boa_03 26 20011\ itla �.t%! W R+� e.b#�?4w� YK,...iR. r a.•... : ,s ,.
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
MARCH 26, 2001
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 26, 2001 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman
Norm Floyd, Vice Chairman
Fred Gray
Gary Langlais
Scott Richburg
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson and Steve Giles
I. NEW
ITEMS
1.
Z-6986
2.
Z-6987
3.
Z-6988
4.
Z-6990
5.
Z-6991
6.
Z-6992
7.
Z-6993
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
MARCH 26, 2001
2:00 P.M.
1800 North Grant Street
820 Louisiana Street
59 Flintwood Drive
127 Fairview Road
6124 Northmoor Drive
25,000 - 25,100 Chenal Parkway
2222 Singleton Cove
T—
o
O
—
3Nld
` V
nnaalHl
T-
d
�J
co
0 �
n
U +J
goNo
Nar1a39
■
N
NItlW
o v
�
AtlMOtl0a8
HOW
153H0
a3H3aO
Nplhp
,
ONIN IN
_
w _
0
\R�g0l
o MOa000M
�
3NId
f3�dIS
N 3NId
HJyy
as 3 N0111Wa 11005
N
s SJhiya6
N6ad 6163
i
�j
ti '—
yr O
y�JJ
.-. Al ISa3AINn
8= USd]AiNn
u w
3HOnH
FT
tots
SONIad 63439
o
Iddiss
11
N Q�
1001H0
Q
alona3s3a �
M06aa8 NHOP
`Q
3NNI3H
_
Oa033zioms o
as 3l 9a s
o SIOaaS
o� 6VH8ad GN00a
0
s
Na
08
S11WIl A110
—
� w 39016 AWU�
N,JbpJ��blS o v
W
ORg\t
rfl-J-rl
c
0
U ��
p r
GVH CRyStp\.
Ntlnllln5
16VM31S
�
o
S11WIl AlIQ�=2y
�dpinp 3WON63d
W
Mach 26, 2001
Item No.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
Staff Report:
A. Landscape Review:
Superior Federal Bank
1800 N. Grant Street
Lot 5, North 46.5 feet of Lot 6 and
Lot 8, Block 9, Mountain Park
Addition
O-3
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-281,
the parking provisions of Section
36-507 and the buffer requirements
of Section 36-522.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Full Service Bank
Bank drive-thru teller service only
The site plan submitted does not provide for the 9 foot wide
street buffers along North University Avenue and Cantrell
Road required by the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, it
does not provide for the 9 -foot wide landscape strips along
North University and along the northern and a portion of the
southern perimeters of the site required by the Landscape
Ordinance. Since this site is located within the designated
"mature area" a 25% reduction is allowed. However, the plan
submitted is below this minimum width requirement of 6.7
--feed-To—reduce the—wrdth 1�elow-this minimum requires a -
variance by the City Beautiful Commission.
B. Public Works Issues:
1. Proposed building is located in MSP right-of-way
required for Cantrell Road.
M� _.:h 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
2. A 20' radial dedication is required at the corner of
Cantrell and Grant.
3. Cantrell Road is classified on the MSP as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55' from
centerline is required.
4. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned
development.
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
C. Staff Analysis:
A Superior Federal Bank Facility is located on the 0-3 zoned
property at 1800 North Grant Street. The bank has also
acquired an 0-3 zoned lot located across the alley, west of
the bank property. The bank proposes to raze the existing
bank building and replace it with a drive-through teller
only facility. The remainder of the bank's functions are to
be located in an existing C-3 zoned building across Grant
Street to the east. The recently acquired lot across the
alley to the west is to be developed as parking for
employees. All customer traffic to the new teller facility
will be vehicle traffic only; there will be no public
parking or "walk-up" customer traffic.
The new teller facility will consist of a small (12' X 501)
building with a large canopy that extends over 5 traffic
lanes. Four lanes will be teller lanes with the fifth being
an ATM lane. Each lane will have stacking space for 5
vehicles. The structure, building and canopy, will meet or
exceed the required setbacks on the north (side), east
(front) and west (rear). The bank is required to dedicate
25 feet of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road. The
proposed new teller building extends 5.7 feet into the new
right-of-way. The code requires a 10 -foot side yard
setback, to be measured from the new right-of-way line.
Since the 11 new parking spaces proposed for development on
the newly acquired lot are separated from the teller and
bank facilities by an alley and Grant Street, they are
considered off-site parking and a variance is required.
2
M(. -,;h 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
The street buffer along the North University Avenue
perimeter of the new parking lot falls slightly below the 9
feet required by the Ordinance. Since the teller facility
building actually extends across the property line on the
Cantrell Road perimeter (once the right-of-way is dedicated)
the buffer on that perimeter also falls below the 9 feet
required by the Ordinance.
Staff does support the variance to allow the off-site
parking to be located on the newly acquired lot. This lot
is well within walking distance to both the teller facility
and the new bank location. The buffer variance on the
University Avenue perimeter is minor and, with a small
modification, may not be necessary at all.
The issues related to the proposed location of the teller
building itself are more complicated. As proposed, nearly
half of the building will be located in the public right-of-
way. A franchise would be required to allow the building to
be constructed in the right-of-way. It is questionable
whether it is good public policy to allow this to occur.
Initial responses from other City departments are not
favorable. Staff could support a 0 setback on the south
(Cantrell Road) perimeter, once the required right-of-way is
dedicated. This can be accomplished by eliminating one of
the drive-through teller lanes and moving the building to
the north. This would still leave 3 teller lanes, an ATM
lane and a pass lane. Each of the teller and ATM lanes are
capable of stacking 5 vehicles each. Even that level of
activity on what will be a 70' X 140' lot seems on the verge
of excessive.
If the building were moved to provide a 0' side yard setback
on the Cantrell Road perimeter, staff could also support a
reduction in the buffer on that side. Until such time as
the road is ever widened, the additional 25 feet of right-
of-way would be landscaped yard.
A separate issue that is mentioned here for informational
purposes only concerns landscaping. There are areas where
- ----- - -- ---the-p--roposed landscaping--f-al-l-s b -slow --the minimum -required -by---
the ordinance. Variances from those standards can only be
approved by the City Beautiful Commission.
3
M�_ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the off-
site parking to be located on the lot located west of the
alley and of the buffer variance to allow a reduction on the
University Avenue perimeter of that parking lot subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of the requirements as may be granted
by the Board of Directors or the Director of Public
Works.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance including
any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be
granted by the City Beautiful Commission.
Staff does not recommend approval of the requested variance
to allow the proposed teller building to be located across
the property line and to extend into the right-of-way for
Cantrell Road.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
William Putnam and Charlie Peden were present representing the
item. There were several objectors present. Staff informed the
Board that a revised site plan had been submitted in which the
proposed teller building had been moved out of the master street
plan right-of-way. A 0' side yard setback was now requested on
the Cantrell Road perimeter. Staff recommended approval of the
requested off-site parking, buffer and setback variances subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
William Putnam stated that he had no comments but would prefer to
answer questions and respond to comments raised by those present
in opposition.
------ Norm F--oyd—aommented that—he irad a problem wi-tfi the teSler
------ --
building being either in or immediately adjacent to the right-of-
way. Mr. Putnam responded that the requirement to dedicate 25
feet of property for right-of-way created the need for the
reduced setback. Mr. Floyd stated that he would prefer to see
the building centered on the site with the drive-through lanes on
either side. Mr. Putnam responded that the bank and its
4
I
Mach 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
architect had determined that the proposed design was the most
efficient for serving its customers.
Mr. Ruck asked if there would be a problem with not having a
pass-through lane. Mr. Putnam responded that the ATM lane would
serve as a pass-through lane.
Mr. Putnam stated that the driving force behind the proposal was
the City's request that the bank do something about customers
stacking behind the one existing teller window and blocking
traffic in Grant Street.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, City Traffic Engineer
Bill Henry described the typical construction of a principal
arterial street.
Moise Seligman, owner of the property at 6020 Cantrell Road,
spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated the bank's new
development would create traffic problems that would negatively
impact the tenant of his building.
Billie Seligman chose not to speak.
Jan Woods, daughter of Jeanette Corder who is part-owner of the
adjacent commercial development at 5901-5921 "R" Street, spoke in
opposition. She stated the bank had leased space in a building
owned by Ms. Corder and her partner Frances Fields in a building
across Grant Street without telling them of its plans for the
property at 1800 N. Grant. Ms. Woods stated the bank's proposal
would eliminate access to the loading docks and dumpsters located
at the rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street. She asked
if there was not a prescriptive easement that would allow
continued use of Superior's property to access the dumpsters and
loading docks. She also voiced fears that increased bank traffic
could lead to a pedestrian accident if a bank customer exiting
the teller facility turned north on the alley, between the
commercial buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street.
Jeanette Corder chose not to speak, deferring to her attorney
Geoffrey Treece.
Mr. Treece addressed the Board and stated he felt there was an
issue about whether there was a prescriptive easement to allow
continued access to the dumpsters and loading docks. Mr. Treece
stated that he understood that was a separate issue, perhaps to
be decided by the courts. He stated that he felt the proposed
level of development was too intense for the small site and
5
M( Bch 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
generated traffic problems. Mr. Treece stated that he felt
Superior should address the issue of continued access to the
rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street to avoid possible
litigation.
Phil Olinghouse, owner of The Toggery at 5919 "R" Street, spoke
in opposition. He also voiced concerns about continued access to
the loading dock on the rear of his building. He stated that
delivery trucks would have no choice but to park in the alley to
unload, blocking Superior's drive-through lanes. Mr. Olinghouse
stated that it was difficult to access either Cantrell Road or
University Avenue from the bank site. He stated he felt
Superior's proposal to go from one drive-through window to 5 was
excessive.
Norm Floyd asked if the site plan could be reversed so that
traffic would access the bank site from the west and exit to the
east. Bill Henry responded that such a proposal would funnel all
of the traffic onto Grant Street, where the current proposal gave
two points of exit, the alley and University Avenue.
Frances Fields chose not to speak, deferring to her daughter
Libby Williams. Ms. Williams voiced concerns about bank traffic
turning north on the alley. She also stated that delivery trucks
would block the alley and the bank's teller lanes. Ms. Williams
stated that the bank's representatives had refused to meet with
Ms. Fields and her tenants.
Jerry Makowski, tenant of the building at 6020 Cantrell Road,
spoke in opposition. He stated he had limited access to his
property that would be impacted if Superior's plans were
approved. He also brought up the issue of traffic safety and
presented photographs showing traffic in the area.
Mike Pierce, owner of Papa John's Pizza in the abutting "R"
Street building, spoke of his concerns regarding continued access
to the dumpster and the increase in traffic on the bank site. He
also stated that Superior had refused to meet with area
businesses.
--- -- — _ _- ----- -
- arse -Se -i Macri interrupted and- question whether any board
members had been to the site.
William Ruck stated he wanted to hear staff's response to the
issues that had been raised thus far.
C
Mr _ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
David Hamilton, of Public Works,'stated any approved variances
should include the condition that Superior upgrade the alley to
provide better access to Cantrell Road. He acknowledged that any
regrading of the alley could further impact access to the
property at 6020 Cantrell. Bill Henry confirmed Mr. Putnam's
statement that the City had asked Superior Bank to come up with a
plan that provided more and better stacking space at the drive -up
tellers in order to address the problem of customers blocking
Grant Street and Cantrell Road. Mr. Henry stated that he did not
feel that there would be a large increase in customer traffic to
the site just because there were more drive-through teller
windows.
In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Henry stated that
it was his opinion that Superior's plan would work the way it is
proposed.
Norm Floyd commented that there was a problem accessing Cantrell
Road and that he felt this plan created too much traffic on the
site.
William Ruck asked if the Cantrell/University intersection area
was an accident-prone situation. Mr. Henry responded that it was
one of the top 5 accident locations in the state. He stated he
felt Superior's plan would make the situation better.
In response to a question from William Ruck, Mr. Henry stated
that the proposed additional stacking space was a definite
improvement.
At William Ruck's request, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff
outlined the specific variance requests.
Jerry Makowski addressed the Board and questioned Mr. Henry's
assessment of the traffic situation. Mr. Henry reiterated his
opinion that he felt Superior's plan would improve traffic in the
area. Mr. Henry stated that more teller lanes did not
necessarily mean more customer traffic. He stated the City's
primary concern was getting the customer traffic off of the
street. Mr. Henry stated that the City had not received
-- comp�ints from
customers trying to exit the site, but rather
about traffic stacking up entering the site. Mr. Henry stated
the site may not have the most advantageous access but it has the
best that it has to work with.
Jan Woods reiterated her concern that more teller lanes would
result in more traffic on the site.
7
M( _:h 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
Rodney Getchell, owner of Hestand's at 5915 "R" Street, spoke of
his concern about having continued access to the loading dock and
dumpster.
William Putnam addressed the Board and stated that all that was
being done was in response to the City's direction to address the
problem of customers blocking Grant Street. He stated Superior
had tried to locate another site in the area but could not, so
the decision was made to divide the bank's operations, leaving
only the drive-through facility on this site. Mr. Putnam stated
that Superior had worked with staff to devise a plan that worked
best. He stated the multiple lanes would spread out the
customers and reduce the possibility of traffic backing into the
street.
Mr. Putnam stated that a title search had revealed nothing that
allowed access across the bank property to reach the loading dock
and dumpster on the abutting property. He stated the Chairman of
the Board of Superior had expressed concern that allowing
continued access across the bank property was a liability. Mr.
Putnam stated that the proposal was not going to triple or
quadruple business but was going to address traffic concerns
related to the existing customers.
Norm Floyd asked why the Bank had not met with the neighbors.
The response was that the plan was in flux and the decision was
made at the corporate level not to meet. Mr. Floyd commented
that a meeting might help.
Geoffrey Treece asked if the bank was required to have all of the
parking spaces shown west of the alley. Dana Carney responded
that they were not but that the bank was providing extra spaces
since parking was at such a premium in the Heights.
Mr. Treece asked that the item be deferred to allow the neighbors
to meet with Superior. Mr. Putnam responded that he could not
accept a deferral because the project was behind schedule. He
stated the bank was not requesting any variances that were
unreasonable and had done everything requested by the City. He
----- as--ed--if—he—c®u�d—have—a—decision .
Phil Olinghouse stated the issue was stirring up the neighborhood
and asked that the Board deny the request.
Mr. Putnam stated the bank was not stating that it wouldn't work
with the neighbors.
C
M( _ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
Jerry Makowski reiterated his opposition.
Dana Carney reiterated the various issues for the Board. He
noted that the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street were built with
a reduced rear yard setback of 0 feet as a result of Board of
Adjustment approval in 1962. He noted that the 1962 plan for
those buildings showed service entrances and dock access to be
taken from the alley, not from the abutting property. Mr. Carney
noted that the City's traffic engineer had voiced definite
support for Superior's proposed plan. He outlined the particular
variance requests and noted that the bank could erect a fence and
landscaping along its northern perimeter, blocking off the
loading docks and dumpsters, with or without the Board's
approval.
Norm Floyd thanked Mr. Carney for pointing out what could be
done. He stated he still felt that Superior was proposing to
overbuild the lot and that he had to oppose the issue.
A motion was made to approve all requested variances subject to
compliance with the conditions recommended by staff and the
additional condition proposed by Public Works that the alley be
improved to the City's specifications. The vote was 2 ayes,
2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Richburg). Since the item
failed to receive 3 votes either in favor or against the issue,
the item was deferred to the April 30, 2001 meeting.
William Ruck voiced his opinion that increased traffic was his
primary concern. He stated he felt there would be an increase in
traffic if the Board approved the variances and that the bank
should either find another site or reduce the size of the
proposed facility.
Gary Langlais stated that he felt it would be advantageous for
all parties to meet prior to the item returning to the Board.
Fred Gray stated there were some issues that could not be handled
by the Board of Adjustment. He also encouraged a meeting to be
arranged between the parties.
9
PUTNAM REALTY INC.
SUITE 1820 UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS'72201 PHONE AC 501376-3616
February 15, 2001
Public Works
IAtiI\f.r,.;E,'
Special Programs
City of Little Rock
NEWROCK
701 W. Markham, Room 211
PARKING
DECK
Little Rock, Ar 72201
.s
TRAVELERS
INSURANCE
BUILDING
-1
The Superior Federal Bank building was constructed
JONARD
SON
approximately 40 years ago, .and has remained open as a
RESTAURANT
banking facility until this time.
r+
VILLAGE
SHOP
However, the City advised us (Superior Federal Bank)
CENTER
that the modern way of banking via drive-thru, has created a
}
change and a traffic congested situation.
STORYBOOK
VILLAGE
;,
The Bank was advised of the problem and took it upon
GLENWOOD
themselves to correct the situation by moving all inside
HEIGHTS
banking across Grant Street in a new office (leased).
HOWARD
JOHNSON
The present building will be demolished and tellers
MOTEL
windows installed with servicing tubes, creating a magazine
SCHOOLWOOD
area for 20 cars. No parking on site, will be allowed
a
ALLENDALE
See the attached designs by the architects.
r{
JAMESTOWN
APARTMENTS
Employee
p yee parking will take place on a recently acquired
site for parking.
WINDAMERE
APARTMENTS
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
BUILDING
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SPECIALISTS
i
f
1
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTSv;. ' `1 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
i .r -) DIVESTMENTS & ACQUISITIONS
�-4 • APPRAISALS
Page 2
A great deal of study was done before the subject plan
was decided on. Turning movements, ingress, egress were
analyzed. The present design was arrived at thru a great
deal of discussion with the architects.
When the present building is razed, it changes the
footprint and therefore allows the City to ask for an
additional 10 feet of setback from the center line of
Cantrell Road. The City already had 45 feet. The present
building set on this line - the addition requirement makes a
55 foot setback.
The above increase caused the Bank to have to ask for a
Franchise on the additional 10*feet required by the City for
right-of-way,in order to solve the problem as set forth in
the letter to the Branch Manager, attached hereto.
W.B. Putnam, Applicant
WBP/jh
M( -ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Landscape Review:
Metro Center Health Clinic, LLC
820 S. Louisiana Street
Block 88, Original City of
Little Rock
UU
Variances are requested from the
Urban Use development criteria of
Chapter 36, Article 5, Division 6
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant building and parking lot
Credit union with drive-thru
teller, offices and parking lot
Any landscaping that is removed must be re-established.
B. Public Works Issues
With Building Permit:
1. A 20' radial dedication of right-of-way will be
required at all corners.
2. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or 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.
Mc_ ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The UU zoned block bounded by West 8th, West 9th, Center and
Louisiana Streets contains a 22,000+ square foot office
building and an associated parking lot. The building has
been vacant since the previous occupant, Metro Center Health
Clinic, an entity of St. Vincent Health System, ceased
operation. Telcoe Federal Credit Union, located across
Louisiana Street to the east, proposes to purchase the
property. Telcoe proposes to occupy 10,000+ square feet of
the building and to construct a drive-through teller
facility on the property. The remaining 12,000+ square feet
of the building will be leased to a tenant. The drive-
through teller facility consists of a canopy covering 5
lanes, 4 teller lanes and 1 ATM lane. Each lane is capable
of stacking 5 vehicles. The facility will be built on the
existing parking lot on the south side of the block, in
front of Telcoe's portion of the main building. The tellers
will actually be located in the main building, at right-
angle to the drive-through lanes. Only slight modifications
will be made to the existing parking lot and drives to
accommodate the proposed drive-through facility.
The UU Urban Use zoning district was created on March 7, 2000
with an effective date of September 7, 2000. The majority of
the "core" of downtown Little Rock was rezoned to UU. The
purpose of the UU district was to create a compact, dense,
distinguishable core area that provides for a variety of
office, civic and business uses. The UU district contains
design criteria, the intent of which are to develop a
pedestrian oriented atmosphere.
One of the development criteria is:
No new drive-in or drive-through facilities may
be visible from or take directed access from a
primary street.
Primary streets are listed as:
Capitol Avenue, Broadway, Byrd, Center,
Chester, Commerce, Cross, Cumberland,
Louisiana, Main, Markham, 9th, Scott, 7th (west
of Center), Spring and State Streets.
2
Ma -ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
The proposed drive-through banking facility is visible from,
although it does not take directed access from, 9th and
Louisiana Streets.
The UU district has a front "build -to -line." All new
development is required to build to the front property line,
other than along portions of Capitol Avenue and Chester
Street. This property fronts onto Louisiana Street and the
drive-through canopy is proposed to have a setback of 130
feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. When
balancing the literal application of the Code with the
positive aspect of redevelopment of a vacant block located
in the core of downtown, it was felt that it would be
appropriate to grant the requested variances. The drive-
through facility is being built over an existing paved
parking lot, an existing vehicle use area. Allowing the
structure to be placed as requested provides for adequate,
safe stacking space with controlled ingress and egress.
Telcoe has submitted two proposed site plans, with only
minor differences. One plan shows the canopy being erected
over an easement remaining from the abandonment of an alley
that extended through the block, from West 8th to West 9th
Streets. The second plan shows the canopy being erected
east of the easement. The Board of Directors will hold a
public hearing on April 3, 2001 to consider abandonment of
the easement. There are no existing or proposed utilities
in the easement. All utility companies have stated that
they have no objection to abandonment of the easement.
D . Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to
allow the proposed drive-through teller canopy subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of those requirements as may be
grantee by the Board of Directors or the Director of
Public Works.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance.
3. Compliance with the remaining provisions of the Urban
Use District.
3
Mach 26, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001)
David Carpenter and Dickson Flake were present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance
with the conditions listed under the "Staff Recommendation"
above.
Norm Floyd commented that he had not seen the sign advertising
the public hearing on the site. David Carpenter responded that
he had posted the sign on the day he received it from staff and
that the sign had been placed on the northeast corner of the
building. Mr. Floyd stated that he accepted Mr. Carpenter's
explanation.
A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to
compliance with staff's recommended conditions. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
4
REALTORS
February 19, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney
Zoning and Subdivision Manager
City of Little Rock
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Carney:
Enclosed for your review is an application submitted on behalf of Metro
Centre Health Clinic, L.L.C. to the Board of Adjustment for approval of an
auto bank facility to be located in the block between Louisiana and Center
Streets, 8th and 9th Streets, in Little Rock.
The block which is the subject of this application was re -developed by Metro
Center Health Clinic, L.L.C., an entity of St. Vincent Health System, for a
downtown medical clinic. It was staffed by full-time primary care physicians
and rotating specialists to serve the business community and the downtown
neighborhoods. The venture was not successful, and the newly -constructed
facility has essentially been closed for several months. It has only one
occupant, a physical therapist. St. Vincent Health System does not intend
to reopen the facility, and it has been offering the real estate for sale.
Telcoe Federal Credit Union, currently a neighbor to the subject property on
the east side of Louisiana Street, has experienced considerable expansion
and the need for new facilities to serve its members. One of its significant
deficiencies is the lack of a modern, convenient auto bank.
Telcoe Federal Credit Union has been a significant stabilizing_ influence in this
business neighborhood following relocation of Little Rock's main library.
Similarly, Telcoe's management and board thinks that the neighborhood has
served it well, and it intends to remain in the area if it can provide the
required facilities for its members. It has entered an agreement with
MetroCentre Health Clinic, L.L.C. to purchase the block which is the subject
of this application. The recently -adopted zoning ordinance for the downtown
400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1200
POST OFFICE Box 3546
L= ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203
PHONE 501-372-6161 • FAX 501.372-0671
E-MAIL bgfa@bqfa.com
httpJ/www.bqfa.com
L. DICKSON FLAKE, CRE, CCIM, SIOR
NOLAN, L. RUSHING
PHYLLIS LASER GLAZE, CPM
DALE L. COOK, CPM
DIANA G. LACY
DRu E. ENGLISH, CPM
MELANIE GIBSON, CCIM, CPM
LEAH M. SEARS
KEVIN H. HUCHINGSON, CCIM, SIOR
J. FLETCHER HANSON III
GAINES BONNER
DAVID B. CARPENTER
DENISE BOWERS
GARY L. JONES
KIRK A. HOFFMAN
KAREN R. FLEMING
INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS
Counselors of Real Estate
Commercial• —anent Institure
Institute of Real Estate Management
International Council of Shopping Centers
Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc
National Association of Realtors
Society of Industrial and Office Realtors
I
Mr. Dana Carney
February 19, 2001
Page 2
area requires that the Board of Adjustment approve a drive-in facility. The
existing building will be utilized without major exterior alteration, occupied by
Telcoe on the south and tenant lease space on the north. The area proposed
for the auto bank is the part of an existing asphalt parking lot, so no existing
improvements or landscaping are being removed. This is an ideal adaptive
reuse for the closed health clinic facility. Not only will it retain Telcoe in the
immediate neighborhood, but the availability of quality, first floor lease space
may attract more telecommunication -related users to take advantage of the
proximity to Southwestern Bell Telephone's main switch and the telecom
hotel under development in the former main library.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
L. Dickson Flake
M_ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 3
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:
Z-6988
Casper and Sherry Nehus
59 Flintwood Drive
Lot 5, Leawood Place
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
and the building line provisions of
Section 31-12.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single family home, under
construction
Single family
A new, single-family residence is now being constructed on
the R-2 zoned lot located at 59 Flintwood Drive. When a
city official made the footing inspection, he observed a
portion of a retaining wall for the driveway had been
located across the 25 -foot front building line. The
property owner had the site resurveyed and discovered that,
in addition to the retaining wall, a corner of the house and
-a port -ion -of--the -front--porch were-ioca�ed--beyond-tFie 2-5 foot-- __
front building line. The retaining wall has a front yard
setback of 19.5 feet. The corner of the house and front
porch have front yard setbacks of 19 feet and 21.7 feet
respectively. The Code requires a front yard setback of 25
feet for this lot. As best as can be determined, due to the
Mach 26, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
slope of the lot, the contractor miscalculated the
measurements from the property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
intrusions are minor and should have no effect on other
properties in the area. The variances are for only a small
corner of the house and a portion of the 35 -foot wide porch.
The reduced setbacks represent a very small portion of this
lot, which has over 200 feet of street frontage. The
retaining wall and the corner of the house will sit back 30±
feet from the curb of the street. The porch will be set
back 35± feet from the curb. Flintwood is not a through
street; ending at a cul-de-sac at this lot. The reduced
setbacks should have no impact on traffic in the street.
If the Board approves the building line variances, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line. 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 and
setback variances subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as
approved by the Board.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
02/22/20\. 08:51 FAX 501 257 5305 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMF,_ 0002
February 20, 2001
Mr. James Lawson
Director of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Lawson,
Enclosed you will Find a copy of the most recent survey showing the foundation walls of my
house at 4591 lintwood. It reflects that our porch will be over the building line by 3.29 feet, and the
corner of the house is 5.67 feet North and 7.18 feet West of the line in the cul-de-sac. The retaining wall
was stopped short of the end of the footing so it crosses the building line by 5.5 feet according to the
survey.
The retaining wall was the only item of concern noted by the city inspector at the time of the
footing inspection. The inspector ultimately gave my builder verbal approval on 7anuary 30`h to pour all
footings and proceed with work on the house with the understanding that we would deal with the
retaining wall as work progressed. A subsequent survey was conducted to ascertain the exact distance
that the retaining wall footing had crossed the building line. When this survey was picked up from
Carter:13urgess on 2/13, I discovered that the front porch and Northwest comer of the house had also
traversed the building line. I immediately contacted my builder and the City Planning and Development
Department. By this time, all foundation wall blocks had been laid and I wanted to determine what my
options were at this point.
The builder ie -measured the location of the walls and realized that due to the slope of the lot, he
had matte a miscalculation in the position of the house layout. A third survey was requested to identify
the location of the existing walls in relation to the building line. This was completed on 2/15/01 and the
variances are detailed in the first paragraph.
Because of the uncertainty of the Spring weather and the potential risk of losing some of my
subcontractors, I would like to continue building at my own risk pending final approval by the Board of
Adjustment_ I feel it is important to note the following:
--The significant slope of the lot caused a slight error in the measurement to be exaggerated.
--The error in the location of the house was not recognized by the city inspector and he gave
approval to continue with the house construction.
-The house was positioned on the lot in a way to retain as many trees as possible.
--The current location of the front porch is 35 feet from the curb.
--The houses preceding mine at #57 and #55 Plinttwood are located 28 feet and 31 feet from the
curb respectively.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please
call me at 257-5314 (work) or 868-7420 (home).
Sincerely,
(��Wt44Z_
Casper Nehus
Enclosure (1)
Ma -.:h 26, 2001
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:
Z-6990
Kent and Mary Ann Davidson
127 Fairview Road
Lot 13, Block 24, Hillcrest
"'M
Variances are requested from the
accessory structure area coverage
and setback provisions of Section
36-156.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
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 R-2 zoned lot located at 127 Fairview Road is occupied
by a one-story, frame, single-family residence and an
accessory building. The accessory building, a 20' X 20',
single -car carport and storage building, is located at the
rear of the lot. The applicant proposes to remove this old
accessory building and a replace it with a new, 22' X 301,
two -car garage and storage building. The new accessory
building -is-proposed to have -0'-rear-yard setback, a 1.3'
side yard setback and will cover slightly less than 44% of
the required rear yard. The code requires rear and side
yard setbacks of 3' and limits the rear yard coverage to
30%.
Mi :h 26, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
Staff is generally supportive of the requested variances.
The lot backs up to Wait Street, a barely improved right-of-
way. The street functions as an alley used to access the
rear of the lots that front onto the adjacent streets. Many
other properties in the area have similar accessory
buildings built on or over the rear property line adjacent
to Wait Street. The code allows accessory structures to
have a 0' setback when adjacent to an alley. Insomuch as
Wait Street functions as an alley, it does not appear to be
inappropriate to utilize the same standard for rear yard
setback. The existing accessory building on the applicant's
property currently extends 0.2' over the rear property line,
into Wait Street. The existing accessory building has a
1.3' side yard. The applicant proposes to maintain that
same side yard. The reduced side yard is for only a corner
of the proposed structure. Due to the angle of the proposed
structure in relationship to the rear and side property
lines, both encroachments involve only a corner of the
structure. In both instances the structure angles away from
the property line so that the setback quickly exceeds the
ordinance minimum. Staff believes it would be appropriate
to limit the size of the eave/overhang on the side of the
accessory building and to require guttering to prevent water
run-off onto the adjacent property.
Although the accessory structure is larger than allowed by -
right in the rear yard, it is not out of character with
similar structures in the area. The allowable coverage
permitted on a 50' wide lot does not lend itself to
constructing a two -car garage. The lot has no street access
from Fairview Road. The lot is deeper than the typical
Hillcrest lot and there is more than adequate open space on
the property. Allowing the slightly larger garage structure
would not appear to be overbuilding this lot.
Permitting the requested setback and area coverage variances
should have no impact on adjacent properties. The Wait
Street right-of-way provides adequate separation from the
lot to the rear. The lot adjacent to the southeast has an
accessory structure that is located on the far side of the
- -
- -ot;-wel3--separated—from the applicant's propos structure. ----
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and area
coverage variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
CA%
M( --h 26, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
1. The eave/overhang on the side of the proposed accessory
building is to be limited to no more than 6 inches.
2. Guttering is to be installed on the side of the accessory
building to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
3.Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of those requirements as may be
granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of
Directors.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
Kent Davidson was present representing his application. There
were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the
applicant had submitted a revised site plan in which the existing
accessory building was not to be removed but was to be added
onto. Staff stated the variance requests would remain the same
with the exception that the rear yard area coverage was now to be
56% not 44%. Staff recommended approval of the variance requests
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
Norm Floyd commented that he had driven by the site three times
and was unable to see the sign which advertised the public
hearing. Mr. Davidson responded that his wife had placed the
sign on the front porch of the house and he had personally
observed the sign.
Mr. Floyd questioned whether the existing accessory building was
structurally sound enough to add onto. Mr. Davidson responded
that he thought it was.
A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to
compliance with conditions recommended by staff. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
9
Tom Cosford, Custom Improvements, Inc.
5134 "P" Street Phone 501-663-0682
Little Rock, AR 72207 Fax 501-663-0694
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Residential Zoning Variance for 127 Fairview Road
To Whom It May Concern:
February 21, 2001
The property owners, Kent and Mary Ann Davidson, request a variance of setback requirements
for the construction of a two car garage at the rear of their property. The variance will allow
convenient and reasonable access for parking in the garage.
There is an open and active alley providing access to all of the properties from the rear because of
the steepness of the front portion of the lots facing Fairview. An undersized single carport with
storage currently exists at the location the owners wish to build. Their desire is to raze the
existing structure and rebuild a new garage in its place. The new garage will be somewhat larger
to accommodate modern vehicles and to provide a small storage area for yard equipment.
The variance is requested because the orientation of the lot to the angular alleyway would make
access to the garage much more difficult if required to conform to current zoning ordinances. The
owners would like to be able to approach and enter the garage from the north west. As they enter
from this direction they will have to swing into their rear yard slightly to be able to enter the
garage. If the ordinance is enforced in this situation, the garage will be moved forward into the
rear yard. This will make access to the garage extremely difficult if not impossible. Permission to
construct the new structure at the rear line, as the current structure sits, will enable cars to
approach the garage entry at a reasonable angle.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
Tom Colford
Mf _ .h 26, 2001
Item No.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
Staff Report:
A. Landscape Review
Integrity, Inc.
6124 Northmoor Drive
Lot 120R, Broadmoor North
C�IIc7
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-281
and the building line provisions of
Section 31-12.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant lot
Office building with associated
day-care
According to the dimensions noted on the plan submitted
areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
A water source within 75 feet of all landscape areas is
required.
B. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
Property—front-age—n-e-e-ds—to have the s cYewalks 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.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
M� jh 26, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
C. Staff Analysis:
Integrity, Inc., a Little Rock -based community services
organization that provides a variety of healthcare, home
care, rehabilitative and child care services, is building a
new two-story office building on the 0-3 zoned property
located at 6124 Northmoor Drive. Due to the slope of the
property, the building will have the appearance of a one-
story structure from the front and two -stories from the rear
and sides. The face of the building is set at the 25 foot
building line on the Northmoor and Charlotte perimeters. An
uncovered retaining wall, first level walkway and second
level stairway extend out from the west wall of the
structure 4 feet across the 25 foot building line. A canopy
entrance cover extends out from the north wall of the
building 4 feet across the front 25 foot building line. The
code requires a 25 foot front yard setback.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
uncovered walkway and second floor stairway on the west side
of the building serve as fire escapes for their respective
levels and will not be used on a regular basis as entrances.
The 4' X 25' intrusion represents a small portion of the
Charlotte Drive frontage of this property. The stairway
will be set back 32-33 feet from the curb of Charlotte
Drive. The 0-3 zoned property across Charlotte Drive to the
west is currently vacant. Allowing the reduced side yard
setback of 21 feet for the stairway should have no effect on
other properties in the area or on traffic in the street.
The 4' X 301± intrusion on the north side of the building is
for a decorative, canopy/porch cover over the main entrance
to the building. Again, the area requested for a variance
represents only a small portion of the 2801+ frontage that
this property has on Northmoor Drive. The closest edge of
�aIG c.;C111v.Py W111 1.)t! JJ -34 zeeL zrom Lne CUrID Ot Northmoor
Drive. The 0-3 zoned property across Northmoor is currently
undeveloped. Allowing the reduced front yard setback of 21
feet should have no effect on other properties or on traffic
in the street.
2
MLzh 26, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
I
If the Board approves the building line variances, the
applicant will have to do a replat reflecting the change in
the building lines on both the Charlotte Drive and Northmoor
Drive perimeters. The applicant should review the filing
procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if
the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and
setback variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of those requirements as may be
granted by the Director of Public Works or the Board of
Directors.
3. A one lot replat reflecting the change in the building
lines as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above. Staff informed the Board that the site
plan had been amended slightly because the original site plan did
not take into account the right-of-way dedication for the
abutting streets. By reducing the parking lot and moving the
building slightly south and east, the variance issues remained
the same.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended-by-s-tatf-The vote-wa-s 4 ayes ; 0 -roes ; 0acbFserit grid -
1 abstaining (Gray).
3
H+W
Heiple Wiedower
Architects Planners
February 23, 2001
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Dana Carney
Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
SUBJECT: Zoning Variance Application, Integrity, Inc.
6124 Northmoor Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Dana:
Attached please find a variance application form for the above referenced applicant/owner related to their
variance request. Additionally enclosed is the filing fee, six (6) copies of the survey/site plan and a copy
of the active Bill of Assurance and Plat.
Currently the drawings show an intrusion across a platted building line existing on the West side of the
building as shown on the attached site plan. This intrusion is caused by the placement of a retaining wall,
first level walkway and second level stairway both of which serve as the fire exits for their respective
levels. The intrusion is approximately four (4') feet wide (East to West) and extends North and South for
approximately twenty-two and V2 (22.5') feet. There is no canopy structure and from an operational
standpoint the exits will be used as fire exits only. If we have to move the building four (4') feet to the
East we will lose our ability to provide a turnout, stacking lane on the East side of the building for car
storage during drop off and pick up of daycare clients. We are already being squeezed by new site -
internal landscape requirements (which we gladly will adhere to) in the same parking lot area that
contains the turnout lane.
A second intrusion occurs on the North side of the property where part of a canopy structure crosses the
platted building line. A portion of the canopy at its furthest point North intrudes into the setback
approximately four (4') feet. Due to the sloping nature of the lot we have had to keep the building as far
forward (North) on the site as possible and still accommodate the daycare outdoor play area on the South
side of the building. The South side of the building would also be the building expansion area for our
client should they decide to expand.
I am thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter and should you have any questions or
Sincerely,
Ti A. Heiple, AIA
Agent for Owner
/fg
319 East Markham; Ste 201 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + (t) 501-273-2822 + (0 501-707-0118
M� _ �h 26, 2001
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Landscape Review:
Z-6992
Armistead Apartments, Inc.
25,000 - 25,100 Chenal Parkway
Lots 4B and 4C, Northwest Territory
MF -18
A variance is requested from the
on-site parking provisions of
Section 36-502.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Undeveloped
18 unit, Easter Seals apartment
development
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
An irrigation system to water landscape areas is required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be
necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal
of a registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many
trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Extra credit
toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance can be given when
B. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permits:
1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
M( .._.:h 26, 2001
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Provide design of street conforming to "MPS" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned
development. Improvements as shown are not approved.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5. Grading permit will be required on this development, if
it is regulated by Ordinance 18,361.
C. Staff Analysis:
Easter Seals proposes to build a small, 18 unit apartment
complex on the MF -18 zoned 4.2± acre tract located at 25,000
- 25,100 Chenal Parkway. This undeveloped tract is located
at the far northwest corner of the City, near the
intersection of Chenal Parkway and Arkansas State Highway
300. The development consists of 5 buildings built around a
circular driveway. Four of the buildings contain 4 units
each. The 5th building contains 2 units and a community
room. All required setbacks are met or exceeded. Easter
Seals has proposed to construct 22 vehicle parking spaces, 6
of which will be handicap accessible. The code requires 1.5
parking space per unit, a total of 27 parking spaces.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. Although the
development is a 18 unit apartment complex with fully
independent living arrangements in each apartment, the
residents are clients of the Easter Seals program for
developmentally disabled persons. Few of the residents will
drive so the parking, for the most part, is for visitors,
Easter Seals staff and travel vans. As long as the
apartments are occupied by Easter Seals' clientele, the
proposed 22 parking spaces should prove to be sufficient.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. The 18 unit apartment development is to continue to be
owned by Easter Seals and the apartments are to be
occupied by clients of the Easter Seals program.
2
MC _ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
2. Compliance with Public Works comments including any
variance or waiver of those requirements as may be
granted by the Board of Directors or the Director of
Public Works.
3.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
Brian Dale of White-Daters Engineers and Paula Hibbs of Easter
Seals were present representing the application. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
William Ruck asked why a variance was being sought. Brian Dale
responded that the typical resident of the facility would not
drive and the full parking requirement was not needed.
Paula Gibbs stated there would be 18 units, 1 manager's unit and
17 that would be occupied by persons with disabilities ranging
from severe physical handicaps to mental retardation. Ms. Gibbs
stated that all 18 units would have one bedroom only.
Norm Floyd asked if the residents would require caregivers.
Ms. Gibbs responded that the residents must be capable of living
independently but that a support person might come by once -a -day
or once -a -week.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Ms. Hibbs acknowledged
that some of the residents would drive.
Larry Bates, architect for the project, commented that the
property had contours that dictated how the site could be
developed and also added to the reduction in the number of
parking spaces. Mr. Bates added that there were no immediate
plans to expand onto the property behind this site.
A motion was made to approve the parking variance subject to
compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The vote
u noes aria c�ansent .
3
23 February 2001
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Easter Seals I Armistead Village Circle
West Chenal Parkway
Little Rock, AR
File 20001-014
Members of the Board of Adjustment:
We sincerely request your assistance in the approval of the site plan for the above project. The
site is zoned MF -18 so the density is only half that allowed by the zoning ordinance. All setbacks
are correct and no request for change is anticipated. The buildings and improvements will all
meet the required building and bill of assurance regulations. The residents of this complex are all
learning to be new taxpayers. They will all live independently and hold jobs or be involved in
work training. This effort removes them from a care environment and allows them to learn/earn
the skills to be independent citizens. The low impact of this project on the surrounding traffic,
use, or city services will be minimal. The approval we are requesting will not accrue to any `soon
to change' building ownership because this continued site use and services are required by the
mortgage documents to remain in force for the next forty years.
The dwellings are arranged around a small private circle drive. This is the best layout for access
by emergency vehicles or the weekly trash removal without requiring a stop on the Chenal
Parkway. Individual disposal cans are intended to teach the occupants the required method to
dispose of waste when they join the wider community in another apartment group. The single in-
and- out drives will be controlled to allow only right turns when the additional lanes of the
parkway are constructed.
Most of our residents will not have a driver's license so sufficient parking is available and is
basically for visitors, Easter Seals staff and travel vans. There will be a parking space for each
dwelling unit. One of the spaces in each building parking area will be handicap accessible. For
the 18 dwellings there will be a total of 22 parking spaces, 6 of which will be handicap accessible.
Thank you for your consideration. We have already negotiated our contract for construction and
await only your approval to obtain our funding.
Sincerely,
anino Peckha As ciates
Liam R. Canino, AIA
® v 501 .227.7777 ® f 501 .227.8888 ® 10401 WEST MARKHAM 0 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 ® WWW.ELEVATION.COM ■
CANINO PECKHAM & ASSOCIATES, INC
M(. --h 26, 2001
Item No.: 7
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-6993
City of Little Rock
2222 Singleton Cove
Lot 8, Parkview Hill
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254.
Justification: This lot has a 45 -foot platted
front building line, causing the
house to be located closer to the
rear property line.
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Vacant lot
Single Family
The City of Little Rock, through its Affordable Homes
Program, is proposing to construct a new, single-family
residence on the R-2 zoned lot located at 2222 Singleton
Cove. The proposed house will meet all required setbacks
but a deck on the back of the house is proposed to extend 12
feet into the required 25 -foot rear yard setback.
Staff supports the requested variance. This "pie -shaped"
l o t i-s—o311-v 10-9±—feet—r3 Pra„zl h a a Y, ra o,a r.,,
building line. This increased front setback, much more than
the 25 -foot front setback typically required in R-2, has the
effect of pushing the house more toward the rear of the lot.
The requested encroachment is for only the 12 -foot width of
the deck. The encroachment represents a minor percentage of
the overall width of the rear yard. A drainage ditch along
Ma.ch 26, 2001
Item No.: 7 (Cont.)
the rear property line separates this lot from the property
adjacent to the rear. The reduced setback for this 12' X
12' deck should have no impact on adjacent properties. The
deck is not proposed to be covered or enclosed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to the deck remaining uncovered and
unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 26, 2001)
Rick Jones was present representing the application. There were
no objectors present. A board member had commented that he did
not observe the required sign advertising the public hearing on
the property. Mr. Jones informed staff that he could not address
that issue since the application had been handled by someone else
in his office. He suggested that the item be deferred and the
issue of the sign addressed. Staff informed the Board of the
applicant's request for deferral.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the April 30, 2001 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
2
�o2i
QC/)Q
O
Z
W
W
CD
a�
J
m
❑
}
}
Q
CD
m
Y
W
OJ
�
Q
=
U
March 26, 2001
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Date: p p
,� �' 2, Z/,-
Chairman