boa_01 25 2010r
U
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JANUARY 25, 2010
2:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The Minutes of the December 21, 2009 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Robert Winchester, Vice Chairman
Leslie Greenwood
Scott Smith
James Van Dover
Members Absent: David Wilbourn, Chairman
City Attorney Present: Debra Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
/_[e1�►1�7_1
JANUARY 25, 2010
2:00 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Z-8507 814 West 7th Street
II. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Z -6524-C 509 President Clinton Avenue
2. Z -7463-B 6425 S. University Avenue
3. Z -8507-A 814 W. 7th Street
OOE /.tlMH V lH_
M
Q
L, it n1a JlaVd 11 2c�')6,, ❑ G
Ap JJ.ISa3AINn S
z( Oa SEJNINd- 93A3�J ;y
3 r 0 v
L4
15 IddllSSlSSlyY Nku
�i m
N MONW8 NHO
(313 MAN sail ,r -
a
ix
LU
w
VIM�I
Z a M 8S '—�-_✓�L OEb3yy. Sa31NI G i •{ K
o � If a �
.t �..� jam:
J w
Z
LU
i j J
z
0
9I
ON SNaVdS
wi • ��'
O
W
I
LL •
O
W t.�
N
NI 1
°ar
L6
en3z
N
_
I 00N > I z
L•.�ti da SVWOHl NYO a
00
M
Q
L, it n1a JlaVd 11 2c�')6,, ❑ G
Ap JJ.ISa3AINn S
z( Oa SEJNINd- 93A3�J ;y
3 r 0 v
L4
15 IddllSSlSSlyY Nku
�i m
N MONW8 NHO
(313 MAN sail ,r -
a
ix
LU
w
VIM�I
Z a M 8S '—�-_✓�L OEb3yy. Sa31NI G i •{ K
o � If a �
.t �..� jam:
J w
Z
LU
i j J
z
0
9I
ON SNaVdS
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: A
File No.: Z-8507
Owner: Robert Berry
Applicant: Terry Burruss
Address: 814 West 7th Street
Description: North side of West 7th Street, between State and Izard Streets.
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553
to allow a projecting sign which exceeds the maximum area allowed.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building
Proposed Use of Property: Tattoo Shop
Staff Note:
The sign as proposed by the applicant is considered a "roof sign" by ordinance
definition based on the fact that it extends above the roofline of the building.
According to ordinance, a "roof sign" is a prohibited sign type. As such, the
applicant cannot request a variance for the proposed sign.
Staff suggests that the applicant develop an alternate signage plan and present it to
the Board of Adjustment at the December 21, 2009 meeting. Therefore, staff
recommends this application be deferred to the December 21, 2009 Agenda.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 30, 2009)
The applicant was not present. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the
December 21, 2009 agenda, to allow the applicant time to address the "roof sign"
issue.
The Chairman placed the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December
21, 2009 agenda. The Consent Agenda was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays
and 2 absent. The application was deferred.
JANUARY 25, 2010
NO.: A (CON'T.
Staff Note:
The applicant submitted a letter on December 9, 2009 requesting the application be
deferred to the January 25, 2010 Agenda. Staff supports the deferral request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 21, 2009)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and informed the Board that the applicant had requested deferral of the item
to the January 25, 2010 meeting. There was no further discussion. The item was
placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the January 25, 2010 meeting by a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Staff Note:
The applicant has filed an appeal, appealing staff's interpretation of the definition of a
"roof sign". The appeal is on this agenda (Item 3). Therefore, this application for
variance needs to be deferred to the February 22, 2010 Board of Adjustment agenda,
so that the Board may first act on the applicant's appeal.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 25, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred to the February 22,
2010 Agenda. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on
the consent agenda and deferred to the February 22, 2010 meeting by a vote of
4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
614 CEr1 . . ST.
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
t 501-376-3676 FAX 376-3766
Deu fUSs
A r c n l t e c c design, planning and interiors
October 23, 2009
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Seventh Street
Sign Variance
814 7`h Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
A/E # 0933
Dear Mr. Moore:
7
Attached please find 6 copies of the Site Plan on the above referenced project. We are
proposing to install a projecting sign above the existing canopy. Overall sign dimensions will be
approximately be 5' wide by 12' tall "(60 square feet). The ordinance would allow us to have
wall signage of approximately 82 square feet. We are requesting permission to install the
projected sign in lieu of larger wall signage.
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.
Yours very truly,
Terry G. Burruss, AIA
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO
File No.: Z -6524-C
Owner: Torrent Fire Co./Don Winton
Applicant: Isaac Alexander and Eric Lancaster
Address: 509 President Clinton Avenue
Description: South side of President Clinton Avenue, between Commerce and
Sherman Streets
Zoned: UU
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-353
to allow a second projecting sign on the building.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Advertising Agency
Proposed Use of Property: Advertising Agency
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818) for
the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 509 President Clinton Avenue is occupied by a two-
story brick commercial building. The building is located on the south side of
President Clinton Avenue, between Commerce and Sherman Streets. The first
floor of the building is occupied by the Flying Fish restaurant. The second floor is
occupied by Eric Rob and Isaac, an advertising agency. The Flying Fish has
signage on the awnings on the building as well as a projecting sign on the front,
northwest corner of the building.
The applicant (Eric Rob and Isaac) is proposing an awning sign over the first floor
entry doors and a projecting sign above the first floor awning and below the second
floor windows. The proposed projecting sign will be approximately 12 square feet
in area and located 12 to 14 feet above the sidewalk. It will project approximately
36 inches from the building. Sketches and photos of the sign and building are
attached for the Board's review.
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 (Con't.)
Section 36-353(e)(1)d. of the City's Zoning Ordinance (River Market Design
Overlay District sign regulations) limits the number of projecting signs on the
building to one (1) sign per 100 feet of primary street frontage per building.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from this ordinance requirement
to allow the second projecting sign on this building which has less than 100 feet of
street frontage along President Clinton Avenue.
The River Market Design Review Committee reviewed the signage plan for Eric
Rob and Isaac on October 13, 2009. The Design Review Committee voted
unanimously to approve the awning and projecting signs as proposed by the
applicant.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance to allow the second projecting sign on
the building at 509 President Clinton Avenue. Staff views the request as
reasonable. The proposed projecting sign will not be out of character with other
similar signs within the River Market District. Most importantly, the proposed
projecting sign will be located far enough away from the existing projecting sign
(Flying Fish) so that neither sign will conflict or obscure the other sign. This, in
staff's opinion, meets the intent of Section 36-353(e)(1)d. in limiting or spacing
projecting signs within the River Market District. Staff believes the proposed
projecting sign will have no adverse impact on other signs or properties in this
general area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A franchise permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for
the projecting sign.
2. The projecting sign may extend no more than 36 inches from the building
facade.
3. Permits must be obtained for all signage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 25, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "staff recommendation"
above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
l
ERIC
ROB
ISAAC
December 18, 2009
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Board of Adjustment Members:
Eric Rob & Isaac Inc. is a full-service marketing communications firm located in
the heart of the River Market District in what is commonly referred to as "the
Flying Fish building." We have been operating at this location since July 2005.
Currently, our business has basically zero visibility from the street, which poses an
issue for clients trying to find us and for our basic need to promote ourselves to
those in the community who happen by. Like any business, it is imperative that
we maintain at least a small degree of presence in the form of adequate
signage.
We are asking that this committee grant us the opportunity to add a non -
lighted, projecting/blade sign that will affix directly above our entrance. Our
sign would in no way compete with or obstruct the existing Flying Fish sign. In
fact, our sign is substantially smaller, in a different sight line, and will be less visible
from the street.
We are asking the members of this board for the equal opportunity to maintain
a small degree of visibility for our business - a privilege currently enjoyed by the
many surrounding businesses. I would also note that we have the full support of
the building's owner as well as the approval of the River Market Design Review
Committee.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
441 ---
Eric Lancaster
Eric Rob & Isaac
1, tI L %
River
Terry Burrus, Member
Market
Shannon Jeffery -Light, Member
Design
Larry Jacimore, Member
Presley Melton, Member
Review
Frank Porbeck, Member
Committee
Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • 501-371-4790 • fax 501-399-3435
January 6, 2009
Board of Adjustment
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Eric Rob and Isaac signage
Chairman and Members,
The River Market DRC has reviewed the Eric Rob & Isaac signage at the October 13,
2009 meeting. The DRC has approved the submittal of the awning with valance sign
and the projecting sign. The final vote was 4 ayes and 1 absent.
Thank you,
Brian Minyard
River Market DRC Staff
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z -7463-B
Billy Milam
Steven Murrah, White Sign Co.
6425 S. University Avenue
Northeast corner of S. University Avenue and West 65th Street
ME
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-557
to allow a canopy sign without direct street frontage.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps
Proposed Use of Property: Convenience store with gas pumps
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-4 zoned property at 6425 S. University Avenue is occupied by a recently
constructed convenience store with gas pumps. The property is located at the
northeast corner of S. University Avenue and W. 65th Street. The convenience
store building is located within the east half of the property, with the gas pumps
and canopy structure within the west half. Access drives from S. University
Avenue and W. 65th Street serve the site. There is a ground -mounted sign at the
southwest corner of the property oriented toward the traffic along S. University
Avenue. There is also a wall sign on the west side (front) of the convenience store
building. There are signs on the west, north and south sides of the gas pump
canopy.
On October 26, 2009 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow
placement of a sign on the east side of the gas pump canopy (southeast corner),
without direct street frontage. The approved sign is an electronic sign for the
display of fuel prices. The sign was approved, subject to the following conditions:
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (Con't.)
1. The sign on the north end of the gas pump canopy must be removed within 30
days.
2. The sign on the south end of the gas pump canopy will be allowed to remain.
3. There will be no other ground -mounted signs allowed on the property.
4. All signs must be permitted.
Since the approval date, the applicant has obtained permits for the signs on the
east, west and south sides of the canopy. However, the sign on the north side of
the canopy has not been removed. The applicant is now back before the Board of
Adjustment to readdress the issue of the sign on the north end of the canopy,
asking that it be allowed to stay.
Section 36-557(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that signs face a public
street frontage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the sign
on the north end of the gas pump canopy with no direct street frontage.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance. Staff believes the sign on the
north end of the gas pump canopy serves no real purpose in identifying this
business. The sign on the west side of the canopy and the ground sign at the
southwest corner of the property provide ample visibility and identity of the property
to traffic southbound on S. University Avenue. Although a gas pump canopy sign
without direct street frontage is a common occurrence found on gas pump
canopies in this general area along S. University Avenue (Valero, Dodge Store and
Zimmerman's Exxon), different circumstances exist with those properties which
make the canopy signs without street frontage good options. The sign on the
south side of the Valero gas pump canopy was allowed when there were no other
buildings between it and West 65th Street. Staff believes the requested sign on the
north end of the gas pump canopy at 6425 S. University Avenue is excessive,
serves no purpose in identifying this business and represents nothing more than
sign clutter. There are five (5) other signs on this property which staff feels
adequately identify this convenience store with gas pumps business.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow a canopy sign without
street frontage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 25, 2010)
Brad White and Steven Murrah were present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation
of denial.
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 (Con't.)
Brad White addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that
the sign on the north end of the canopy aided in the identification of the business.
He noted that the sign had good visibility from S. University Avenue.
Scott Smith discussed the sequence of events leading to the variance request.
Mr. White explained that the company that constructed the gas pump canopy also
placed the signs on the canopy, and did not obtain permits for the signs.
Scott Smith asked if the canopy sign was vinyl and how hard it would be to remove
it. Mr. White explained that it could be a clean removal, or that there could be
leftover adhesive that would have to be removed.
Access to the property was briefly discussed. The other signage on the site was
also discussed.
In response to a question from the Board, Mr. White noted that the canopy signs
were installed when the canopy was constructed.
James Van Dover explained that the applicant accepted the terms which included
removal of the sign on the north canopy side when the variance was approved for
the sign on the east canopy side. This issue was discussed.
There was a motion to approve the requested sign variance, as filed. The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application was denied.
After a brief discussion, there was a second motion requiring the applicant to
remove the sign from the north end of the canopy within 30 days. The motion
passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent.
�[TE'
51GN tOMAANY
December 18, 2009
Little Rock Board of Adjustment,
We appreciate your consideration of this variance request, below are the details for our request.
White Sign Company, acting as agent for RaceTrac Petroleum requests a variance for a sign at 6425 S
University. The sign would be a 47 square foot vinyl logo to read RaceWay, to be placed on the North
elevation of the canopy for view by traffic heading South on University.
Section 36-557 part A of the Little Rock sign code requires signs to face a street frontage. The canopy
has a logo on the front side facing West and on the South facing side, we think the canopy looks more
complete and balanced with the logo on the North side. The North facing logo will have visibility to
traffic on University driving South. Most gas canopies in the area have logos on all sides, we are not sure
if those signs have been granted variances or if they have been installed without approval.
Again we appreciate your consideration.
Thanks
, de I
Todd White
6420 East Street Texarkana AR 71854
(870)779-1504 fax (870)772-3286
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Applicant:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z -8507-A
Robert Berry
Terry Burruss
814 West 7th Street
North side of West 7th Street, between State and Izard Streets
UU
Variance Requested: An administrative appeal is requested, appealing the Planning
staff's interpretation of the definition of a "roof sign".
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building
Proposed Use of Property: Tattoo Shop
STAFF REPORT
A. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 814 West 7th Street contains a one-story brick
commercial building which is currently vacant. The property is located on the north
side of West 7th Street, between State and Izard Streets. The building was
previously occupied by Eaton Beauty Stylist College. There is on -street parking in
this general area which serves the commercial building. There are two (2) existing
wall signs on the building which previously identified the Eaton College use. The
wall sign on the front (south) of the building is approximately 15 square feet in area
and the wall sign on the east building facade is approximately 48 square feet in
area.
The applicant recently submitted a variance application for a new projecting sign to
be placed on the front of the building (Item A on this agenda, Z-8507). The new
projecting sign would identify a new tattoo shop which is planning to occupy the
building. The new projecting sign is approximately 60 square feet in area and
would replace the two (2) existing wall signs on the building.
JANUARY 25, 2010
TEM NO.: 3 (Con't.
After reviewing the application, staff informed the applicant that the variance could
not go forward based on the fact the proposed projecting sign was also classified
as a "roof sign", a prohibited sign type. This was based on the fact that the
proposed projecting sign extends above the roofline of the building (flat roof
construction). The applicant cannot seek a variance for a sign which is prohibited
by ordinance. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an administrative appeal,
appealing the Planning Staff's interpretation of the definition of a "roof sign". The
applicant does not agree with staff's classification of the proposed sign as a roof
sign. Please see the attached letter from the applicant and sketches for additional
information.
Section 36-530 of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines "roof sign" as follows:
"Roof sign means any sign erected over or on the roof of a building."
The word "over" is defined by Webster's dictionary as follows:
"over... In or at a position above or higher than"..."up to or higher than
the level or height of'.
The word "above" is defined by Webster's dictionary as follows:
"above ... Over or higher than"
It is staff's opinion that the proposed projecting sign should be classified as a "roof
sign" based on the fact that it extends "higher than" the roof of the building at 814
West 7th Street. The proposed projecting sign is approximately 7.75 feet higher
than the flat roof of the building. This is how staff has been interpreting the issue
of roof signs since the inception of the ordinance. Section 36-543 of the code is
the section which prohibits "roof signs", and reads as follows:
"Section 36-543. Prohibited signs and sales promotion devices.
The following type signs are prohibited in all districts unless otherwise
noted:
(1) Abandoned signs.
(2) Banners, pennants, festoons, searchlights, except as
allowed in section 36-557, subsection (d).
(3) Signs imitating or resembling official traffic or government
signs or signals.
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't.)
(4) Snipe signs or signs attached to trees, telephone poles,
fences, public benches, or placed on public property or
public right-of-way.
(5) Vehicular signs.
(6) Trailer or temporary signs that do not meet the standards
for freestanding permanent signs.
(7) Roof signs, or any sign that is not mounted on a vertical
surface.
(8) Rotating signs.
(9) Off -premises signs except as specifically permitted
elsewhere in this article."
The applicant is appealing staff's interpretation of the ordinance and labeling
of the proposed projecting sign as a "roof sign". The applicant is requesting
that the Board of Adjustment review and overturn staff's interpretation of the
ordinance, and not classify the proposed projecting sign as a "roof sign".
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JANUARY 25, 2010)
Terry Burruss and Robert Berry were present, representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application for
administrative appeal.
Terry Burruss addressed the Board in support of the application. He
discussed the definition of the word "over" as used in the definition of a roof
sign. He noted that the proposed sign is a projecting sign and not a roof
sign.
James Van Dover explained that he thought the issue was with the
projecting sign being located over the canopy on the front of the building.
This issue was briefly discussed.
The definition of roof sign and projecting sign were discussed. The issue of
marquee signs was discussed. The issue of canopy and other building
attachments was discussed. The issue of parapet walls was also
discussed.
Scott Smith asked why the ordinance prohibited roof signs. Dana Carney,
city staff, explained that the City Board of Directors passed the ordinance
many years ago. He explained that issues of aesthetics, limiting visual
JANUARY 25, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't.)
clutter and the amount of signs deemed acceptable were probable reasons
for prohibiting roof signs and other sign types. This issue was discussed.
James Van Dover noted that there were no means of preserving what the
City Directors considered at the time the ordinance was passed.
The issue of roof sign was discussed further. Robert Berry addressed
the Board. He discussed the design and preservation of the building at
814 West 7t" Street. He explained the need for the sign and sign design.
There was a motion to approve the applicant's requested appeal. The
motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The appeal was
approved.
614 CEN i ER ST.
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
501-376-3676 FAX 376-3766
11
Lery
_��design, planning and interiors ���—
4
December 18, 2009
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Enforcement Administrator
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Seventh Street Sign
Administrative Ruling Appeal
8147 th Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
A/E # 0933
Dear Mr. Moore:
Per our discussion, we are appealing the administrative ruling that defines the proposed sign as
a "roof sign". We feel that staff interpretation in defining our proposed sign as a "roof sign" is
open to discussion. We believe that by utilizing the definitions in the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinance along with the terminology utilized that we can show that our sign is indeed a
"projecting sign". We appreciate your consideration on this appeal. If there are any questions
or additional information is needed, please call. We can also be reached by email at
tbadesignplanning@sbcglobal. net.
Yours very truly,
11
LJ
~
w
f
0
�'
m
w
LU❑_
rL
J
>
m
❑
o
O
~w
L
F -
Z
_w
J
LLJ
_❑
m
Z
_
J
>
Q
O
m
elf
LU
pzO�Fw-
m�Qz
=
❑
U
LIJ
U
c!J
>
W
CO
w
Lu
O
m
=
❑
U
UJ
2CD
m
-
z
Q
>
z
S'
~
w
0
�'
m
w
LU❑_
rL
J
>
m
❑
o
O
~w
L
F -
Z
O
Z
D
Z
_
z
O
O
w
LU
W
LU
m�Qz
=
❑
U
>
I
c
F—
Z
w
m
Q
115
P15
w
January 25, 2010
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Date: Z ` 2 Z _,-1®
Chairman