boa_03 25 2002LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
MARCH 25, 2002
2:00 P.M.
I. 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 February 25, 2002 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman
Fred Gray, Vice Chairman
Scott Richburg
Gary Langlais
Andrew Francis
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
I.
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
MARCH 25, 2002
2:00 P.M.
1.
Z -2554-A
2.
Z -3915-B
3.
Z -6474-C
4.
Z -6876-A
5.
Z -7047-A
6.
Z -7069-A
7.
Z -7124-A
8.
Z-7151
9.
Z-7155
10.
Z-7156
11.
Z-7157
12.
Z-7158
13.
Z-7161
14.
Z-7162
5717 West 12th Street
12024 Interstate 30
3521 Longcoy
7200 West 12th Street
7102 Asher Avenue
8500 West Markham Street
101 Main Street
26 Windsor Drive
5301 Stonewall
2010 N. Van Buren Street
2300 Beechwood
5608/5610 Hawthorne Road
1901 N. Polk Street
3610 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Q)
N
3NId
n
C
JN
nntlelw
a
co
t.. G
� y,
a=
-Ur
1
Vi`+
e0y0 _W
NVIY839
a
NIVN
= �
A MOV08B
HO1tl
NO1NObi
153RD
13H36O
o �
ONIN l41
s
M01000M S
€
3NId
f 3$bls
NI
1v0 NO111fYv 11005
N�db
0
Q
Na d 11tl3
—i
AlI583AINf1
AlISaNNn
ry
�J
SONIUS 13A3O
Q
3HOnH
_
Lo ZE
IddISS in
• ,'t
J
Z�
1001H0 "—
WOW
M011tl1 NHOF co 3
y
c�
i
2 3NN13H
OUGA31ADVHS $
Oa 31 v
, SIOatlS
ry H1tld A3NO01
a S11YN1 Alp
30011 Ary
x S111YI1 Alp
b
"bl$oV
RIC Alp
6
�
Y
�4=
v
NVAI11nS
AVATS
bsbb
h
VMH IH
S11NIl
Alp
31v0N133
h
o
O
O
March , 2002
ITEM NO.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z -2554-A
Fatemeh Hadjian
5717 West 12th Street
Lot 1, Block C, Oak Forest
Gardens Annex
O-3
Variances are requested from the
height and setback regulations
of Section 36-553 to permit a
ground -mounted sign which
exceeds the maximum height
allowed, with a reduced setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Dentist office
Dentist office
The property at 5717 West 12th Street is zoned 0-3 and
is occupied by a small one-story dentist office, with
an area of asphalt parking. There is a small sign
identifying the office located at the northwest corner
of the property.
The property owner, Fatemeh Hadjian, proposes to remove
the existing ground -mounted sign and replace it with a
new sign which will be 15 feet in height and 32 square
feet in area. The sign will be located six (6) inches
from the property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 1
allows a ground -mounted sign in 0-3 zoning to have a
maximum height of six (6) feet, a maximum area of 64
square feet and a minimum setback of five (5) feet from
property lines. Therefore, the property owner is
requesting variances to allow the ground -mounted sign
to exceed the maximum height allowed, with a reduced
setback from the north property line.
Staff does not support the requested variances. Staff
does not believe that the proposed 15 -foot sign height
is reasonable. Staff feels that the proposed sign
height is not needed at this location to identify the
small office use. Although staff could work with the
applicant regarding the sign setback, the sign height
would need to be more in line with the allowed office
standards.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested ground -mounted
sign height and setback variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
Rochelle Broglen was present, representing the application.
There were no persons present in opposition. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Rochelle Broglen addressed the Board in support of the
application. She noted that the property owner, Dr.
Hadjian, recently had a marketing study done on the
property. She stated that the study noted that the existing
ground -mounted sign was not sufficient to identify the
property, and recommended a 15 -foot tall sign. She noted
that the proposed 15 foot tall sign would provide adequate
identification of the property and create awareness of the
business. She further explained the need for the sign at
the proposed location. She stated that the sign would help
middle -eastern residents identify Dr. Hadjian as a dentist
of their ethnic background. Ms. Broglen also explained that
Dr. Hadjian wished not to remove the large crepe myrtle bush
at the corner of the property as a reason for the taller
sign.
2
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 1
Vice Chairman Gray asked to see photos which Ms. Broglen had
of the proposed sign. The Board reviewed the photos.
Chairman Ruck asked if the applicant had considered a
building -mounted sign or a ground -mounted sign near the
building. He expressed concern with the sign location near
the intersection. Ms. Broglen explained that the marketing
study suggested placing the sign near the street. Bill
Sims, also representing the applicant, noted that a six (6)
foot tall sign could obstruct the visibility at the
intersection and explained. He stated that a building -
mounted sign was considered, but it was decided that a
ground -mounted sign would be more effective.
Vice -Chairman Gray stated that it was not clear why a
dentist needed a sign of this size and explained. He noted
that he could not support this application, but could
consider the sign if it were further back from the right-of-
way. This issue was briefly discussed.
A motion was made to approve the application, as filed. The
motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes and 3 nays. The
application was denied.
9
(870) 931-1761
A
� 4A
_AglMW_ N AP�ff
`E
_ A I
'A's
P.O. Box 6064
Fax (870) 931-7920
—== •.• .._.-+. �.
_
��.��.�.: ��_.,
Jonesboro, AR 72403
Toll Free: (800) 416-4458
r■ �r■ W
IF►
� r� �
www.signsystemsl.com
•-:-:�.
I NC ORPO RATED
Board of Adjustment T4 4.1.4_ 44
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-371-4790
Fax: 501-371-6863
SignSystems, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance to Little Rock Codes 36-553(a)(2) and 36-553(6) on
behalf of Dr. Fatemeh Hadjian, for the property located at 5717 W. 12'`, owned by Fatemeh Hadjian,
D.D.S., P.A. SignSystems, Inc. is seeking to erect a ground mounted sign with an overall height of 15'-0",
which exceeds the current height allowance by 9'-0". SignSystems, Inc. is seeking to install the sign 6"
from the property line which exceeds the ordinances setback requirement by 4'-6".
The primary reason for the variance request is due to the lot layout of the location as well as a large Crepe
Myrtle tree located on the corner of the lot. An independent marking group recently provided Dr. Hadjian
an evaluation of her business with recommendations. It was determined that due to the inadequate size and
poor visibility of Dr. Hadjian's existing sign, the business was not getting drive by recognition of potential
customers. In order for Dr. Hadjian to leave the Crepe Myrtle tree standing and enhancing the landscaping
of the lot, a sign installed at the comer location of Dr. Hadjian's lot would need to be installed nearly
abutting the property line. This would keep the sign from encroaching on vehicular traffic in the drive area.
The sign would also need to be at a height of 15'-0" in order to ensure visibility to eastbound traffic on
West 12''.
Adhering to the ordinance's current setback and height restrictions would result in the inability to install a
suitable size sign which would result in a lack of identification for Dr. Hadjian's business.
SignSystems, Inc. extends its appreciation to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration of this
variance request.
cerely,
Rochelle Broglen
Office Administrator
Innovative Ideas In Sign Technology 6 ---
Design
March 2002
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.: Z -3915-B
Owner:
CalArk Trucking
Address: 12024 Interstate 30
Type of Issue: Time extension of previously
approved variance from the
pavement requirements of
Section 36-508. The variance
was initially approved on
November 24, 1997. Extensions
were granted through January 30,
2002.
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Comply with conditions in Public Works minute record
of November 1997.
B. Staff Analysis:
CalArk Trucking Company is located at 12024 I-30; a 30±
acre, C-4 zoned tract bounded by Otter Creek Road on
the north and I-30 on the southeast. The trucking
company is located on the western 22± acres of the
tract. On November 24, 1997, the Board of Adjustment
granted a two-year deferral of the paving requirements
of Section 36-508, allowing the trucking company to
utilize a gravel parking area for the company's trucks
and employee vehicles. There was some question, at
that time, of a possible realignment of the Otter Creek
Road overpass over I-30 which could have affected this
site. That two-year deferral expired on November 24,
1999.
On November 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved
a preliminary plat, dividing the easternmost 8± acres
of the site into 4 lots which were to be sold for
potential development by other parties. CalArk stated
it was uncertain how the truck terminal facility would
March (_ , , 2002
Item No.: 2
be "laid out" on the remaining property. It appeared
that the possible realignment of the overpass was no
longer an issue. The 4 -lot plat was approved without
the realignment issue being of concern, other than for
some specific driveway placement.
On January 31, 2000, the Board approved an additional
deferral, through November 24, 2000. Although staff
supported the additional 12 months, it was clear that
the support was only for a deferral through November
24, 2000.
On January 29, 2001, the Board approved an additional
deferral, through January 30, 2002. Staff did not
support the deferral request, noting that the 4 -lot
preliminary plat (which was the basis of the last
deferral) had expired. Staff also noted that at some
point, the site must be developed to city code.
The applicant is now requesting an additional 12 -month
deferral of the paving requirement. The justification
offered by the applicant relates to the current
financial situation of the trucking company. Please
see the attached letter from Rochelle Gorman of CalArk
for additional details.
Staff is not supportive of an additional deferral.
Staff feels that the applicant has had ample time to
plan for the pavement of the parking area. This
property has over 2,100 linear feet of frontage along
Interstate 30, one of the main entries into the City of
Little Rock. Staff feels that it is time that the site
be paved and landscaped as per city code requirements,
in order to improve the property's appearance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of the requested 12 -
month extension of the previously granted deferrals of
the paving requirement of Section 36-508.
2
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
Rochelle Gorman was present, representing the application.
There were no persons present in opposition. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Rochelle Gorman addressed the Board in support of the
requested paving extension. She gave a brief history of the
property, including the past extensions granted. She noted
that pavement for tractor/trailer trucks had to be thicker
than standard parking lots because of the weight. She noted
that the cost to pave the parking area was estimated at
$500,000. She offered the current financial status of the
business as a reason for the additional deferral. She
stated that her company wanted to do the paving, but that
money was not currently available.
Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he felt the economy would
positively affect the trucking business in the near future,
based on the information he had seen. He asked the
applicant about this issue. The issue was briefly discussed
by the applicant.
Vice -Chairman Gray noted that the corner tract of this
property was for sale and briefly discussed this property
with relation to other properties in the area.
Andrew Francis asked when the exit ramp for I-30 would be
completed. Ms. Gorman stated that she did not know.
Chairman Ruck asked if the new plan for the I-30 overpass
required Otter Creek Road to be realigned. Mike Hood, of
Public Works, stated that he did not know to what extent the
road would be realigned.
Staff asked what preparations the applicant had made during
the past five (5) years for the paving. Ms. Gorman noted
that the sale of part of the property would help finance the
paving.
Andrew Francis asked about the I-30 exit ramp and the
realignment of Otter Creek Road. This issue was briefly
discussed.
Also discussed were issues related to the previous
extensions.
3
r
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 2
Chairman Ruck stated that he had no problem with another
extension, given the status of other properties in the area.
This issue was briefly discussed.
Andrew Francis asked if there had been any complaints about
the property related to safety issues. Staff stated that
there had been none.
A motion was made to approve an extension for 12 months from
this date. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, suggested a
condition that would require CalArk to give the Board a
progress report in six (6) months.
The motion was amended, adding the requirement that the
applicant appear at the September 2002 Board of Adjustment
meeting and provide the Board with a status report. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The time
extension was approved.
4
January 29, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Re: 120241-30
Paving Extension (2-3915-B)
Dear Mr. Moore:
1
-e^3915 - 3
CalArk
The wheels of
American business
A.O. Box 990
Uabelvale, AR 72103-0990
501/455-3399
800/444-3399
501/455-5241 FAX
I would like to request an extension to the previously granted extension for an additional
12 months.
We would certainly like to comply with the ordinance but it could not come at a worse
time for a company in the trucking industry to have to come up with a large sum of
money to pave a parking lot. Our industry has been hit particularly hard with the down
turn in the economy, increased fuel prices, and the insurance markets have almost
doubled in the last year.
We are doing every thing possible to make sure that we meet our daily obligation to our
over 400 employees and our customers. To take a large sum of money to pave the
parking area would drastically effect daily operations.
We would hope that you consider our situation, not unlike the current financial situation
our city government is operating in at this current time.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 455-3399 (3327)
Sincerely,
Rochelle B. Gorman
President CaUrk, Inc.
RECEIVED
JAN 3 0 2002
BY:
March (�, 2002
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Z -6474-C
Robert and Deborah Cooley
3521 Longcoy Street
West 2/3 of Lots 11 and 12,
Block 137, John Barrow Addition
R-3
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-
156 to permit a carport with a
reduced building setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hazard area is required prior to construction.
Contact David Hamilton at 244-5402 for details.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 3521 Longcoy Street contains
a new one-story single family residence. There is a
new two -car concrete driveway from Longcoy Street which
is used to access the property. The applicant recently
placed a 20 foot by 21 foot metal accessory carport
structure in front of the house, bolted to the concrete
drive. The carport structure is located approximately
11 feet from the front (west) property line and is not
connected to the house. Section 36-156(a)(2)c.
requires a minimum front yard setback of 60 feet for
accessory buildings. Therefore, the applicant is
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 3
requesting a variance for a reduced front yard setback
for the carport structure.
Staff supports the requested variance. If the
accessory carport structure were located in the rear
yard, near the southeast corner of the residential
structure, the driveway would need to be moved further
south and closer to the intersection. Staff feels that
this would create a safety issue, being a potential
traffic hazard for the property owner. The metal
carport structure, being bolted down to the concrete
drive, could easily be removed from the property. If
the property owner ever decides to remove the structure
and construct a permanent carport or garage addition to
the house, additional Board of Adjustment review will
be required.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard
setback variance for the accessory carport structure,
subject to compliance with the Public Works Comment
noted in paragraph A. of this report.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
E
-TN-�
kp
Lc� �4y(-
A IJ
ry
Qonc&rn
March 2002
ITEM NO.: 4
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
McDonald's Corporation
7200 West 12th Street
Northeast corner of West 12th
Street and Rodney Parham Road
C-3
A variance is requested from
the sign provisions of Section
36-530 to permit three (3) wall
signs which extend more than
18 inches from the wall of the
building.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Commercial
Commercial
The property at 7200 West 12th Street contains a newly
constructed convenience store with gas pumps and a
McDonald's restaurant. Three (3) mansard signs were
mounted on the McDonald's portion of the structure.
There are two (2) different mansard signs; one (1)
being the McDonald's arches logo and the other
containing the wording "McDonald's". The signs are
located 21 to 30 inches from the face of the mansard at
the top and 12 inches at the bottom. The City's Zoning
Ordinance definition of wall signs, which includes
mansard signs, states the signs must not extend more
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 4
than 18 inches from the wall/mansard of the building.
The applicant notes that the signs have been moved back
against the mansard roof as far as possible, and that
the sign cannot be moved back further and have the
proper angle to be visible from the street, and
maintain the integrity of the trademark McDonald's
roofline.
Staff does not support the requested variance. It has
not been past City policy to permit signs to "stick-up"
above and away from mansard roofs. In other cases, the
sign owner has been required to create a "box" behind
the lettering so that the sign is mounted flush or
against the wall/mansard surface. While acknowledging
that taking such action in this particular case might
create a hardship, staff is concerned that allowing the
signs could lead to similar requests.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to
allow mansard/wall signs which extend over 18 inches
from the mansard/wall surface.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
Ben Gueren was present, representing the application. There
were no persons present in opposition. Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of denial.
Ben Gueren addressed the Board in support of the
application. He explained the signage which was placed on
the building's mansard roof. He noted that the McDonald's
on Fourche Dam Pike recently received a variance for similar
signage.
Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that no precedence was
set by the previous case.
Mr. Gueren noted that signage increased sales at McDonald's
and explained how the additional revenue would benefit the
City.
Chairman Ruck asked if McDonald's had ever done signs
differently. Mr. Gueren explained that all of the McDonald's
VA
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 4
restaurants that he had dealt with in the past had this type
of signage.
A motion was made to approve the application, as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The
application was approved.
3
JJL, INC.
DBA MCDONALUS
PO Box 56169
Little Rock, AR 72215
Ph/Fax 501-821-4510
February 22, 2002
To Whom It May Concern,
I, Jason Langnes, owner of JJL, Inc., am requesting a variance from the
requirements of the zoning ordinance for the roof signage on the McDonald's restaurant,
located at 7200 West 12th Street, Little Rock, AR. 72205. I have provided graphics of the
two different roof signs used at this location. I also have provided a side view of the roof
with the signage drawn in. This plan will show that the roof signage is as far back as
possible.
Currently, because of the angle of the roof, the bottom of the sign falls well below
the 18 inch standard, however, the top is slightly over the allotted 18 inches. In an
attempt to comply with the ordinance I had the signs moved back from their original
location to where they are only one inch off of the roof beams. The signage cannot be
moved any further back and maintain the proper angle to be visible from the road.
In order to maintain the integrity of the trademark McDonald's roof line, I am
requesting that you allow the signs to remain as they are. Without a major structural
change, complying with the existing ordinance is not possible. The signage in its existing
location allows the restaurant to be clearly visible from the interstate. More importantly,
the existing roof line allows the restaurant to be distinguished from the gas station and
recognizable as a McDonald's.
According to the numerous compliments that we receive from customers and area
business people, this new construction is a welcomed asset to the area and will continue
to grow as a positive influence in the community.
I appreciate your consideration for this variance, as I feel that it is the best
possible solution for all parties involved.
/SincerelLangnes
Owner/ Operator
March 25, 2002
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.: Z -7047-A
Owner: Abdias and Rosalinda Montoya
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
STAFF REPORT:
7102 Asher Avenue
North side of Asher Avenue at
Oak Park Drive
C-3
A variance is requested from the
parking provisions of Section
36-502 to allow a reduced number
of on-site parking spaces.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Restaurant
Restaurant
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on March 8, 2002
requesting that this application be deferred to the
April 29, 2002 agenda. The applicant needs additional time
to work out parking details associated with the variance
request. Staff supports the deferral as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 25, 2002)
Staff informed the Board that the applicant submitted a
letter on March 8, 2002 requesting that this application be
c
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 5
deferred to the April 29, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the
deferral as requested.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the April 29, 2002 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
2
4,e,-
z - 7o 7 -A
February 22, 2002
Mr. Monte Moore
Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
The Applicant has obtained a written permission to use off-site parking on the adjacent lot for 10
additional parking spaces. See the attached letter. The Applicant intends to obtain rights
for additional parking spaces in the area which are within 300 feet of the subject property. These
will be furnished to you. These additional parking spaces provide substantial additional parking
for use by customers of the subject restaurant. Also, all employees shall park in spaces which are
not on the subject property so that all on-site parking shall be for customers only.
Sincerely,
Abdias Montoya
Rosalinda Montoya
May 16, 2001
7102 Asher Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72204
(501) 225-3088
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Abdias Montoya, am borrowing ten parking spaces from my neighboring business,
owned by Sheila Miller. These spaces, combined with the parking from my location,
would add up to the parking spaces required to obtain a building permit in order for my
restaurant to open. Ms. Shelia Miller has agreed to allow our future customers to use
these parking spaces at any time during business hours. There will be a sign at my
location indicating that customers are welcome to use those parking spaces.
El Viejo San Luis may also have the extra -unpaved parking, by paving and stripping.
There should be more than ten parking spaces. Simply Raw will not be responsible for
any accidents that may occur between Simply Raw clients and El Viejo San Luis.
This contract may be terminated in the case that it becomes an in convince.
Sincerely,
PJIA,
W'- fl. ,,
Abdias Montoy
March,, 2002
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Z -7069-A
RHK, LLC
8500 West Markham Street
Description: North side of West Markham
Street, approximately 300 feet
west of Rodney Parham Road
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
.'�=
A variance is requested from the
sign provisions of Section 36-
553 to permit a second ground -
mounted sign along the south
property line.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Office
Proposed Use of Property: Office
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
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
March 2002
Item No.: 6
Parham Road was approved for a maximum height of 16
feet and area of 64 square feet. The City's Zoning
Ordinance allows one (1) ground -mounted sign per street
frontage in office zones, with a maximum sign height of
six (6) feet and maximum area of 64 square feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a
second ground -mounted sign along the West Markham
Street frontage. The proposed sign will be
approximately six (6) feet in height, with an area of
60 square feet. The sign is proposed to be located
along the west side of the easternmost access drive.
When the Board approved the ground -mounted sign
variances on July 30, 2001, one (1) of the conditions
of approval is as follows:
"There are to be no other ground -mounted
signs on the property other than
directional signs."
The property owner contends that Simmons Bank
representatives never notified them of this
requirement. Please see the attached letter for
additional information pertaining to this issue.
Staff does not support the requested variance. Aside
from the specific conditions of the previous approval,
the two (2) existing ground -mounted signs are almost
three (3) times the maximum height allowed in office
zoning. In light of the size of the sign which fronts
West Markham Street, staff feels that it would not be
reasonable to allow a second ground -mounted sign along
this 210 -foot frontage.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to
allow a second ground -mounted sign along the West
Markham Street frontage.
V,
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
Vada Reynolds was present, representing the application.
There were no persons present in opposition. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Vada Reynolds addressed the Board in support of the
application. She explained the recent remodeling of the
property and noted that several of the tenants were
requesting signage. She stated that the bank did not notify
her of the previous conditions of approval. She further
explained the need for the additional signage. She noted
that the City's Planning Staff had suggested wall -mounted
signage, and explained that wall -mounted signs would not be
very visible.
Chairman Ruck noted that the proposed sign had 20 tenant
names on it and that it appeared that it would be hard to
identify a particular business. Ms. Reynolds explained that
the tenants wanted the sign.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there was a sign on the building
with the building's address on it. Ms. Reynolds stated that
there was not currently and explained.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked if there was a previous sign on the
building that contained tenant names. Ms. Reynolds stated
that there was and explained that the sign was removed due
to lack of visibility. This issue was briefly discussed.
Andrew Francis asked if the property owner was aware of the
previous application. Staff checked the previous file and
noted that there was nothing in the file signed by the
property owner.
Vice -Chairman Gray stated that he did not support the
application, as he felt that the proposed sign would be
ineffective. He suggested wall -mounted signage.
There was a motion to approve the application, as filed.
The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes and 5 nays. The
application was denied.
3
FaiWcial�
Cent_
�F -70(-1
- r4
L"zP")
(-- 650 South Shackleford Road Suite 400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 501/221-0555
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham, 2"d Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Sign Variance Request
Markham West Plaza
8500 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72205
To whom it may concern:
On behalf of the owners of Markham West Plaza, located at 8500 West Markham, Little
Rock, Arkansas 72205, I would like to request a sign variance be approved for the
installation of a ground mounted sign. The proposed sign will meet all the city zoning
requirements for height, size, and total area. We are only asking that we be allowed to
install a second ground mounted sign on the southeast section of the Markham Street
frontage of the site.
The reasons for this request are as follows:
1) The building is located approximately 150 feet back from the Markham West frontage
property line. This distance is significant enough that the building is not easily seen
from both east bound and west bound traffic until you are right in front of the
building and there are currently no signs with the building name, address, or tenants
names located any where on the site other than Simmons Bank. Located directly west
of the building is a residential neighborhood with large trees that block the building
view for east bound travelers and directly east of the building is another office
building located close to Markham Street which blocks our building view for the west
bound travelers. This lack of visibility causes great difficulty for those who are trying
to find a business located in our building. We now have twenty tenant's in Markham
West Plaza who need the visibility of a sign for their existing patrons and to help
secure their future economic stability.
2) A sign variance was granted to Simmons First National Bank on July 30, 2001 for
their ground mounted sign located on the Markham Street frontage. I am attaching a
copy of documents given to me by the city in regards to Simmons Bank's variance
request. When this variance was requested, it was granted with three staff
recommendations.
Department of Planning and Development
Page Two
February 21, 2002
One of these recommendations was that there be no other ground mounted signs. We
as owners, were never notified of this requirement. If we would have been notified
then we would not have allowed Simmons to install their sign as designed. At that
time, we could have negotiated a sign design with Simmons Bank that would have
included all our tenants names. Our loyalties have to be with all our tenants not just
one.
3) As stated above, the new proposed sign's area, size, and height are within all the city
zoning requirements for an 0-3 zone sign. The only variance being requested is to
have one more ground mounted sign on the Markham Street frontage. The location
of this sign is marked on the site plan and will be on the southeast side of the site.
The building directly east of Markham West Plaza currently has a sign that exceeds
the 0-3 zone requirements in area, size and height. Several of the sites located south
across Markham Street have more than one ground mounted sign. Our new proposed
sign has been designed to enhance our property and will not defer from the beauty of
the area.
Thank you for considering our sign variance request and we hope that you will consider
all the above reasons and grant us our variance.
Sincerely
J
Vada Reynolds
Property Manager
March 2002
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Z -7124-A
Block 2, Limited Partnership
101 Main Street
Southeast corner of Main Street
and West Markham Street
W
A variance is requested from the
use regulations of Section 36-
342.1 to allow a restaurant,
with outside seating within the
public right-of-way, in the UU
Zoning District.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Mixture of Commercial, Office
and Residential
Mixture of Commercial, Office
and Residential
1. Improve corner curb radius to 30 feet radius with
construction (existing corner radius is 20 feet).
2. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per
current ADA standards. Configuration must permit
4 -foot wide landing at top of ramp, or
alternatively, a landing at street level with dual
ramps parallel to the curb.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
March �( , 2002
Item No.: 7
5. Obtain a franchise for property to be located in the
right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned property at 101 Main Street contains the
old Wallace Building, which is currently being
redeveloped for a mixture of office, commercial and
residential uses under the name "Block 2." The tenant
(San Francisco Bread Co.) who is located on the ground
floor of the building, at the corner of West Markham
and Main Streets, is requesting a variance to allow an
outside use (outside restaurant seating) within the
public right-of-way in the UU Zoning District. The
applicant proposes to utilize from seven (7) to twelve
(12) feet of the existing sidewalk width along Main
Street and five (5) feet of the sidewalk width along
East Markham Street for outside restaurant seating.
The seating area will be separated from the remainder
of the sidewalk by a three (3) foot high railing.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section
36-342.1(d)(1), UU Urban Use District standards:
"Permitted uses. Uses permitted shall
include all those allowed in the
residential districts, office districts
and commercial districts as "permitted
uses," in this chapter 36. Except that,
all uses must be inside or enclosed."
Staff is not supportive of the variance request. Staff
has very serious safety concerns relating to the
proposed outside restaurant seating use. The Markham
Street/Main Street intersection is a very busy
intersection. There is a large amount of pedestrian
traffic in this immediate area, with the convention
center being located across Markham Street to the
north. The proposed location of tables and chairs to
within five (5) feet of the existing street curbs, will
push the pedestrian traffic much closer to the edge of
the streets. Staff does not feel that this is a good
plan. If the Board decides to approve this
application, the applicant will need to obtain a
2
f
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 7
franchise permit for the activity to be located within
the right-of-way.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to
allow an outside use within the public right-of-way, in
the UU Urban Use District.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
Paul Esterer and Kal Makan were present, representing the
application. There were no person present in opposition.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Paul Esterer addressed the Board in support of the
application. He noted that San Francisco Bread Co.
restaurant was designed with the thought of having outside
seating. He noted that he, as property owner, wished to
have the outside activity in the area. He briefly explained
this issue. He also noted that the sidewalk would meet ADA
requirements.
Andrew Francis asked what the sidewalk width would be from
the fence/railing to the street curb. Mr. Esterer presented
a site plan drawing to the Board. The drawing was reviewed
by the Board members.
George Whittenberg spoke in favor of the application. He
explained how the outside seating would be a benefit to the
area.
James Schimmer also spoke in favor of the application. He
noted that outside dining was a use supported by the
Downtown Partnership. He also noted that outside dining was
a use allowed by the old Metrocentre plan.
Mr. Esterer explained that outside seating was only
anticipated along the Main Street side of the building.
Chairman Ruck expressed concern with pedestrian traffic flow
from south to north with the proposed design of the outside
dining area. Mr. Esterer stated that he was willing to
discuss redesigning the outside seating area.
3
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 7
Andrew Francis noted that there was a lamp post along West
Markham Street which appeared to be in the way of the
proposed outside seating area. Mr. Esterer explained that
the sidewalk would be redesigned with the new trolley system
and expected the lamp post to be removed. Mr. Francis asked
about the proposed future redesign of the sidewalk along
West Markham Street and suggested deferring the application
pending additional information. Steve Haralson noted that
the City had recently submitted plans to CATA regarding the
streetscaping along West Markham Street and explained. This
issue was discussed at length.
Mr. Esterer suggested approving the outside dining along
Main Street and deferring the Markham Street side. There
was a general discussion pertaining to revising the
application. Staff suggested revising the application by
removing the outside dining from the Markham Street side of
the building. Staff noted that the applicant could come
back before the Board, after the streetscaping has taken
place, and request the outside seating along West Markham
Street. This issue was discussed further.
Andrew Francis asked about a cut in the sidewalk along the
Main Street frontage where a tree once existed. Mr. Esterer
indicated that this cut-out area would be repaired. This
issue was discussed briefly.
Gary Langlais asked if an awning would cover the dining
area. Kal Makan stated that the tables would have
umbrellas.
Vice Chairman Gray noted support of the application, with
removal of the Markham Street seating, and explained. Mr.
Esterer noted that the outside seating along Markham Street
would be deleted from the application.
There was a motion to approve the revised application
subject to any cut-out areas in the sidewalk being repaired.
Staff noted that a franchise also needed to be obtained.
David Hamilton and Steve Haralson, both of Public Works,
discussed the Public Works requirements, specifically the
requirement to improve the corner curb radius.
There was an amended motion to approve the revised
application with a recommendation to the City Board that the
boundary street improvements be waived (Item #1 under Public
4
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 7
Works requirements, paragraph A.), and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Obtaining a permit and approval to repair the
sidewalk cut.
2. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as
noted in paragraph A. of this report.
The motion was discussed at length. The motion passed by a
vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The revised application was
approved.
5
Having been to many downtowns, I have noticed that downtown Little Rock lacks
a "welcoming, laid back" atmosphere. There are many restaurants with outside seating in
other downtown area. I feel that this is an attraction to local residents, a way to relax
after a hard day's work or to enjoy a weekend afternoon with the family.
With outside seating, San Francisco Bread Co. will not only look like a relaxing
restaurant, but also bring people in the area and throughout the River Market area.
Supporters such as the LR and NLR Mayors, Downtown Partnership, Ambassadors, and
customers of SFBC all feel that this is a great idea to help make Little Rock downtown a
true downtown.
March L-, 2002
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Z-7151
Christine R. Hale
26 Windsor Drive
Lot 526, Meadowcliff Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-
254 and the building line
provisions of Section 31-12 to
allow a porch addition with a
reduced front yard setback and
which crosses a platted building
line.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 26 Windsor Drive is occupied
by a one-story frame single family residence. The
property is located on the southwest corner of Windsor
Drive and Southmont Drive. There is an existing single
car driveway from Windsor Drive. The applicant is
proposing to make several building additions to the
existing structure, one (1) of which requires a
variance.
March ( , 2002
Item No.: 8
There was an existing uncovered porch structure on the
east side of the residence which was recently removed
in order to replace the property's sewer line. This
porch structure crossed the 25 foot front platted
building line by several feet, as the front of the
house was originally constructed to within 1.5 feet of
the building line. The applicant is requesting
variances to rebuild the front porch (unenclosed), with
a hip roof structure over it. The porch will be 6 feet
by 12 feet and extend over the platted 25 foot building
line by 4.5 feet (corner of porch). The roof overhang
will extend 6 feet over the platted building line.
Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance
requires that variances for encroachments over platted
building setback lines be reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff
feels that the encroachment over the platted building
line is very minor and that it will not have an adverse
impact on the adjacent properties. The construction of
the covered porch will result in a 19 foot setback (to
roof overhang) from the east property line.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the front platted building
line for the proposed porch. 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 building
line variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the
building line as approved by the Board.
2. The covered porch must remain unenclosed beyond the
platted building line.
2
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 8
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
K
February 14, 2002
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
Request for variance:
Christine (Doembach) Hale
26 Windsor Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209-2039
To Whom It May Concern:
Z - 7151
Proposal:
• Construct a new unenclosed wooden front porch (6 feet wide x 12 feet long) with
handrails and stairs.
• Covered with a hip roof attached to the existing house and extending six feet past the
building line.
Justification and reasons for requesting this variance:
• Original concrete porch, stairs and walkway have been removed to allow plumbing
and carpentry repairs.
• Plumbing — main sewer line has begun to deteriorate and requires replacement.
Sewer line exists directly under original concrete entrance/stoop.
• Carpentry — floor framing has deteriorated (rot) and requires repairs/replacement.
Original entrance/stoop was concrete poured directly up to the house without
adequate roof overhang, allowing water to seep in around the entrance and
damage the structural framing.
Closing:
The granting of this variance would enable us to provide a safe, comfortable and
attractive entrance to our home along with completing the restoration in a manner that
will avoid future damage to structural components. We have made every effort to restore
this house with the intent that, upon completion, it will appear to be original construction,
contributing to neighborhood renewal.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Christine R Hale Eugene A. Hale, Jr.
March,--, 2002
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Z-7155
Mark and Katherine Ramm
5301 Stonewall
Lot 1, Block 24, Newton's
Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-
254 to permit building additions
with reduced front and rear yard
setbacks.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. All driveways (within the right-of-way) shall be
concrete aprons per City Ordinance, if a sidewalk is
present.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5301 Stonewall is occupied by
a one-story brick and frame single family residence.
The house is located primarily within the north one-
half of the lot, with the structure's covered front
porch being 16.5 feet from the front (north) property
line. There is an access drive near the southeast
corner of the property, with a large concrete parking
pad within the southern portion of the property.
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 9
The applicant proposes to construct additions to the
north and south ends of the structure. The addition on
the north end will be approximately 206 square feet in
area, and be additional master bedroom space and an
enclosed entrance to the home. This addition will be
located 16 feet from the front (north) property line.
The proposed rear building addition will be
approximately 1,400 square feet in area and include an
enclosed garage. This addition will be located 21 feet
from the rear (south) property line. According to
Sections 36-254(d)(1) and 36-254(d)(3), front and rear
building setbacks in R-2 zoning must be a minimum of 25
feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances
for reduced front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed
additions conform to the required side yard setbacks.
The applicant also plans to add a new 192 square foot
porch along the east side of the structure which will
conform to the setback requirements.
Staff is not supportive of the variance requests.
Staff feels that the proposed building additions
represent an over -building of the residential lot. The
applicant is proposing to add approximately 1,800
square feet to the existing 1,360 square foot residence
(not including existing front porch), on a 7,000 square
foot single family residential lot. Although the
existing front porch does not meet the minimum front
yard setback requirement, the applicant is proposing to
move slightly closer to the front property line with
more building area than currently exists.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variances for
reduced front and rear yard building setbacks.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and noted that the staff
recommendation was no longer "denial." The staff
recommendation was changed to "approval, as filed."
The applicant offered no additional comments.
PA
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 9
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
1 f� -4 7
Katherine Ramm 2-715S
1708 N. Monroe
Little Rock, AR 72207
(501) 666-5772
February 21, 2002
RE: Variance for Lot 1 Block 24, Newton's Addition/5301 Stonewall
Attention: Little Rock Board of Adjustments/ Dana Carney
A variance is being requested for the above mentioned residence, at the
front of the lot and at the back of the lot.
A variance is being sought for the front of the house do to lot size. The
constraints of the lot ,make it necessary to extend outside the existing box
of the house. This will enable the master bedroom to be on one level, as
well as provide an enclosed entrance to the home. A face lift to the front of
the home with varied step outs will also bring the house in line with the
charm and esthetics of the surrounding properties. Therefore enhancing
the neighborhood.
A variance is being sought at the back of the house because of the slope
The slope makes it necessary to encroach slightly to allow for steps down
into and enclosed garage.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this request.
Yours Truly,
Katherine W. Ramm
March �� 2002
ITEM NO.: 10
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7156
Country Club Station Realty
2010 N. Van Buren Street
Lot 14, Block 26, Newton's
Addition
C-3
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-
301 to permit a building
addition with a reduced side
yard setback, and which extends
into the public right-of-way.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Restaurant
Restaurant
1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 2010 N. Van Buren Street is zoned C-3
and contains a commercial building, with off-street
parking along the building's north side. Cheers In The
Heights Restaurant is located in the northeast corner
of the existing building. There is a patio area for
outside seating (approximately 16 feet by 20 feet)
located at the northeast corner of the building,
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 10
between the building and Van Buren Street. The outside
patio area is located within the street right-of-way,
as the east wall of the commercial building is located
on the property line.
The applicant, Cheers In The Heights, is requesting a
variance from the area regulations of Section 36-301 to
permit the construction of an awning extending from the
east wall of the building over the existing patio area.
The proposed awning addition would extend over the
property line and into the public right-of-way.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-
301(e)(2), the minimum side yard setback along the Van
Buren Street property line is 25 feet.
Staff does not support the side yard setback variance.
As of this writing, staff is unsure how or if the
applicant received approval to place the patio area in
the public right-of-way in the first place. The
proposed awning addition would extend approximately 12
feet into the required Master Street Plan right-of-way
for Van Buren Street. Staff feels that the proposed
awning addition would further congest a very busy
intersection (Van Buren Street and Kavanaugh Blvd.) and
could create safety concerns.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested side yard
setback variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
Robert Cortinez and Chuck Presler were present, representing
the application. There were no persons present in
opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of denial.
Robert Cortinez addressed the Board in support of the
application. He explained the requested variance. He
presented photos of the property to the Board and explained.
He noted that the safety concerns expressed by staff were
minimal. He stated that the patio cover would actually make
the area safer. He noted that the patio area was
constructed in 1996, and presented police accident reports
E
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 10
for the area. He also noted that the patio area aided the
handicapped customers and explained.
Andrew Francis asked what the height of the awning would be.
Mr. Cortinez explained that it would be twelve (12) feet in
height. Mr. Francis asked if the awning would extend past
the existing patio area. Mr. Cortinez responded that it
would not.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked what type of supporting structure
the awning would have. Mr. Cortinez presented the Board
with photos and explained.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked if the restaurant had trouble with
handicap accessibility. Chuck Presler responded that they
did not have a problem with serving handicapped customers.
In response to a question from Chairman Ruck, Mr. Presler
noted that the awning structure would not be enclosed.
Vice -Chairman Gray asked how the existing patio area was
approved. Staff noted that there was not a franchise for
the patio and that it would be considered nonconforming
based on the fact that it had existed for over a year.
Steve Haralson, of Public Works, noted that there were no
plans to widen Van Buren Street.
There was a motion to approve the application subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as
noted in paragraph A. of this report.
2. A franchise must be obtained for the covered patio
area.
3. The canopy must remain unenclosed on the north, south
and east sides.
The motion was briefly discussed. Staff noted that Public
Works requirement #2 would apply to this application. The
motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. The application
was approved.
W
T�-.,o� sf / v
Cheers in the Heights — 7 15
2010 North Van Buren
Little Rock, AR 72207
February 19, 2002
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Application for Non-residential Zoning Variance
To Whom it May Concern:
Enclosed please find a completed Application for Zoning Variance and filing fee in the
amount of $150.00.
On behalf of Cheers in the Heights, I am requesting a zoning variance for the following
reasons:
Cheers is requesting a variance to install an awning over the existing patio area of Cheers
in the Heights to protect diners from the elements and decrease run-off from weather-related
events which will help to minimize and/or eliminate safety hazards for patrons and employees and
which will help beautify the existing patio area.
Please consider the enclosed application and I look forward to the Board's meeting on
March 25, 2002.
Sincerely,
C1111k 61AI, 4 T
Chuck Presher
March '( 2002
ITEM NO.: 11
File No.: Z-7157
Owner: Gaston P. Gibson
Address: 2300 N. Beechwood
Description: Part of Lots 7 and 9, and all of
Lot 8, Block 10, Country Club
Heights Addition
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-
254 to permit a building
addition with a reduced rear
yard setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Contact Melvin Hall, at 371-4856, for inspection of
drainage tie-in work in the right-of-way, prior to
backfilling.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 2300 N. Beechwood is occupied
by a two-story brick single family residence, which is
currently being remodeled. There is a one-story brick
and frame accessory building at the southwest corner of
the property, which the applicant plans to remove. The
applicant proposes to construct a 1,645 square foot,
one-story building addition to the rear (west side) of
the existing single family structures. The addition
would include an open carport for two (2) vehicles,
l
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 11
storage area and an open breezeway. Approximately 30
feet (from the existing house to the west) will be
unenclosed carport/breezeway area, with the rear 17
feet of the addition being enclosed workshop/storage
space. The proposed building addition will be located
approximately 12 feet from the rear (west) property
line.
According to Section 36-254(d) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, the minimum required rear yard setback is 25
feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance for a reduced rear yard setback.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff
feels that based on the fact that a large portion of
the property is apparently not buildable due to an
unstable soil situation, there is reasonable
justification to allow the reduced rear yard setback.
Otherwise, the building addition could extend further
north and comply with the required setbacks. The
proposed building addition will be located far enough
back from the rear property line as to not have an
adverse impact on the adjacent property to the west.
Additionally, the fact that approximately 1,050 square
feet of the structure will not be enclosed on the sides
will lessen the visual impact on the adjacent
properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard
setback variance, subject to the carport/breezeway area
remaining unenclosed on the north and south sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
V,
7 4a" .4 /(
TO: THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2-7(57
FROM: GASTON P. GIBSON
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL ZONING VARIENCE
2300 BEECHWOOD
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2002
HISTORY THAT LED TO ZONING VARIENCE REQUEST IS AS FOLLOWS:
1. BASED ON SITE INVESTIGATION BY DIGGING TEST HOLES AND WITH THE
HELP OF A SOILS EXPERT, AND AN ARCHITECT PLUS MY 40 YEARS OF
CONSTRUCTION EXPERTISE CLEARLY DEFINED THE ONLY AREA OF THE
LOT THAT WAS SAFE TO BUILD ON.
2. EXIHIBIT A DEFINES THE AREA OF THE LOT THAT HAS VERY UNSTABLE
SOIL WITH LOTS OF GROUND WATER THAT WAS DISCOVERED IN THE
SUMNER OF 2001. I HAVE INSTALLED FRENCH DRAINS AS SHOWN IN
EXHIBIT A IN AN ATTEMPT TO INTERCEPT GROUND WATER THAT MAKES
THE GRASS DIFFICULT TO GROW AS WELL AS TRYING TO MOW IT.
THERE IS DEFINITELY UNDERGROUND WATER IN THE DEFINED LOT
AREA YEAR ROUND. THE AREA OF THE LOT THAT SHOWS THE ADDITION
(PHASE II) IS SOLID STABLE GROUND TO BUILD ON.
3. ANY ATTEMPT TO ADD ON TO THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH WILL CREATE
ONGOING GROUND WATER PROBLEMS AS WELL AS MOVING PHASE II
ANY FURTHER NORTH. THIS IS THE REASON THE HOUSE ADDITION
COULD NOT BE EXPANDED FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
HOUSE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE
4. AS A RESULT, I WOULD CHOOSE TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING STORAGE
THAT IS 25'X 25' LOCATED 5' OFF SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND 5' OFF
WEST PROPERTY LINE AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW STORAGE AREA
AND OPEN CARPORT FOR TWO CARS PLUS AN OPEN BREEZEWAY THAT
MAKES UP PHASE II AND WOULD BE 15' OFF SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND
12' OFF WEST PROPERTY LINE.
IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS APPROVED, IT WILL BE USER FRIENDLY TO
THOSE LIKE ME THAT ARE AT RETIREMENT AGE AND NEED TO BE ABLE TO
LIVE ON ONE LEVEL WITH LITTLE OR NO STEPS TO CLIMB. IT WILL ALSO
PREVENT AND CONTROL ANY FUTURE UNDERGROUND WATER PROBLEMS FOR
THIS LOT. MY NEIGHBORS VOICE THEIR SUPPORT FOR MY ADDITION.
1 "�� ■ CoRswJtl Cfrf! F-+tRI„ticsn Laid Sumyorr ,,11N"
1313 JOHN F, KRMMRDY •OULIVARD x
►+Coacrvrewinars PHONE (331) 793.1337 u w
PAX (131) 753.1133
MONTH LITTLE ROCK, ANKAMSA$ 72114 00UNO��,
--- ` IRo►J PIfJ�
�dINT 15 _ Ids �
:"IE(l, OF DESCT
44I -t- Men
CORNCK
L
t,o cc
o
t �d-�ru►
Ld
.5'
In,t ,3 \
" DoT 7 J
W '
J
Q
3`
no
-ZZ'
6C4 LE' I 30' .
�N
pr 5T, IIRick )ZE,S, c-
i i• Z7•
10
<7BScR16ED � TJ -
MEASuRr-D
f,o' .tSICIcLLs�tA�i... FIP.
m
o' Is' 30
r
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE NORTH 22.6 FEET OF LOT 7, ALL OF LOT 8, AND THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF I.OT 9, ALL
IN BLOCK 10, COUNTRY CLUB HEIGHTS ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AS SHOWN ON PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE
181, RECORDS OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND THE EAST'/ OF A STRIP OF LAND
FORMERLY PLATTED AS AN ALLEY, LYING WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO THE SAID
NORTH 22-6 FEET OF LOT 7. ALL OF LOT R_ ANI\ TIIE S(1IITII an 17 r: PT nP I nr 0 WMV
March 2002
ITEM NO.: 12
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
MIM-1
Levy Family Revocable Trust and
Claude and Joyce Babin
5608/5610 Hawthorne Road
Lots 18AR and 18BR, Forest
Heights Place Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area provisions of Section
36-156, the building line
provisions of Section 31-12
and the height provisions of
Section 36-516 to allow an
accessory structure with reduced
setbacks which crosses a platted
building line and a fence and
wall which exceeds the maximum
height allowed.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Each of the R-2 zoned properties at 5608 and 5610
Hawthorne Road contains a two-story single family
residence. The properties front on Hawthorne Road,
with "V" Street right-of-way along the rear property
lines. The property owners recently constructed a
March 2002
Item No.: 12
shared accessory structure (tool storage building) in
the rear yards, which straddles the dividing side
property line. The accessory building is 8 feet by 16
feet, with a height of seven (7) feet. The applicant
is requesting a variance to allow the structure with
reduced side yard setbacks. Section 36-156(a)(2)f.
requires a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet
for accessory buildings.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow
the accessory building to be constructed within a
platted building setback. When these lots were
replatted in 1994, a 30 foot building line was platted
along the north property lines. The accessory building
is located approximately four (4) feet from the north
property line. If the Board approves the building line
variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot
replat reflecting the change in the front building line
for the proposed house. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
Additionally, the property owner at 5608 Hawthorne Road
recently replaced a privacy fence along the north and
east property lines extending into the right-of-way of
"V" Street. The fence is six (6) feet in height and is
located on top of a masonry retaining wall, with an
overall height of 7'-8" to 9'-6" due to the sloping
terrain. Section 36-516 of the Zoning Ordinance allows
a maximum overall fence height of six (6) feet for
residential fences located along property lines and a
maximum height of four (4) feet for fences located
between required building setback lines and street
rights-of-way. Therefore, the owner of 5608 Hawthorne
Road is requesting a variance for the existing fence.
There is also an existing six (6) foot wood privacy
fence along the west and north property lines of
5610 Hawthorne Road. This fence also extends into
the right-of-way of "V" Street. The owner of
5610 Hawthorne Road proposes to replace this fence with
another six (6) foot high wood fence which will be
compatible with the fence at 5608 Hawthorne Road.
Therefore, this property owner also requests a variance
to allow the six (6) foot high fence between the
2
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 12
required rear building setback and the "V" Street
right-of-way.
Staff supports the requested variances. Staff feels
that the proposed accessory building and fences are
compatible with the other properties located along "V"
Street. "V" Street functions essentially as an alley,
with the residential properties having either side or
rear yard relationships to the street. There are other
structures located along "V" Street which extend into
the public right-of-way.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances
subject to the following conditions:
1.A building permit must be obtained for all
construction.
2. A franchise must be obtained for the portions of the
fences which extend into the "V" Street right-of-
way.
3. The applicant must complete a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the rear platted building
line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
2- 7 158'
Little Rock Board of Adjustment February 8, 2002
Attention: Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Application for zoning variance, 5608/5610 Hawthorne Rd.
Dear Mr. Carney:
We, neighbors at 5608 and 5610 Hawthorne Rd, Little Rock AR, agreed to construct a
shared accessory structure (tool storage bldg) in our back yards. The structure straddles
the side yard property line, and is set back four feet from the rear yard property line as
indicated on the attached survey. The bldg is 8'x 16'x 7'high at the eave. We request a
variance to permit this structure with these reduced setback dimensions.
At 5608 Hawthorne, a fence is constructed along V Street which is a replacement for an
existing 6 ft high fence. This fence is aligned with other existing neighboring fences
along V Street, beyond the property line. The fence is located atop a masonry retaining
wall which varies in height from 20 inches to 42 inches. The fence is 6 ft high(as was the
existing replaced fence). The top of the fence is 6' above grade on the house side, and ,
due to the sloping terrain, it varies in height from 7'-8" to 9'-6" above grade on the street
side. We request a variance to allow for construction of this fence.
The fence and accessory structure are compatible with development, neighboring fences
and accessory structures along V Street: No houses front on V street, only the side and
rear yards; and V Street is treated as an alley, rather than a street, as its pavement is
narrow (16') and without curbs. All along V Street fences and walls have been
constructed in the right of way and are aligned with our fences.. In addition, accessory
structures have been built along V Street which are located directly on the rear and
sideyard property lines, and in some cases, accessory structures have been built out into
the right -of -way of V Street.
In addition, we request a variance(if required) to replace the existing 6 ft high fence
located along V Street at the back yard of 5610 Hawthorne as indicated on the attached
survey. The replacement fence will be wooden, of height not to exceed 6 ft, and of style
and design compatible with the fence in the back yard of 5608 Hawthorne.
Thank You for your consideration of this variance application
Sincerely,
Eugene P. Levy & Gertrude . Levy
5608 Hawthorne Rd, 72207
Phone: 663-8668
Claude H. Babin, Jr.& Joyce
5610 Hawthorne Rd, 72207
Phone: 666-6869
bin
March 2002
ITEM NO.: 13
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Z-7161
Mildred Cooper
1901 N. Polk Street
Lot 7 and the South 1-2 of Lot 8,
Block 3, Mountain Park Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the
fence regulations of Section 36-
516 to allow construction of an
eight (8) foot high privacy
fence and a privacy fence (6 to
8 feet in height) between a
required building setback line
and a street right-of-way.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Relocate fence on east side of lot along true
property line.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 1901 N. Polk Street contains
a two-story frame single family residence. There is an
existing privacy fence which encloses the north and
east yards. The existing fence has varying heights,
with the fence along the east property line being
slightly in the alley right-of-way. The property
owner, Mildred Cooper, proposes to remove the existing
wood privacy fence and replace it with a new fence, as
noted on the attached site plan. The new wood privacy
March 2002
Item No.: 13
fence will range in height from 6 feet along the east
property line and down a portion of the north property
line, to 8 feet along the west portion of the north
property line and south to the northwest corner of the
single family home. The fence extends approximately
five (5) feet into the required building setback from
the west property line and 7.5 feet into the required
building setback from "R" Street. The applicant also
plans to replace a 16 -foot section of a 4 -foot high
picket fence extending from the southeast corner of the
residence into the "R" Street right-of-way. This fence
will require a franchise permit.
Section 36-516(c)(1)a. of the City's Zoning Ordinance
requires that fences constructed within the required
building setbacks adjacent to streets be limited to a
maximum height of four (4) feet. Additionally, fences
constructed behind the required street side building
setbacks and along interior property lines are limited
to maximum heights of six (6) feet. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting variances to allow for
construction of an eight (8) foot high privacy fence
along a portion of the north property line and between
the required 25 foot building setback and Polk Street
right-of-way. The applicant is also requesting a
variance to allow a six (6) foot high privacy fence
between the required 7.5 -foot building setback and the
"R" Street right-of-way.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. There
is an existing wood privacy fence ranging in height
from 6 to 7 feet located between the required building
setbacks and both street rights-of-way. The proposed
eight (8) foot high fence near the northeast corner of
the property will not create a sight distance problem,
and will be located far enough back from the west
property line as to have no adverse impact on the front
yard of the residential structure to the north. The
large Kroger Store building is located directly across
Polk Street to the west.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence
variances subject to the following conditions:
2
March 25, 2002
Item No.: 13
1. Compliance with the Public Works condition as noted
in paragraph A. of this report, or obtain a
franchise.
2. The fencing must have a finished side facing outward
along the Polk Street frontage.
3.A franchise must be obtained for the portion of
the 4 -foot picket fence which extends into the
"R" Street right-of-way.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
Date: March 8, 2002
To: City of Little Rock Planning & Development
Board of Adjustment
From: Mildred Cromwell Cooper
1901 North Polk
Little Rock, AR 72207
Re: Application for a Residential Zoning Variance
T4 -a, 44 t3
2- 7/cI
I am applying for the following residential variance. Due to my
deteriorating, 13 -year old privacy fence and the damage from the December
2000 ice storm, I would like to replace the existing 66" privacy fence with a
new one. I have attached the diagram from Ingle Fence Company outlining
the new privacy fence.
Ingle Fence Company plans to use 8' posts on the westside in order to
provide 6' coverage along the northside, by stair -stepping the fence. This is
the result of the drop in elevation in my yard from east to west. This is an
increase of 1'6" only on the west side of the fence, adjacent to the
commercial property (new Kroger Store).
The main reason to increase the existing privacy fence on the west side
from 66" to 8' is to provide "visual privacy" from the new Kroger Commercial
Development.
Thank you for your consideration.
March 2002
ITEM NO.: 14
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7162
Jim Couch
3610 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Northeast corner of Kavanaugh
Blvd. and Lookout Street
C-3
A variance is requested from the
parking provisions of Section
36-502 to allow a restaurant -
type use with a reduced number
of off-street parking spaces.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Commercial
Coffee House
The property at 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd. is zoned C-3 and
contains an existing nonconforming commercial building.
The existing building is nonconforming in the respect
that there is not enough off-street parking to meet the
minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements for a
retail/commercial building of its size. Recently,
Eldred and Virginia Garcia obtained a privilege license
and a building permit to remodel 2,400 square feet of
the building for use as a coffee house, a restaurant -
type use. The upper floor, fronting Kavanaugh Blvd.,
will be utilized as the coffee house, with the lower
floor being used only in the evenings for such
March 2002
Item No.: 14
activities as live jazz music and poetry and book
readings.
The permits were issued for conversion of 2,400 square
feet of the building from general retail to a
restaurant use, without the parking situation being
considered. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance,
Section 36-502, a restaurant requires three (3) times
more off-street parking (1 space per 100 square feet of
gross floor area) than does a retail use (1 space per
300 square feet of gross floor area). The change in
occupancy from retail to restaurant in this case
requires an additional 16 off-street parking spaces.
When the City realized this error, the applicants were
given the option of requesting a variance from the
Board of Adjustment rather than a stop -work order being
issued.
The applicants explain in the attached cover letter
that there is a small amount of existing parking
(unpaved) behind the building. The applicants also
note that they are working with several of the nearby
commercial property owners for use of existing off-
street parking after hours, when these businesses are
closed. There are also several on -street spaces in
front of the building along Kavanaugh Blvd. The
applicants also state that a valet service will be
provided, which will aid in the parking problem.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. There are
a number of on -street parking spaces in the general
area, within walking distance of this commercial
building. As noted previously, part of this coffee
house use will only be operating after hours. During
evening and weekend hours several of the off-street
parking areas for nearby businesses should be
available. It is also important to note that other
similar types of commercial/restaurant uses located in
this general area along Kavanaugh Blvd. have thrived
for a number of years with these same types of parking
issues.
N
March 20, 2002
Item No.: 14
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to
allow a reduced number of off-street parking spaces,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The lower level of the coffee house business must
be operated only during evening and weekend hours.
2. The valet service proposed by the applicants must
not block the public right-of-way or impede on -
street traffic in any way.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 25, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays.
3
-c4-4--- #
Mie Living
��., g Room, Im 3610 Kavanaugh Blvd
LdYp VSA Little Rock, AR 72207
;2-7/42- - 7 / /�Q 2-
Phone: 501-7-796-796
83 9
( ;I. r 7A. -X- )
March 11, 2002
Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Sir or Madam
We are submitting this cover letter as a formal request for a parking variance for our business at 3610
Kavanaugh Blvd. We propose to open a coffee house at said location that will seat no more than 60
people. Our location offers 2,400 square feet over two floors, with the coffee house on the top level —
the main level to Kavanaugh Blvd. Downstairs, we plan to offer an evening setting with live jazz, poetry
readings, and book readings. Please consider that this level will only be open in the evening hours.
Our predominant traffic pattern for our business will be in the evening hours and on weekends,
particularly Saturday and Sunday brunch, as well as Friday and Saturday evenings, evenings after
theater events, and special event nights, such as poetry readings.
Our business caters to the typical demographic of Heights and Hillcrest residents in the 25-45 age
group — creative, family-oriented professionals. With no comparable place to frequent, we — and an
overwhelming number of Hillcrest and Heights residents and merchants — are strongly anticipating our
opening. In fact, the local merchants in our immediate vicinity robustly support our business and
greatly await our opening as they feel our business will have a positive effect on their businesses as
well. We plan to contribute strongly to schools and churches in our community of Heights/Hillcrest and
have been very vocal in this intention as most anyone we have either generally spoken with, hired or
contracted with will attest to. Indeed, overwhelming support for our business is pulsating throughout
the neighborhoods and even beyond them at this point.
As you may already know, we are in possession of a valid business license and a remodeling permit
upon which two inspections have already been executed — plumbing and electrical. To our knowledge
and reliance, these documents permitted us to proceed with renovations and business planning. After
several weeks of construction and expenses totaling over $100,000, we were informed by the City of
Little Rock, that the permits and licenses had been issued in error. We were advised to seek the forum
of the Board of Adjustment to address the City's questions surrounding our location.
We are eager to do so and therefore offer the following justification for requesting a variance from the
requirements of the zoning ordinance of the City of Little Rock.
➢ We have two of our own parking spaces in the rear of our building and are building a third
to accommodate handicap parking. There is room for three additional parking spaces for
patrons to park behind each other at the rear of our building. We will provide a valet staff
at all times to move cars for our patrons. The total number of parking spaces on our
property in the back would equal five.
➢ In the immediate front of the building there is room for nine cars — given the City
requirement for 22 feet per parking space. Next door there is a resale hospice store
(Angels in the Attic), which is rarely frequented by more than one vehicle at a time. The
Yoga studio two doors down, which also shares these nine public parking spaces, has
brief evening classes and Saturday morning classes. During the day, they are not in
session and parking would not appear to bean issue in this regard. Hocotts' Nursery next
• Page 2
March 11, 2002
door to us has agreed to let us share their parking with us. At such time as the board
meeting we will submit proof of this strong support by the Hocott family. Similarly, Connie
Fails' retail boutique next to Hocott's Nursery offers approximately 12 parking spaces. Ms.
Fails has agreed to allow us to use these spaces in the evening hours and on the
weekend. She is also a strong supporter of our business_ Mr. Jim Couch, who is our
landlord, also owns the building across the street along with a partner. He has agreed to
let us use those 15 parking spaces in the evening and on weekends as well. Letters will
affirm this support. In addition, there are many street parking spaces on Hillcrest avenue
(approximately 30) within very close walking distance to our location. The residents of this
street are already accustomed to street parking here due to the Mount St Mary's Academy
pupils who park on that street during the morning and early afternoon hours. Moreover,
other side streets within dose walking distance offer substantial parking opportunities.
➢ We feel strongly that our business will enhance the enclave of Hillcrest greatly. Our
patrons, as mentioned, will not be a young group of people prone to mischief, but rather
professionals of some posture in our community. This will hopefully alleviate any concern
of the Board regarding the potential for disturbance of neighboring businesses and
residents.
➢ The nature of our business is one that caters to walkers. Coffee houses in the
neighborhood of Hillcrest have always attracted many walkers. With Prospect Terrace
and Hillcrest within immediate walking distance, we expect at least 15% of our business to
be generated from the walking public. Approximately 10 former employees of the now
defunct Cafe d/Roma on Kavanaugh Blvd can verify this important culinary trend that is
indicative of our enclave of Little Rock.
➢ Patrons of neighboring businesses, who have already parked, will generate another 15%
of our business.
➢ Please consider attached article in the Sunday, March 10th edition of our Arkansas
Democrat -Gazette: "Urbanites seek aura of village." We have attached it for your
consideration. We believe it showcases the widespread support of Hillcrest and Heights
residents for quality of life within its unique enclave. The Living Room will greatly enhance
that objective.
➢ Finally, there are many restaurants in Heights/Hillcrest that face the very same parking
issues that The Living Room, Inc. now seeks to resolve. These establishments are
important pillars of the community and we intend to take the same position upon opening
our doors to the Little Rock public. We respectfully request the opportunity to do so and
protect our family from the potentially devastating loss a denial of our request would incur.
Sincerely,
Vimin' H. Ga is
'n. Kevin.Smith,
rip fining that phrase is the
ers are aetermined10„-
founded, the state relies
serves on the In-
tee on Children
unk
hi artThe law itself seems
to ..,refound -matters because
on those calls in its effort
vestigate`and stop
1 .�
the question
can change that
mandated reporters must reach
that state 'of mind before they
child
Some believe the law j
Err
/
` Z
not tipping the
-
are required to call the state
on the side of cautio
recommend.
P -p
n Klu'51 s L e8” rat-Gamft&XAREN E. SEGRAVE
t tree at, the edge of Bull Shoals City. Park. The Army Corps of Engineers marked trees with
ger hunt, and licensed hunters were allowed to hunt inside the city limits.
Res
:yrs - - d
aneer
Shoals.
mill
Urbanites
seek -
team,
...
of �vYlla a -: ,ate,
g.
sa. s
2�z
Y
BY C.S. MURPHY
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE ..
'For many Little Rock iesi-
dents, a typical day is spent in
the car, driving from homes in
west Little Rock to downtown
offices or herding children
back and forth from schools'
and doctors offices located:on'
opposite ends of town.
The idea of living, work-
ing and shopping in a pedes
trian-friendly "urban village"
seems like a dream.:
Butmembers ofthe VLsxon
Isttle:Rock.' ivironnienf"d :
Land bsework group sap'the
city's popular Hillcrest: neigh
borhogd js prooftliat residents
crave -areas that mesh resi-
dential commercial and office
spaces.
-Elillcresfs tree=shaded side-
Awalksoffer an argument for
creating a:series of sma town
settings within the city, they
:Say,
` AeWApeople on the side-
_walks,,there's people with
strollers, and walking their
- - dogs: There:aren''t many places
in the city where you'll see that
if you ,through at 9.30 at
night," said Chuck Goldner, 6
dean of the William H. Bowen
School of Law at the Univer-
sity of Arkansas at Little Rock
Goldner was one of 550 res-
idents who participated in the
22 -month Vision Little Rock
process, an initiative to set pri-
orities for improving_ the city.
Little Rock leaders will spend
the next several months re-
viewing the group's 33 goals to
decide what is affordable and
what can be transformed into
Policy.
The leaders of Vision Little
,Rocks l2;work groups have be- . i
gun "reporting theif recom
mendations to the -city Board
of Directors.
I
CIA'
0
0 -mv
-0 (A
23
eFi OIL 0 i-- tj CD
C, C44 Fr
INV 0 r+
0
0 td 44 Itr CA 0 tj
'Apt,
ga
0
0- Urn
0 0
t 0
(b
'Is Q-ZE-
Cc',,
cn D ;5 cb cz
WN
r va Z:zz CC2 . C2 CA Q Cb
cb C-4 thO
..00
Won
s o
..w. CD Co
.5p:
0. .>
!!p7.
A
SiD Om rrl C. milm
'—s :3 IQ
' 9;6 In 06 Q=1 -M Q
CO C.
alp"'a-g !=- , -. .- L .
Cb Q W2 .
CD --a Nom. W �L
=8 Cb M
ci Co. -.7
cul" cb Cx
co
yi7Orm
cb
0 CD
150, ,lima
7,
7,
0'
CM CD
_C
ID
CO
CD
CD "ID
so
OrL 0 CD:O
M3
0 CD CD M,=
Ml . 0 LJW: 0
0 n . -0 -� :3 M. CL
`S.�r3 �.% - - _ '
Co,
'CO
ch
Ca W
-m- CD.
CD
_'Aw
2st tu
to Ga 00
C2. C, CD cn
ICID .CD
CD -W
cn CD ED
go CD CA M 0 CMD ccCD
CDofl�
cg)
CO57•40pt ;.r,.
--
mm
CD :cn 0 �Iiw-
CA
N
to
CD S
!,ga co
a
C,) m
7
Cr:CD
........... :7
co
77- CD &
ST ...
CD :�Affiiw
CD
V
CD"'
CD
CA , 1" 771
CD
M11
dl
CD
o . . .
i* on
7
CO
011
'Sp j
CD
CD.
:CD
Z
-C>
:.CD
IM CD
SID
C5 CD
5.0"
ID CD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0+
G• LL $Df'o'.,Sr
rA
ro co
gqb
KV 0 ft to
M
jj.9-
Zq, oil.
0
co
CD"- C)
1+ 0
(D
C)
'to:.
M.
.4.
P- 0.
CD 0 p
: 0
o o 0
La,
CD CO
0
0
.0
o
CL 0 4+ TO
to PI 0
0:. -!z
Ai U), V. (D n
UQ #-%0-
0 OQ CD
Vi- 0
Co. U) P;t V)
D"..4 0- U) tr cb. 0--P�'m
0-
Ely.
M11
dl
CD
o . . .
i* on
7
CO
011
'Sp j
CD
CD.
:CD
Z
-C>
:.CD
IM CD
SID
C5 CD
5.0"
ID CD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0+
G• LL $Df'o'.,Sr
rA
ro co
gqb
KV 0 ft to
M
jj.9-
Zq, oil.
0
co
CD"- C)
1+ 0
(D
C)
'to:.
M.
.4.
P- 0.
CD 0 p
: 0
o o 0
La,
CD CO
0
0
.0
o
CL 0 4+ TO
to PI 0
0:. -!z
Ai U), V. (D n
UQ #-%0-
0 OQ CD
Vi- 0
Co. U) P;t V)
D"..4 0- U) tr cb. 0--P�'m
0-
L
fiy
O, -.aq 1-1 aq
rD
rd.
crt-
po,. -23 (D
R ta. rZ tn. W
0. rD ji)
CD
CD
mo
cn
0, n
Zr Cb
cb.
`0
DW
-co
-<
rA ......
CD
-1 : ;-
Elk
CA
FL
MIT
10
0 0.
. �M
tA
>
-----------------
.................
g — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'jo
MM
m co
ril
,CD
e
0`
m o m m� m �O7tv r+ am Waco O. xg
.CD
110
in
1
2,-
C2.
'N w'CD tC
Y <ma®m"mc0%0�CDca
.O
a®`d�'Sp@O�`e3m� Vut TD CD
co
sa ._ m o
n Qx�:��3v'�a'� No mo .'
N.� ow ..+•.«sem moo �, _.c.
N O't3',x �'p m fir. „„ tn-� p, v� y--� CD -F
m< m N ® _ .
=rO .-f O "a G CD N •„� !_i d
CD o 0
Irx
cn
z m ma N �oaoo`
CCD <. OV
y=3c m r „�� �~„ .:.:gip -«p y N m G
CD .t'a. rn o t- .. m a co
co co N_ y D Co
r w
h �c m r+ m •': t
N .
,u.. c.: r+ t0._w n Ogo,co
co
C�O CD CD
o3a.m0uxsoQtiuomm ty.o �_:L9'a �: o?Nr<mo .
r'N co 1w"ra :y0 •a <: .i . W "�' "C^�:,. tocn
C* co_m m=,�'c o a:o w t1.4 �is3.Ll. �m'o �a o
C> .�
Co ,� m •C •� 1� : n + m
�.:..:�:Qm a A'C �� cn� a coa m
m o
w
a o. y -�.. cs-� 3 03;0
m .. 3 w.10
CD
co
co 0 0
DAiw
cn
Col mr
nip 3 3 -tea
CD
GZ G o h y� fl rt
al
pyo A ...,yA4 f�3 r-.rfDt O. y�� rA"j n
'.. ry .+ N .•r to �p Y {► •'mob ry A y 'O : f,,,�.-m..l'•:
y*fl'O
r.0: y A� ci F• -y .. � ..:�'3": cl , `F', �, 'O� O tD F t
.-► ii m (D� rr �r�fH4 rD
CD
D_�O p (D .IDA '"•rty°w AN¢''�� CrrrO
K
A- 0
In.
i~D y- �Y
y Q+ r+- �!L ,rr-,i%• .A Q G .h UQ iD r+ y �i ,_�D Q (Ap.;yfD:,,. t7 a.-
rt ✓ 1y
N..
y. y rf is �D rs tD r� rr ,* Q �d - r hd 11 0 � O td p
3{tt Gcnl O' O. e 'S r* to A�
,o.,,,i s++ tsa..•Qo�. cD_ CSrri��P-0-
CD�'od�' mA.�'��D
k�+ O fD S (D C' �sy C¢. �►.:fD to :t r`S fD' rr� G .Vl �i3 't
�y t!. A� R1 N lD r CR'fD fD
-V1 i3• r. O -O :A �, ,..,, r• .-•. -
:. v'tip ►d '01#7'
°'
Cy
tD A cp . r -Y. N +�.. C .,*f'. ►-' Cn 1 fD ..
� o .. w cD �-•c �3 � �'.: a y :t A .�+ a cD co m'� ". .—
.'.�W„
N.
}� • rr r+ A p fD (D w fls a w Q ► y rr ('tip r{ y,
�• P 'tT ..O et .tD. �' tD C4'' fD•`.M
tlC N �+ j'J' w A� to Q Sv' o r. p `� ts•
1 rNi�AD'�o " ►C•..FfniDi ' POy',13 ' �"�PeCD: •. ,Oc3D",3 Kw ttHfD �L►D,t doApq {dTDr tOs'.":c. �5o*0
o�-+� ►Oy•• 'a
n'
,n
'O Lr, D
ft D :a' r`OppOM fD C � N D
F-vOa
N C!
G . eD r* flQ 943i tD o (D L + e+ H G y (D p
may+ ¢,PCOOC Q'O�•G.y
`r3• b G O tD'O A ar lD A ¢ `d *F
v4 . Cs �D =cD ►+� H ra eD p. ►ti . n . j. tr' : o p.
�� tiGp
a Z7"` a•'r' ON'r �, C1 ir3 •�Cr+w° K = .afD,� ':r-• ° °OA Q>:r�p %tr'+a'�Q G�Q ..�'tA:0 �t3+•,, O ttD3'
y tD UQ O
r r p A'G p�ei fD 'T•' ►. '.3' fD '�.
`s���T- .L++��p'FLi•,'-o*" K0 ..t.�DnVt7I," eGr�.t�rca'�nGOott 3(�DOQ'h
WwD P.Ay
ArtygloOro r5. `1PVJ
i03'
O
O �r -•
tJ
,'41d
,CD
e
0`
m o m m� m �O7tv r+ am Waco O. xg
.CD
110
in
1
2,-
C2.
'N w'CD tC
Y <ma®m"mc0%0�CDca
.O
a®`d�'Sp@O�`e3m� Vut TD CD
co
sa ._ m o
n Qx�:��3v'�a'� No mo .'
N.� ow ..+•.«sem moo �, _.c.
N O't3',x �'p m fir. „„ tn-� p, v� y--� CD -F
m< m N ® _ .
=rO .-f O "a G CD N •„� !_i d
CD o 0
Irx
cn
z m ma N �oaoo`
CCD <. OV
y=3c m r „�� �~„ .:.:gip -«p y N m G
CD .t'a. rn o t- .. m a co
co co N_ y D Co
r w
h �c m r+ m •': t
N .
,u.. c.: r+ t0._w n Ogo,co
co
C�O CD CD
o3a.m0uxsoQtiuomm ty.o �_:L9'a �: o?Nr<mo .
r'N co 1w"ra :y0 •a <: .i . W "�' "C^�:,. tocn
C* co_m m=,�'c o a:o w t1.4 �is3.Ll. �m'o �a o
C> .�
Co ,� m •C •� 1� : n + m
�.:..:�:Qm a A'C �� cn� a coa m
m o
w
a o. y -�.. cs-� 3 03;0
m .. 3 w.10
CD
co
co 0 0
DAiw
cn
Col mr
nip 3 3 -tea
CD
GZ G o h y� fl rt
al
pyo A ...,yA4 f�3 r-.rfDt O. y�� rA"j n
'.. ry .+ N .•r to �p Y {► •'mob ry A y 'O : f,,,�.-m..l'•:
y*fl'O
r.0: y A� ci F• -y .. � ..:�'3": cl , `F', �, 'O� O tD F t
.-► ii m (D� rr �r�fH4 rD
CD
D_�O p (D .IDA '"•rty°w AN¢''�� CrrrO
K
A- 0
In.
i~D y- �Y
y Q+ r+- �!L ,rr-,i%• .A Q G .h UQ iD r+ y �i ,_�D Q (Ap.;yfD:,,. t7 a.-
rt ✓ 1y
N..
y. y rf is �D rs tD r� rr ,* Q �d - r hd 11 0 � O td p
3{tt Gcnl O' O. e 'S r* to A�
,o.,,,i s++ tsa..•Qo�. cD_ CSrri��P-0-
CD�'od�' mA.�'��D
k�+ O fD S (D C' �sy C¢. �►.:fD to :t r`S fD' rr� G .Vl �i3 't
�y t!. A� R1 N lD r CR'fD fD
-V1 i3• r. O -O :A �, ,..,, r• .-•. -
:. v'tip ►d '01#7'
°'
Cy
tD A cp . r -Y. N +�.. C .,*f'. ►-' Cn 1 fD ..
� o .. w cD �-•c �3 � �'.: a y :t A .�+ a cD co m'� ". .—
.'.�W„
N.
}� • rr r+ A p fD (D w fls a w Q ► y rr ('tip r{ y,
�• P 'tT ..O et .tD. �' tD C4'' fD•`.M
tlC N �+ j'J' w A� to Q Sv' o r. p `� ts•
1 rNi�AD'�o " ►C•..FfniDi ' POy',13 ' �"�PeCD: •. ,Oc3D",3 Kw ttHfD �L►D,t doApq {dTDr tOs'.":c. �5o*0
o�-+� ►Oy•• 'a
n'
,n
'O Lr, D
ft D :a' r`OppOM fD C � N D
F-vOa
N C!
G . eD r* flQ 943i tD o (D L + e+ H G y (D p
may+ ¢,PCOOC Q'O�•G.y
`r3• b G O tD'O A ar lD A ¢ `d *F
v4 . Cs �D =cD ►+� H ra eD p. ►ti . n . j. tr' : o p.
�� tiGp
a Z7"` a•'r' ON'r �, C1 ir3 •�Cr+w° K = .afD,� ':r-• ° °OA Q>:r�p %tr'+a'�Q G�Q ..�'tA:0 �t3+•,, O ttD3'
y tD UQ O
r r p A'G p�ei fD 'T•' ►. '.3' fD '�.
`s���T- .L++��p'FLi•,'-o*" K0 ..t.�DnVt7I," eGr�.t�rca'�nGOott 3(�DOQ'h
WwD P.Ay
ArtygloOro r5. `1PVJ
i03'
O
D�
m
z
D
m
n
D
uj
cn
m
z
Irl
D
m
co
D
PAI
CD
CD
D
Q
0
rn
0_
Z-1
�-1
co
O
0
O
m
D
C
m
z
O
-i
m
m
O
•
n
0
n
Z7
r-
z
O
D
m
D
ig
m
C
W
C
D
�
X
-1
—y
z
D
-<
z
m
O
�
0
m
m
z
CD
-n
myz
0-
zv
D�G)
D
p
-�
m
m
�
O
�
�Z
�-1
co
O
0
O
m
D
C
m
z
O
-i
m
m
O
•
n
0
n
x
n
r-
z
O
D
m
D
ig
m
W
C
>
-n
z
m
—y
G
D
m
o
D
z
O
�
0
m
m
v
a
�-1
co
O
0
O
m
D
C
m
z
O
-i
m
m
O
•
n
0
March 25, 2002
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
Date: 002
&1� X�L4
Chairman