These exterior features would
encroach in part on the platted building setback line;however,these
features would be,except for a low wall and planter,more than 25 feet
from the street.
Left Side Retainin Wall and Fence:
1.On the left side of the home (along the left interior property line),
there is an existing loose rock retaining wall that is neither
2
functional nor aesthetically-pleasing.We propose to replace that
wall with an excavated block wall that will provide greater access
to the side of the home,improve the appearance of that area,and
allow enhanced use of that side of the property.
2.At the top of the existing retaining wall on the interior left property
line and extending for the length of the property commiserate to
the home is an 8 foot wooden fence.Due to the topography,it
appears to be only 6 foot high as viewed from the adjacent
neighbor's property.We propose to remove the existing fence and
either reuse it or replace it with a similar structure.
We ask that the Board grant the requested variances to provide
enhanced,but reasonable,use of our property and existing home.The
proposed improvements will not be out of character with other similar
structures in the area nor will they have any adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area.As evidenced by the attached signed
statements,all of the neighboring property owners who can view the proposed
additions from their property (even those with property greater than 200 feet of
our property)have been advised of and are supportive of our variance
application.
We understand that if the Board approves the building line variance,we
will have to complete a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the platted front
building line for the addition and will review the filing procedure with the
Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.Please do not hesitate
to contact us should you have any questions or concerns or require further
information.
Sincerely,
Kelly McQueen
3
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:8
File No.:Z-8786
Owner/Applicant:Lauren and Beau Blair
Address:1904 Shadow Lane
Description:Lot 112 and part of Lot 111,Shadow Lane Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the area provisions of Section 36-254
to allow a carport addition with reduced side setback.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.Buildin Codes Comments:
The required fire separation distance (building to property line)prescribed by the
building code terminates at five (5)feet.Buildings are allowed to be closer than
five (5)feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite
one (1)hour fired resistance rating.When buildings are five (5)feet or more from
the property line,the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself,only the
projections such as eaves or overhangs.
Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3)
feet from the property line,and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than
three (3)feet from the line.There is no restriction on openings when the exterior
wall is more than three (3)feet from the property line.
Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details.
t:.A~taffAaal ss:
The R-2 zoned property at 1904 Shadow Lane is occupied by a two-story brick and
frame single family residence.The property is located on the west side of Shadow
Lane,between Club Road and Cantrell Road.There is a one-car wide driveway
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO 8 CON'T
from Shadow Lane at the northwest corner of the property.The driveway leads to
an existing metal frame carport structure with canvas roof,along the north side of
the residence.The existing carport structure is approximately 10 feet wide and 54
feet long.The carport structure is located on the north side property line.
The applicants propose to remove the existing metal and canvas carport structure
and construct a new carport,as noted on the attached site plan and elevation
sketch.The new carport will be 8.5 feet wide and 40 feet long.The structure will
be set back 1.5 feet from the north side property line and over 40 feet back from
the front (east)property line.The carport structure will have no overhang and
guttering (approximately six inches).
Section 36-254(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side
setback of 7.5 feet for this R-2 zoned lot.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the carport addition with a reduced side setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested side setback variance.Staff views the request
as reasonable.The proposed carport addition with reduced side setback will not
be out of character with other properties in this general area.Staff typically
supports 1.5 foot minimum side setbacks for unenclosed structures.Staff feels this
is ample space to construct and maintain an unenclosed structure without
encroaching onto the adjacent property.Staff believes the proposed carport
addition with reduced side setback will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area.Ample separation should exist between the
proposed carport and the adjacent house to the north.
D.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance,subject to the
following conditions:
1.The carport addition must be constructed to match the existing residence.
2.The carport addition must remain unenclosed on its north,east and west
sides.
3.Compliance with the Building Codes requirements as noted in paragraph
B.of the staff report.
4.Guttering must be provided to prohibit water run-off onto the adjacent
property to the north.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present,Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Lauren and Beau Blair ~/1904 Shadow Lane
Little Rock,Arkansas 72207
501.663.0330
June 25,2012
Office of the Plans Development Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock,Arkansas
To:Plans Development Administrator
We respectfully submit for your consideration a variance application for our residence 1904 ShadowLaneinUttleRock.We acquired the c.a.1928 home in May 2011 with a carport that was built over 30yearsago.We are concerned over the potential danger a 30 year old carport structure may have withourthreeveryyoungchildren.Our desire is to replace the dilapidated carport with a newer,strongerandsaferstructurewithwoodbeamstomatchthefrontofourhome.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration to our request.
Sincerely,
VPv~8u KN~
Lauren Blair
cc:Beau Blair
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:9
File No.:Z-8789
Owner:Allied Drive Holdings,LLC
Applicant:Justin Bentley and Isaac Smith/Colliers International
Address:1 Allied Drive
Description:Southeast corner of Allied Drive and Riverfront Drive
Zoned:0-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553
to allow an addition to an existing sign with increased height and area.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Office
Proposed Use of Property:Office
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues;
No Comments
~.S~taff Anal ata:
The 0-2 zoned property at 1 Allied Drive is occupied by a multi-building office
development (Verizon Wireless)on a little over 32 acres.The property is located
along the east side of Riverfront Drive.Paved parking areas are located along the
north,south and west sides of the office buildings.The property backs up to the
Arkansas River.Access drives from Allied Drive and Cedar Hill Road serve the
parking areas.
There is an existing ground-mounted sign at the southeast corner of Allied Drive
and Riverfront Drive,which identifies the "Verizon Wireless"facility.The existing
sign is monument-type,with a height of 5.25 feet and an area of approximately 62
square feet.The applicant proposes to add a section to the top of the sign,as
noted on the attached sketch.The addition will increase the sign height to 9.83
feet and the area to approximately 98.75 square feet.The applicants note that
three (3)of the office buildings are becoming multi-tenant buildings and additional
sign space is needed for future tenants.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO:9 CON'T.
Section 36-553(a)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign height
of six (6)feet and a maximum sign area of 64 square feet for ground-mounted
signs in office zones.Therefore,the applicant is requesting variances from these
ordinance standards to allow the addition to the existing ground sign with an
increased height and area.
Staff supports the requested sign variances.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The existing sign that the applicant proposes to add to is the only
ground-mounted sign on the rather large 32 acre property which identifies a
business at this location.The site also contains small incidental/directional signs.
The applicant is proposing to add to the existing sign rather than construct an
additional sign(s)on the overall site.The property directly across Riverfront Drive
to the west is zoned C-3,with allowed sign heights of 36 feet and sign areas of 160
square feet.The overall height and area of the existing sign after additions will not
be out of character with other signs in this area.Staff believes the proposed sign
will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
C.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances,subject to a sign
permit being obtained for the new overall signage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Isaac Smith 40t,'t Capitol Avenue unrh +1 501 372 6161
Pnnapal I Arkansas Suite 1200 FAX +1 501 372 0671
Little Rock,AR 72201
Attn:Monte Moore -F~
Title:Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Department of Planning &Development g-Y7S'g
723 West Markham,Little Rock,AR.72201-1334
Dear Monte,
Please accept this cover letter in reference to the current application for zoning
variance regarding the ground sign located at ¹1 Allied Drive,Little Rock,AR.,72203.The
current sign is entitled "Verizon Wireless-One Allied Drive"and is located at the
intersection of Allied Drive and Riverfront Drive.It's important to note that the
aforementioned structure is the only ground sign visible from Riverfront Drive on the
premises.The exact location of the sign is depicted on the survey included in the Zoning
Variance Application Packet submitted for review.
Moreover,this request for variance is due to Buildings I,II,and III becoming multi-tenant
space based off the exchange of ownership to Allied Drive Holdings,LLC from Alltel
Communications,LLC.The three office buildings total 204,929 SF;however,please see
below for a breakdown of the three buildings:
Building 1 Building 2 Building 3
94,645 SF 94,645 SF 15,639 SF
7 Stories +basement 7 Stories+basement 2 Stories
Built in 1962 Built in 1992 Built in 1992
The current and proposed sign dimensions are represented in the attached sign rendering
of the above-mentioned ground sign.Specifically,the existing signage is 142"by 63",while
the proposed additional signage is equal to 96"by 55".This addition would increase the
total signage area to approximately 142"by 118".
It is the opinion of Colliers International that the proposed rendering for the modified ground
signage at ¹1 Allied Drive would greatly benefit additional tenant's exposure at the
Riverfront Plaza.Additionally,we believe that the suggested supplemental signage will
further enhance an already beautiful 32.51 acre lot.Please do not hesitate to call if you
have any questions or require any additional information.
Best Regards,
Isaac Smith,CCIM,SIOR
Ptincipal I Arkansas
Colliers Arkansas,Inc en Arkansas corporation,snd certain of its subsidranes,is an independensy awned and operated
business end e member firm of Colliers International Property Consultants,an sffitralron of mdependent companies mth over 480
ofaces throughout more than 60 countnes wondwids
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:10
File No.:Z-8790
Owner:Powell Brothers,Inc.
Applicant:Matt Chandler
Address:6101 Lindsey Road
Description:Tract A-1 and part of Tract A-2,Area 101,Little Rock Port Industrial
Park
Zoned:1-3
Variance Requested:A variance is requested from the paving provisions of Section 36-
508 to allow a gravel truck/trailer parking area.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Truck terminal and vacant property
Proposed Use of Property:Truck terminal and gravel truck/trailer parking area
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
1.At time of building permit a grading and drainage plan will be required.
2.Storm water detention is not required for properties within the port
authority.
B.Landsca e and Bufferlssues
Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
The areas allocated for green space appear to meet with minimal city landscape
and buffer areas.
The landscape plan needs to have an automatic irrigation system.
One half of all the trees must be of an evergreen variety;revise.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:10 CON'T.
C.~Staff Anal sla:
The I-3 zoned property at 6101 Lindsey Road is occupied by a one-story industrial
building which houses a trucking company.The property is located at the
southwest corner of Lindsey Road and Mauney Road.Asphalt parking/vehicular
use area is located along all sides of the building.A smaller maintenance building
is located near the east property line along Mauney Road.Two (2)access drives
from Lindsey Road serve as access to the property.The property is comprised of
approximately 6.7 acres.
The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the five (5)acre property immediately
to the south of the existing facility for additional parking of trucks and trailers,as
noted on the attached site plan.The applicant is proposing a gravel parking area
with 18 inches of donna fill and 12 inches of SB2 compacted gravel.A 50 foot
wide landscape strip will be provided along the east (Mauney Road)property line.
A grassy area (approximately 75 feet wide)will be maintained along the south
property line.Access to the gravel parking area will through the existing trucking
facility.No direct access from Mauney Road is proposed.The property proposed
for the gravel parking is currently undeveloped farm land.
Section 36-508 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that all vehicular use areas
be paved where subject to wheeled traffic.Therefore,the applicant is requesting a
variance from this ordinance requirement to allow the gravel vehicular use area.
Staff is supportive of the requested paving variance.Staff views the request as
reasonable.The proposed gravel area will be used for the parking and storage of
trucks and trailers.The gravel parking area will not be out of character with this
overall industrial area.Other properties in this general area utilize gravel areas for
parking and storage of heavy trucks,machinery and equipment.As long as the
applicant takes certain steps to define,contain and maintain the gravel use area,
staff believes that it will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area.
D.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested paving variance,subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
2.Compliance with the Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A.
of the staff report.
3.A border must be provided to define and contain the gravel parking area.
4.The gravel parking area must be hard-packed in a manner that does not
result in the creation of dust,mud,silt or standing water.
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO '0 CON'T.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
Powell Brothers,Inc.Commercial Real Estate
5509 Springvale Road,Suite B ~P.O.Box 94457 ~North Little Rock,AR 72190
(501)753-1555 'ax (501)753-1552 ~E-mail:mattchandier@sbcglobal.net
Industnal
June 26,2012 P-H7'j 0)
Truck
Terminals
Monte Moore
Warehousing City of Little Rock
Industrial 723 W.Markham Street
Little Rock,AR 72201
Metltcal atlti
RE:6101 Lindsey Road,Little Rock,AR 72206
Wc Build Dear Monte:To Suit
Powell Brothers,Inc.is applying for a variances on the property located atManagcmcnt6101LindseyRoad.The variance we are applying for is to only be
required to have a gravel yard and not an asphalt yard.Our tenant Con-
Way has been located at the location since 1993 and would like to
continue to lease this space.However,they connnue to grow and need
more yard space.As you can imagine,heavy trucks are very hard on
asphalt.Con-Way has requested us to lease the ground directly behind our
property and construct a gravel yard for parking.As you can see on our
site plan,we have placed trees and shrubs on the west part of the yard.
Thank you for your consideration.
President
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:11
File No.:Z-8791
Owner/Applicant:Randy Wright
Address:12 Bluestem Cove
Description:Lot 36,Block 13,Woodland's Edge Addition
Zoned:R-2
Variance Requested:Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36-
254 and the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to allow front steps and rear porch
with reduced setbacks and front steps which cross a front platted building line.
Justification:The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:Single Family Residence-Under Construction
Proposed Use of Property:Single Family Residence
STAFF REPORT
A.Public Works Issues:
No Comments
B.~Stan Anal ala:
The R-2 zoned property at 12 Bluestem Cove is occupied by a two-story brick
single family residence which is under construction.A two-car wide driveway from
Bluestem Cove at the northwest corner of the property will serve as access.The
lot contains a 25 foot front platted building line.The property backs up to a
protected/platted green belt which is approximately 40 feet wide,running along the
rear (east)property line.
The applicant plans to construct four (4)steps leading to the front entry area and a
partially covered wood deck on the rear of the house,as noted on the attached site
plan.The front steps will be located 22.5 feet back from the front (west)property
line,crossing the front platted building line by approximately 2.5 feet.The steps
will be uncovered and unenclosed.The proposed wood deck will be located 12.5
feet back from the rear (east)property line.The deck will be partially covered and
unenclosed.Steps will be located on the north end of the deck structure.
Section 36-254(d)(1)of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front
setback of 25 feet.Section 36-254(d)(3)requires a minimum rear setback of 25
feet.However,in this case,the lots in Woodland's Edge which back up to green
JULY 30,2012
ITEM NO.:11 CON'T
belts were platted with minimum rear setbacks of 15 feet.Section 31-12(c )of the
Subdivision Ordinance requires that building line encroachments be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Adjustment.Therefore,the applicant is requesting
variances from these ordinance standards to allow the steps and deck with
reduced front and rear setbacks and which crosses a front platted building line.
Staff is supportive of the requested setback and building line variances.Staff
views the variances as very minor in nature.The proposed steps will encroach
only approximately 2.5 feet across the front platted building line.Also,the
proposed deck will encroach into the required rear setback by only 2.5 feet.The
residential lot has a relatively shallow depth,ranging from approximately 100 feet
to 115 feet.This is partially due to the curvature of the cul-de-sac which pushes
into the lot depth near the center of the lot.Additionally,the lots in this area were
platted with a shallower lot depth in order to provide protected green belts behind
the lots.A number of the lots within this subdivision have been permitted with rear
setbacks between 10 and 15 feet.Staff believes the proposed reduced rear
setback is in line with what has been intended for this subdivision,and 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 front building line for the steps.
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 the following conditions:
1.Completion of a one-lot replat reflecting the change in the front platted
building line as approved by the Board.
2.The steps must remain uncovered and unenclosed.
3.The rear portion of the deck must remain uncovered,with the entire deck
remaining unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:(July 30,2012)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of approval,with conditions.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as recommended by staff
with a vote of 5 ayes,0 nays and 0 absent.
zk~~l(
2-870/
Because of lot elevations (slope)the Builder (Randy Wright Builders)needs to add 4 steps
coming from the front porch down to the sidewalk.
Also owners would like the stairs in the rear to fall off to the left of the property as shown in the
proposed drawing.
This would encroach across building line approximately 3 feet in the back and 40 inches in the
front.
There is a protected green area behind the house
Enclosed is a letter from the developer showing they are aware of changes and have no concerns
Rand Wright
Jpvk
g //7gl
W
I ~
I 0 ~~~e
~I ~~I ~
~II
'I ~
~I~I
IIIIIIIIIIII
Illlllilllll'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII IIII
IIIIIIIIIIII ~
~qI IIIIIIIIIIIIII
-IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII.
IIIIIIIIIIII INIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
III IIIIIIIIIIII
IIII IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII
July 30,2012
There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
Date:
Cha a Secreta