boa_05 21 2001and
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
MAY 21, 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 April 30, 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
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
MAY 21, 2001
2:00 P.M.
I. NEW ITEMS
1. Z -7012-A
2. Z-7027
3. Z-7028
4. Z-7029
5. Z-7030
6. Z-7031
7. Z-7032
8. Z-7034
9. Z-7035
10. Z-7036
11. Z-7037
12. Z-7038
13. Z-7039
14. Administrative Appeal
9800 Geyer Springs Road
#10 Pleasant Valley Dr.
220 Commerce Street
#5, Wildwood
8t' and Main
7515 Fairways
5403 Sherwood Road
7701 Frazier Pike
1711 N. Palm Street
3701 Old Cantrell Road
601 Main Street
2615 Flakewood Road
1008-1012 West 2nd Street
1818 S. Monroe Street
T
0
0
CIDN
�
3NId
aalzva3
T
/'{"�
11nV81H1
1
N
v J
�yJ
aj
Ln
U �J
V1,1830
W2
o
�
NIVW
ro
AVMOV088
H08V
lvo N
.—
153N0
a3H360
�
ONIN in
0
—
o
o
—
MOa000M
i
F
3NId
133drS
Nld
N011IWV 11005
bq s
Ad 81Vd
�. Allsa3nwn
AlIS63AINn
SONIad 83A30
S3H0nH
rte-- N IddISS SIN•—�`(Q/)
4
Y 6
1001HO
�
Q
alOna3S3a
MORV8 NHOr
3
2Q�
�
3NNI3H
—ns
oa 3l OV
aao33lNnvHs o
slaa
_
aHava A ooa
4—j
NV 08
S1IWIl Allo
VJ
N
x
�w 3oo1a Awv
Hpbpp�b o �
!S
LA0\ �
zzv app
(n
u ti�
p
Vv�
CAyStP�
V J
v
NVAIIIns
laVM31$
hSyb,
/Y
4—
0
SLIWII Allo
V
�22�
co
�SO�pS 31tlON833
0
CD
May 41, 2001
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:
Z -7012-A
Led By The Spirit of God Church
9800 Geyer Springs Road
Long Legal
MW3
Variances are requested from the
buffer requirements of Section
36-522, the on-site parking
provisions of Section 36-502 and
the pavement requirements of
Section 36-508.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant, undeveloped
New Church, to be built in two
phases.
With Building Permit:
1. Geyer Springs Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way
45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. 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.
5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
May _1, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
B. Landscape Review:
The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 6.7 foot
wide land use buffers required along portions of the
southern and northern perimeters, utility easements cannot
count as part of the land use buffer area.
A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the north,
south and western perimeters of the site. This screen may
be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or
dense evergreen plantings.
A total of eight percent of the interior of the vehicular
use area must be landscaped with interior islands of at
least 150 square feet in area and 7 1-� feet in width.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is required.
C. Staff Analysis:
Led By The Spirit of God Church proposes to build a new
church facility, in two phases, on the vacant, 0-3 zoned
property located at 9800 Geyer Springs Road. Phase I
consists of a single, multi-purpose building and a 51 space
parking lot. This Phase I building will contain the main
worship area which will accommodate 250 persons. A 250
person worship center requires 62 on-site parking spaces.
The Phase I building will have a side yard setback of 20
feet from the north property line, exceeding the Ordinance
requirement of 10 feet. 15 feet of that 20 foot setback is
a utility easement, leaving only 5 feet to serve as buffer.
Utility easements cannot count as part of the required
minimum Land Use Buffer area. The minimum requirement is
6.7 feet. A portion of the buffer along the south perimeter
also falls below the ordinance minimum of 6.7 feet. The
church is requesting a 2 -year deferral of the requirement to
pave the parking lot. Lastly, the Phase II building is
proposed to contain a sanctuary with a seating capacity of
475; requiring 118 on-site parking spaces. At build -out,
the church is proposing a total of 104 parking spaces.
Staff is supportive of the buffer and parking variances.
The proposed buildings exceed all required zoning setbacks.
The property is narrow in relation to its depth. Moving the
Phase I building to the south to gain the additional 1.7
feet of required buffer could impact the ability to provide
2
May _1, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
properly dimensioned parking and driveways. The minor, 1.7
foot variance is for only the 100 foot depth of the
building; a small portion of the overall 480± foot depth of
the site. The driveway along the south perimeter of the
site is being positioned to be properly placed when future
parking is added. The property narrows from 188 feet in
width at the rear to 181 feet in width at the front. It is
this reduction in width that creates the slight reduction
along a portion of the south driveway. Again, the reduced
buffer area is for only a small portion of the south
perimeter. Otherwise, as is the case along the north
perimeter the buffer exceeds the Ordinance requirement.
The Phase I parking variance is minor. Fifty-one spaces are
being provided; 62 are required. There will be plenty of
room on the site to provide additional parking if it is
needed throughout Phase I. The Phase II parking variance is
also minor. One hundred four spaces are proposed; 118 are
required. The church will be providing 88% of the required
parking on site.
The property adjacent to the north is occupied by a funeral
home. The property to the south is undeveloped. Allowing
the reduced buffers and minor reduction in on-site parking
should have no effect on the adjacent properties.
Staff is not as supportive of the requested 2 -year deferral
of the paving requirement. Staff believes a more
appropriate length of time would be 12 months. The site is
located in a built-up part of the City and fronts onto a
major traffic artery. Although the parking eventually will
be located behind the sanctuary in Phase II, through Phase I
the parking is more visible from the street. Beginning with
a 12 month deferral would allow the applicant to more fully
analyze the church's financial situation based on its
occupancy of the new site. If additional time is needed,
the church may reapply to the Board. The church does
propose to install a paved apron and to pave the first 50
feet of driveway to prevent gravel being pulled onto the
street.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested buffer and on-
site parking variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
3
May _l, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver of those comments 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 as may be granted by
the City Beautiful Commission.
3. Compliance with the City's Buffer Ordinance, other than
for those areas where a variance is granted.
Staff supports only a 12 month deferral of the paving
requirement for the parking lot. It is staff's
interpretation that required screening should be put in
place with the Phase I building construction, regardless of
the length of the paving deferral.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred
because the applicant failed to complete the notices.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
June 25, 2001 meeting. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
4
PASTOR
Alphonso & Monique Montgomery
LEDBY THE SPIRIT OF.CJOD CHURCH
April 27, 2001
P.O. Box 193254 - Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 • (501) 569-9147
Mr. Dana Carney, Planner
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Led by the Spirit Church of God
9800 Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
Dear Mr. Carney:
Attached please find six copies of the property survey and six copies of the site plan for
the above referenced Zoning Variance request. Led by the Spirit Church of God is planning
to begin construction on a new church facility by late summer. We are
currently working with our Terry Burruss, Architects to develop plans for construction
purposes. Please note that the site plan shows a Phase I Multi-purpose Church Facility
and a Phase II Sanctuary
Led by the Spirit Church of God is requesting a deferral of two years to pave the parking
area. We are providing a concrete entry apron and approximately 50' of paved entry drive.
If we are able to proceed with our future building program sooner, we would, of course
proceed with these site improvements. We are requesting a set -back variance of 1.7
feet on the North side of the Phase I Multi-purpose Facility. Please note that while the
buffer is less than required (for approximately 180 feet) on the south side, that the average
buffer exceeds the 6.7 foot requirement. We are also requesting consideration on a parking
waiver for both Phase I and Phase II of the project. Phase I would require 63 parking
spaces (we are showing 51) and Phase II would require 119 parking spaces (we can provide
104 total).
"The Church where Jesus makes Families whole."
If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please call. We appreciate
your consideration on this request.
ti
May -1, 2001
Item No.: 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues
Z-7027
Thomas B. Shueck
#10 Pleasant Valley Drive
Lot 1R, Block 19, Pleasant Valley
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
Fence must be entirely on the private property, including
the footing.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at #10 Pleasant Valley Drive
is occupied by a new single family residence. The applicant
proposes to erect a decorative fence along the Rodney Parham
Road perimeter of the site. The fence will consist of stone
columns at 3016" o.c., a stone base which is 2'4" high and a
steel picket fence on top of the stone base. The total
height of the picket fence portion will be 7'6" and the
stone columns will be 8' tall. The code limits the height
of fences erected within setbacks adjacent to streets to
4 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although the
fence is on the property line, it is located 30 feet from
the edge of Rodney Parham Road. The fence is designed to be
visually open, creating less of a visual impact, unlike a
solid, opaque wall or fence. This is a fairly large tract
May _l, 2001
Item No.: 2 (Cont.
of property and the appearance of the taller fence is not
the same as it would be if the property were smaller. It is
staff's opinion that the attractive stone and steel picket
fence proposed by the applicant is architecturally
compatible with this "estate -style" development and would
have no impact on adjacent properties or traffic in the
street.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The fence must be located entirely on the applicant's
private property, including the footing.
2. The fence must be designed in the "open" style proposed
by the applicant; stone columns and steel pickets.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff present the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
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
CR® LL
ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
April 23, 2001
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Members of the Board:
On behalf of my client, Thomas B. Schueck, we would like to request a variance in
accordance with the attached application to construct a fence on the east property line of
the residence at #10 Pleasant Valley Drive.
The fence is to be along Rodney Parham Road and in accordance with Drawings L1, L3,
and C1.1, attached hereto. You will note that the fence is designed to be very attractive,
consisting of stone columns at 30'6" o.c., stone base which is 2'4"high and a steel picket
fence on top of the stone base. The total height to the top of the open picket fence will be
7'6" and the stone piers will be 8' high.
The purpose of the fence is to provide an attractive border along Rodney Parham Road as
well as security for the residence. While the fence is to be constructed just inside the
property line, you will note that there is a distance of 30' between the property line and
the edge of the paving on Rodney Parham.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Eugene P. Levy, FAIA
Chairman
EPL/mh
Encls: Application for Zoning Variance
Drawings L1, L3 and C1.1 (six copies)
cc: Mr. Tom Schueck
CROMWELL TRUEMPER LEVY THOMPSON WOODSMALL, INC.
101 S. SPRING STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2490 (501) 372-2900 FAX (501) 372-0482
May' -i, 2001
Item No.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-7028
MNT Investments
220 Commerce Street
Long Legal
UU
A variance is requested from the
development criteria of Article V,
Division 6, Chapter 36 to permit a
drive-through facility to take
directed access from a primary
street.
Justification: The Mixed Use nature of this
development creates the need for
the variance. The drive-through is
not highly visible.
Present Use of Property: Warehouse buildings and surface
parking
Proposed Use of Property: 8 -Story Mixed Use development and
2 -level parking garage
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
1. Water main and drainage box under parking deck would
have to be approved to remain in place. Contact public
works to discuss above issues.
2. 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.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
4. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
Mays t, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
B. Landscape Review:
The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 6.7 -foot
wide landscape strip along the Interstate 30 access ramp.
Deletion of this landscape strip will require a variance by
the City Beautiful Commission.
C. Staff Analysis:
MNT Investments proposes to construct an 8 -story mixed-use
development and a 2 -level parking garage on the UU zoned
property located at 220 Commerce Street. The property
currently contains a surface parking lot and 2 warehouse
buildings. The proposed development conforms to the
development criteria of the new Urban Use zoning district
with one exception. A bank drive-through facility is
proposed for a portion of the ground floor. The drive-
through will consist of a single lane, taking access off of
Commerce Street. Commerce Street is defined as a "primary
street" by the UU regulations and drive-through facilities
are prohibited from being visible from or taking access from
a primary street.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed
drive through consists of a single lane, "tucked" between
the north wall of the proposed multi -story building and the
retaining wall supporting a freeway entrance ramp. The
drive-through is further hidden by the entrance ramp
overpass over Commerce Street. The drive-through is located
in an area now used as a driveway.
Staff believes the overwhelming positives of this proposed
development easily outweigh the minor variance for the
drive-through.
There appear to be outstanding issues that must be resolved
concerning the rights-of-way of Rock Street and an alley.
Portions of each were abandoned in conjunction with the
interstate development in the early -mid 19601s. Portions of
each appear to still be open (although not physically open)
and those portions that were abandoned were most likely
retained for easements. These issues can be resolved by the
applicant through the Board of Directors.
2
May _l, 2001
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow
a single -lane drive-through to take access off of Commerce
Street subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver 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 as may be granted by
the City Beautiful Commission.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 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.
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.
3
MOSES
NOSARI
FUCKER
REAL ESTATE
April 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Request for Review by Board of Adjustment — Proposed 3rd and
Commerce Building
Dear Dana:
As we have previously discussed, our firm is planning to develop a building and
parking facility on the northwest corner of 3rd and Commerce. The building will
contain approximately 88,000 square feet of space on seven (7) levels. The
project is a "mixed-use development" with the ground floor containing
approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space, floors 2-5 containing
50,000 square feet of office space and floors 6-7 containing approximately
20,000 square feet of residential condominiums. We will also construct a two- (2)
level parking garage with a capacity of between 180-200 vehicles.
I am enclosing a set of our plans in hopes that you and your staff will review them
and evaluate the specific items that should go before the Board of Adjustment, if
any. Because of the unique blend of uses, 1 believe this is the first new
construction project of this type in Downtown Little Rock, and hopefully one that
will be well-received by the Planning Staff and Adjustment Board.
Thank you in advance for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Jiy Mos s
JM:ca
Enclosure
Commercial Brokerage • Managrmem • Leasing • Development • Consulting
201 Fast [Markham, Suite 100 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone 501-376-6555 • Fax 501-376-6699
May _1, 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-7029
Greg Lathrop
#5 Wildwood Road
Plot 115, Prospect Terrace No. 2
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254,
the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 and the fence height
provisions of Section 36-516.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family residence
Single Family residence
Proposed concrete wall on east side, including footing,
should be entirely located on the private property.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at #5 Wildwood Road is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The applicant proposes to remodel the home,
including constructing several additions onto the house.
The larger addition, onto the north side of the house, will
entrude slightly across the front platted, 15 foot building
line and the 8 foot side yard setback. A rear porch
addition will also entrude slightly across the side yard
setback. The large addition will have front and side yard
setbacks of 12 feet and 7.5 feet respectively. The porch
will have a side yard setback of 4 feet. An existing,
combination retaining wall/fence is located along the east
property line. This structure now averages 819" in height
May ,l, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
as measured from grade on the applicant's side. The
applicant proposes to raise the height of the retaining
wall/fence to a height of 9' - 10'6" above grade. The
maximum height above grade on the neighbor's property is to
be 6 feet. The maximum height of such wall/fence structures
is to be 6 feet above grade (on either side).
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The lot is
unusually shaped. It has a front yard, 2 side yards and no
rear yard as defined by the Code. The setback variances for
the proposed additions are minor in nature and involve only
a corner intrusion in each instance. The property adjacent
to the east is at a higher elevation and should not be
impacted by the variance requested for the porch addition.
This change in elevation caused the constructed of the
retaining wall and fence many years ago. Staff's interest
in reviewing the proposed increase in height is that the
neighbor not be negatively affected by a fence or wall
exceeding ordinance maximums. In this case, although the
height of the combination retaining wall/fence would be 9' -
10'6" above grade on the applicant's property, it would not
exceed the Ordinance maximum of 6' above grade when viewed
from the adjacent property.
If the Board approves the building line variance for the
corner intrusion of the large addition, 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 setback, building
line and fence height variances 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. All portions of the proposed retaining wall/fence
structure, including footings, are to be located on the
applicant's property
3. The fence portion of the retaining wall/fence structure
is to be constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with
the finished side facing outward.
K
May _i, 2001
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
4. The retaining wall/fence is not to extend past the
building line on the Centerwood Road side of the
property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 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.
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.
3
05/02,'01 09:39 FAX
Yeary Limey Architects
April 25, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney
Department of Neighborhoods and Planning
723 West Markham
Little Roof, AR 721
RE: Zoning Variance Application for
Lathrop Residence, 5 Wildwood Load
We are requesting a zoning variance at 5 Wildwood Road to allow encroachments into the
front Building Line setback requirement of 15 feet and the east rear/side yard setback of 7
feet.
Our proposed plan includes a ore -story addition to the front and north side of the exispng
house tat extends into the front Building Line setback three feet. We feel this
encroachment is justified due to the odd shape of the site and the fact that we have
maintained a forty four foot setback from the property line to the north thereby negliq bly
affecting the site lines at the intersection of Centerwood and Wildwood. It is our opinion that
such a minor encroachment would be inconsequential to the overall character of Wildwood
Road.
A one-story porch is proposed to the rear (east side) which encroaches three feet into ft
existing seven -foot rear/side yard setback_ Due to the difference in elevation of the
Lathrop residence and the neighbor to the east, this porch not only will provide outdoor
living space but also help in providing some visual privacy.
We also propose a one and a half story extension eastward to the south part of the hoUse.
This expansion is within the setbacks and easements.
Along the east property line there is an existing stone retaining wall which varies from
approximately 3'-0" at the Centerwood Building Line to 4'-5" in height and has a 4'-9"
wood fence on top the entire length of the existinghouse. This makes the average
fence/wall height on aur property approximately 8'-9' and from the neighbors' property
approx. 4'-9" in height. Because our house sits so much lower than our neighbors' house to
the east ft existing situation does not provide any visual privacy to our main living spaces.
We propose taking either the stone or a stone and wood combination waliJfence uP to a
maximum of 6'-0" above the neighbors property. This would put the top of it varying from
9'-U" to 10'-6" in height on our property and would help provide much needed visual
privacy.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
� (� rd5IF
r
Carolyn A. dsey, AIA
UO2
May -1, 2001
Item No.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-7030
The George W. Donaghey Foundation
8th and Main Streets
Long Legal
UU
A variance is requested from the
parking design provisions of
Section 36-511 to permit parking
stall widths of 816".
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in the attached letters
and report.
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Vacant and Surface Parking
Multi-level parking deck
Public Works supports 816" width of parking spaces for
employees. Customer spaces should be 9' wide.
B. Landscape Review:
Street trees must be at least 2 feet from the back of the
street curbing.
Exterior parking areas are required a 3 -foot wide building
landscaping between the public parking areas and building.
Some flexibility with this requirement is allowed.
Additionally, 8% of the interior of the exterior parking
area must be landscaped with interior landscape islands of
at least 150 square feet in area and 7 1� feet in width. A
9 -foot width perimeter landscape strip is required for the
exterior parking areas. Since this is within the designated
May _l, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
"mature area", a 25% reduction of these Landscape Ordinance
may be allowed.
C. Staff Analysis:
A State of Arkansas Urban Campus complex is currently under
construction at 7th and Main Streets on LTU zoned properties.
The campus consists of buildings at the northeast and
northwest corners of 7th and Main, the 14 -story Donaghey
Building at the southeast corner of 7th and Main, the new
Donaghey Plaza South Building at the southwest corner of 7th
and Main and a multi -story parking structure to be located
on the east side of Main Street, spanning 8th Street. The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow all of the
parking spaces within the new parking deck to have a width
of 816". The Code requires a parking stall width of 9 feet.
The Code does permit compact car spaces in larger parking
lots or decks to be 816" in width. In that case, the
parking lot or deck must contain at least 50 spaces and then
a maximum of 20% of the spaces may be of the lesser width to
be designated for compact car parking.
It is the applicant's contention that a parking stall width
of 8'6" has become the national standard. A report
published by the Urban Land Institute and the National
Parking Association has been submitted in support of this
assertion. The applicant further states that the parking
deck will be predominantly used by all -day parking patrons
(with the exception of the visitor's section on the ground
level), a parking angle of 65 degrees is being used which
allows for easier maneuvering into and out of the spaces and
several existing downtown parking decks have parking spaces
of 8'611 in width.
Staff is willing to support the concept proposed by the
applicant. The study prepared by ULI and NPA certainly
seems to lend credence to the applicant's contention that,
nationwide, parking stall widths have been accepted to be
less than 9 feet. Staff is more swayed by the statement
that the preponderance of use of the deck will be by persons
who work in the nearby offices and thus, there will not be a
lot of "in and out" use of the spaces. Additionally, a
parking angle of 65 degrees is being used which does make
for easier maneuvering into and out of the parking spaces.
In one sense this is a self -policing issue in that, if
tenants are not able to comfortably park in this privately
2
May 1, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
owned parking deck, the owner will no doubt be informed and
the parking spaces can easily be restriped.
The applicant indicates that visitors parking will be
located on the ground level. It can be assumed that these
spaces will be used for in and out traffic and will be used
by persons less familiar with the parking deck and its
reduced stall widths. As such, staff believes it is
reasonable to require all visitors spaces to be 9 feet in
width, that they be clearly marked for visitor use and that
they be located for ease of access.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to have
parking stall width of 816" subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance regarding
those surface parking spaces located east of the parking
deck, including any variance or waiver of those
requirements as may be granted by the City Beautiful
Commission.
2. A parking angle of 65 degrees is to be used for all
spaces less than 9 feet in width.
3. All visitors' spaces are to be 9 feet in width.
4. Visitors' spaces are to be clearly marked for visitor
use, and are to be grouped together near the entrance to
the parking deck for ease of access and identification.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 21, 2001)
Gary Langlais abstained on this issue.
Dickson Flake was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Dana Carney of the Planning Staff
presented the item. He explained why staff could not support a
reduced parking stall width for the entire facility. Mr. Carney
presented the staff recommendation as outlined above.
Dickson Flake addressed the Board. He stated a parking stall
width of 816" was common in the downtown parking decks and cited
several examples to support his assertion. Mr. Flake stated some
3
May _l, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
90° spaces are at the end of a lane, with straight -in access and,
as such, should be permitted to be 8'6" in width. Mr. Flake
stated all visitors spaces would be located in the same general
area of the parking deck. He described that area as having its
own entrance and containing only about 50 spaces.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Flake the number of visitors spaces and the
number of 90° spaces.
Mr. Flake responded that the number of visitor spaces would be
minimal and he did not know the number of 900 spaces. In
response to a question, Mr. Flake reiterated his contention that
the other downtown parking decks had parking spaces as narrow as
8'4".
Norm Floyd stated he found most parking spaces in the decks cited
by the applicant to be 9 feet in width. He stated he went as far
as the 3rd level of the city -owned deck. Mr. Floyd questioned
the conclusion reached in the study presented by Mr. Flake.
Mr. Floyd stated it appeared to suggest not going to smaller
spaces but rather just the opposite. Mr. Floyd cited his
personal experiences as a driver of full-size vehicles. He
stated he would prefer to see the application modified to allow
only a percentage of the spaces to be of the narrower width.
Dickson Flake again stated he had been told that the parking
spaces in the other downtown decks were less than 9 feet in
width. Dana Carney responded that he and Jim Lawson, Director
of Planning and Development, had spent an afternoon measuring
parking spaces in the various decks cited by Mr. Flake.
Mr. Carney stated he had found no consistent stall width less
than 9 feet and had found many of the stalls to measure from just
under 9 feet to 12 feet in width. Mr. Carney stated no variance
had been granted to allow a reduced stall width in the decks
cited by Mr. Flake. Mr. Carney surmised that the decks were
built with proper 9 foot spaces but were subsequently restriped
to the various widths as a part of routine maintenance.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Flake if the proposed tenant was aware of the
requested reduction in stall width. Mr. Flake responded that the
tenant was aware and had entered into a 30 year lease.
William Ruck asked Mr. Flake how tall the deck was and how many
additional spaces were gained by reducing the stall width.
Mr. Flake responded that the deck had 7 levels and there would be
a 7% increase in the number of spaces.
4
May -1, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
Mr. Ruck stated the spaces could be restriped if the tenant
complains.
Dickson Flake stated he would agree to mark all visitors' spaces
and make them 9 feet in width. He asked not to have to cluster
the spaces. Fred Gray asked if Mr. Flake would ask his architect
to cluster the visitor spaces as much as possible. Mr. Flake
responded that he would.
Scott Richburg stated it was his understanding that all 900
spaces would have an open aisle behind them and would not share
backing area with another space. Mr. Flake responded that Mr.
Richburg was correct.
During the ensuing discussion, it confirmed by Mr. Flake that the
visitor spaces are not scattered throughout the 7 levels of the
parking deck; all visitor spaces are located in a separately -
entranced, 50 space area; the public cannot access the rest of
the deck; the area where the visitor spaces are located is
accessed from Main Street and consists of a single circle; and
the visitor spaces will be clearly marked.
A motion was made to approve the variance subject to compliance
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance reqarding
those surface parking spaces located east of the parking
deck, including any variance or waiver of those
requirements as may be granted by the City Beautiful
Commission.
2. A parking angle of 65 degrees is to be used for all spaces
less than 9 feet in width. 90° parking spaces may be 816"
in width if they are located so that there is not another
parking space directly across the aisle from them.
3. All visitors' spaces are to be 9 feet in width.
4. Visitors' spaces are to be clearly marked for visitor use,
and are to be located in the first floor, 50 space parking
area described by the applicant.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and
1 abstaining (Langlais).
5
WITTENBERG DELONY & DAVIDSON ARCHITECTS
April 10, 2001
Mr. Jim Lawson
Director of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Donaghey State Urban Campus Development
Parking Deck No. 1 Re -Design
WD&D job No. 00-038
Dear Mr. Lawson:
Our project design team is currently in the working drawings phase of the above -referenced
project. In respect to the parking layout, we are specifying a standard parking space width
of 8'-6" for this project. The City of Little Rock Subdivision & Zoning Ordinance currently
requires 9'-0" space widths. I have spoken with Mr. Dave McClymont, Mr. Bob Brown,
and Mr. Dana Carvey regarding this issue. Mr. Carvey has asked that a written
correspondence be sent to you requesting your consideration of an allowance for 8'-6"
wide parking spaces on this project.
We are working closely with International Parking Design (IPD) in developing the parking
layout. IPD is a consulting firm specializing in the design and layout of parking structures.
Upon discussions with IPD, it has been determined that an 8'-6" wide parking space should
be adequate for this parking structure based on:
A) The structure is to be predominantly used by all -day parking patrons
B) A parking angle of 65 degrees is being used which allows for easier maneuvering
into and out of the parking space
C) All of the parking spaces are to be standard spaces with no percentage of compact
spaces, basically a "one size fits all" layout.
In addition, an 8'-6" wide standard parking space has become an industry accepted
standard and is even recommended in The Dimensions Of Parking, Fourth Edition, a book
that has been written by the Parking Consultants Council (a support group to the National
Parking Association) and is periodically updated by the same. This publication is a product
of a partnership between the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the National Parking
Association (NPA). For your reference, I am enclosing a copy of "Chapter 8: Parking
Geometrics" from this publication, which addresses recent vehicular trends and the PCC's
parking geometric guidelines.
400 W. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-4857
501/376-6681
501/376-0231 FAX
Mr. Jim Lawson
March 27, 2001
Page 2
Historically, the City of Little Rock has approved several parking structures designed by
WD&D using this 8'-6" stall width. These structures include the USABLE parking garage,
the Regions Bank parking garage, the Metro Center Mall parking garage, and the Stephens
Building parking garage.
Therefore, WD&D respectfully requests, after your review of this letter and the attached
materials, an approval letter from you be provided allowing us to proceed with the 8'-6"
stall layout without having to go before the Board of Adjustments.
Please call if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
WITTENBERG, DELONY & DAVIDSON INC.
g.ar
J. Randall Orr, AIA
Attachment
Cc: Mr. Tom Adams, WD&D
Mr. David Vogel, IPD
Mr. Dickson Flake, BQF&A
File
Mar -23-01( 1:42P
FOURTH EDITION
ULIUrban Land l
institMe
P_02
Mar-23-OL'`1:45P P. 03
About ULI—the Urban Land
Institute
LR -I -the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit education and
research institute that is supported and directed by its mem-
bers. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the
use of land in order to enhance the total environment.
ULI sponsors education programs and forums to encour-
age an open international exchange of ideas and sharing of
experiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land
use trends and issues and proposes creative solutions based
on that research; provides advisory services; and publishes a
wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land
use and development. Established in 1936, the Institute today
has more than 15,OOt) members and associates from more
than 50 countries representing the entire spectrum of the
land use and development disciplines.
Richard M. Rosan
President
Editorial and Production Staff
Rachelle L. Levitt
Senior bice President, Policy and Practice
Publisher
Gayle Berens
Lice President, Real F_ctate Development Practice
Robert T. Dunphy
Senior ResidentFellou, Transportation
U[I Project Director
Christian R. Luz
Senior Lice President, H, -TB
, A Project Director
Fancy H. Stewart
Director Book Program
Managing Editor
Carol E. Soble
L antrscript Editor
Betsy Van Buskirk
Art Director
Book and Corer a sign
Martha Loomis
Desktop Publisbing .Specialist
Diann Stanley -Austin
Director. Publishing Operations
About NPA -the National Parking
Association
The National Parking Association (NPA), founded in 1951, is
an international network of more than 1,100 parking profes-
sionals from across the United States and around the world
—the trade association for the parking industry. Members
include private commercial parking operators. suppliers of
equipment or services to the industry; parking administrators
for colleges and universities, hospitals, municipalities, air-
ports, and public authorities; engineers and architects; and
developers. The Parking Consultants Council is a special pro-
fessional group within the NPA, composed primarily of engi-
neers and architects who produce a broad range of technical
publications on die design, construction, and layout of park-
ing facilities as well as recommended guidelines for zoning
ordinances, use of handicapped spaces, lighting, and other
issues of importance to traffic engineers, state and municipal
officials, and parking professionals. The NTA acts as a clear-
inghouse for parking industry information, provides special
services for its members, tracks federal legislation of interest
to parking, sponsors an annual international convention and
trade exposition, and publishes a magazine ten times a year,
Martin L Stein
Executive Director
Recommended bibliographic listing:
ULI-the Urban Land Institute and NPA -the National Parking
Association. The Dimensions of Parking. Fourth Edition.
Washington, D.C.: ULI-rhe Urban t.tnd Institute, 2000.
ULI Catalog Number: D85
International Standard Book Number: 0-87+420-827-0
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 00-100594
Copyright 2000 by LT.I-the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy-
ing and recording, or by any information storage and retrievat
system, without written permission of the publisher.
Mar -23-0; 01:45P
it
C HAPTE R 8
PARKING
,�EOMETRICS
Christian R, Luz and Mary S. Smith
istorically, parking space design has varied with vehicle size, Parking
space widths increased from 8 feet, 4 inches in the late 1950s and
early 1960s to as wide as ten feet in the late 1960s. By the early
l �-u5 however, standard stall -vvidffis had declined to 8 feet, 6 inches. As the
(],)\N nsizing of vehicles became more widely accepted, many facilities began
to design up to 50 percent of their capacity as small -car -only stalls (7 feet, 6
inches \vide). In the 1980s, more than two-thirds of the new -car market
dt)!,L IV clustered around the overlap between small- and large -vehicle
uilh,,. tThe definition of a small vehicle is hased on the square footage
K cupicd by the vehicle. Classes 5-7 are considered small; classes 8-11 are
1arg, .'1 Further pressure to reduce parking bay modules (a drive aisle plus
iv, (-) rotes of parking spaces) resulted from the downsizing of large vehicles,
Aly many experts began to question the prudence of small -vehicle -only
parking spaces. In the 1990s and now into 2000, the pendulum has started to
.,`+ ing hack toward larger vehicles. The significant increase in the use of light
trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (LTVU) for daily transportation has
c+nc:e again raised questions about appropriate parking space dimensions.
Figure 8-1 presents the percent of vehicles termed "small" since the tracking
(d LTVU sales began in 1987.
The obvious reason for adjusting parking dimensions to vehicle size
,,s economics. The measure of efficiency in a parking design is the square
( x�utgt' of the lot or floor area per parking space. Thirty years ago, the rule
Of thumb for an efficient design was approximately 325 to 350 square feet
prr parking space. As downsized parking dimensions and small -vehicle -only
43
Mar -23-07 01:46P
SALES OF SMALL VEHICLES BY TYPE
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Calendar Year
Source: Walker Po*king Consultonts, comp.led from Automotive News Market Data Books (Detroit: Crone Communications, 1997-1998).
parking ,pace layouts came into common practice, 300
square feet per Parking ,pace became a realistic goal, and
some designs with a lar,
e share of small -vehicle -only park-
ing spaces achieved efficiencies of :70 square feet per space
or better. Econcimic.. is not the only reason, however, for tai-
loring parking ;pace• sizes to vehicle sizes. With most com-
murclal land use1. as nulch or more square lbotage of land is
cicv(jted to parking as to the building itself.
Definition of Design Vehicle
Parking designers have found it helpful to select a theoretical
vehicle size and then determine the parking space and aisle
dimensions that accommodate the needs of the "design vehi-
cle '• One approach' to selecting the design vehicle is to use
the dimensions of the Sith percentile vehicle in the range
of vehicles from sm:clivst (zero percentile) to largest OWth
percentile). The use elf the 85th percentile vehicle parallels
Elie design principle of traffic engineering in which road-
vvays are desi fncd her the 135th percentile of peak -hour
Traffic volume.
In 1983, parking designers used R.L. Polk statistical data
four all passenger -type , chictes registered in the United States
to determine the design vehicle. Since that time, the design
vehicle has been hawed on annual sales of small vehicles
(Classes 5-?), large vehicles (Classes K-11), and all vehicles.
Since 1987, the design vehicles for light trucks and sport util-
iry vehicles t 1:1 -VU) have been monitored by Automotity
Neus, Crine ConurlLin ic'ations, Detroit (see Figure 8-2 for
selected years).
M,
P.05
,'.Cars 1I
-�-
Light Tncks 1
A_ Vans
--a- Sport utility
—yt All Vehicles;
The "all car- design vehicle has remained relatively sta-
ble since the early 1990s. However, the combined impact of
small -car and LTVU sales as an increasing percent of the
total market and significant changes in the design vehicle for
each LT4U market segment has resulted in a significant
change in the overall design vehicle
In fact, the design vehicle increased by a width of three
inches in 1998. Industry forecasts project that the trend
toward oversized sport utility vehicles such as the Ford
Expedition and Excursion has already peaked. `.While sales of
those vehicles will remain stable, new growTh will occur in
the hottest neve segment: sport utility wagons. These vehi-
cles are built on medium-size car platforms epitomized by
the 1999 Lexus 350, which as of this writing is outselling
all Lexus models, There is no indication that there will be
any further increase in the design vehicle in the foreseeable
future (which, in the automobile industry, is less than five
years). To remain feasible through the foreseeable future,
The design vehicle: used to calculate parking dimensions
herein has increased in width by four inches to 6 feet. 7
inches but not in length as compared with the 1987 com-
posite vehicle.
The precipitous decline in the sales of small vehicles
renders dead the debate over ,mall -vehicle -only parking.
Many municipalities are dropping the provisions that encaur-
aged small spaces in neve construction: however, they are
struggling with how to handle older facilities that depend on
small stalls to meet parking needs. The: adoption of moder-
ate but rational one -size -tits -all parking space dimensions
Mar -23-0J 71:46P
VEHICLES
pESIGN
On
the Road 1983
1987 Sales
1993 Sales
1998 Sales
Smith: 1985
PCC: 19$9
5'8' x 14'9"
5'8 x 152
Subura Legacy
5 7. x 14 8'
5'8" x 1 a 8'
} 6 9'
Dodge Intrepid
5,011 Cots
6,7, x 18 �„
R
6,6.. x 1 D`
6'2" x 17'0'
6' 3" x
kAercury Sable
lot9e Cats
6'2" x 7'D.,
6'1„ x 16'8"
6'} x 6'�'
�'' 3 x 7 2"
pal Cars
42.0%
33.9%
Smolt
Vb'7"
36.0°k
52.1%
Dodge Rom Tong bear
x , 7 b"
Ford F250
68 x 8 9
6'8"
Trucks
17 8"
Ford Econoline
6'8" x 18 3'
Chevy Express
vans6'7"
6'8' x
x 17 i'
Ford Expedit on
6'7° x 15 4"
Ford Bronco
sport U'ikl,
12.}%
F
41 .9%
k % Small
.6'7" x } 7 !' Ford Expedition
Composite ,Car + l i 1 U'I
6'4,, x 17 0'
48.8% 23.5%
r% Small
' Source: Walker ParkingC P o^sulronts• com fled from Avromotive News Morkei Data Books IDetroir Crane Communications, 198
7-19981
vitt significantly help in tht 'rantiit nn a��' ry from small-vchi More important. parkins dimensinnti ;hnuld x custom
ized to the needs of prc cled users. 1"or e\amplc, space
de anter narking *p,rcu�,
%, itii high turnover rates, as to the r itis of convenience
`n`slw ithdcrx
Parking Geometries Guidelines
should have greater clearances than parking; . p�
_ turnover rates. Similarly'. where there is likely to be a large
The critical elements of parkins; apace dimensions are the
width of the parkin ace relative to the «'idth of the 'chi- number of elderly penple and-ar individuals under stress.
L p"
cle and the case of maneuccrim; the vehicle into and out of such ate A self-parklstructure in dot Hawn ]cx tion in abe pr�
the parking space.'n b
iniurre}ationship rtwc•en aisle and p
lr that, within reasonable limits. a large city can he designed with less generous dimensions
parking space width i, stt
wider aiste can permit a n.rrro er parking space and vice than a structure in an upscale suburban mall or in a smaller.
versa and still offer thc• s;lme degree of comfan in the turn- rural community. It is also important to note that vehicle
ing movement. sizes no longer vary by region and locality. Spon utility• vehi-
d Yiawaii as in the
cies are just as popular in California an
rural areas and the Snovrlx°lt.
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PARKING STALL WIDTHS
—, Parking Space
Typical Parking Characteristics Width
Low turnover for employees, studems, and 8'6"
so forth
8'6" 1-, 6'9"
Low- to moderate -turnover visitor spaces
(offices, regional center retail, cony te-r i
parking at otrports, and so forth)
Moderate- to higher-turrD:'er visitor parking 8,Q"
'9 to 4'0"
community recoil, m=d,co visitors
Source: Parking Consultants Council.
A downsized but uniform parking stall accommodates all
spaces except those required to serve users with disabili-
ties.
45
Mar -23-01 r'-'' :47P
There is a growing disparity between the size of passen-
ger vehicles and light trucks.
Determining Parking Space Dimensions
A parking space that is wide enough for comfortable door
opening clearance will be acceptable for vehicle maneuver-
ing if the associated aisle is properly sized. As a result, park-
ing space widths have generally been based on required
door opening clearances (the distance between vehicles).
Door opening clearances should range from 20 inches for
vehicles in low-rurnover facilities to 24 to 27 inches for vehi-
cles in high -turnover facilities.' Combining these dimensions
with the width of the composite design vehicle results in
parking space widths that range from 8 feet, 3 inches to nine
feet. Figure 8-3 presents recommendations for adjusting stall
widths based on turnover. In summary, the ease of maneu-
verability into and out of spaces and the degree of comfort
afforded the motorist and passengers should be related to
the local environment
The turnover rate or user type does not affect the length
of the parking space. The average distance between vehicles
COMMON PARKING DIMENSIONS FOR 8'6" STALLS
P-07
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM MODULE
DIMENSIONS"
Parking Module Width for One -Way Traffic and Double_ :
Load ed Aisles
Parking Angle Vehicle
(in degrees) Module Projection Aisle
*Design vehicle - 6'7" x 170'.
and a restraint, such as a curb stop, is generally about nine
inches. Combining this dimension with design vehicle length
results in a recommended parking space length of 18 feet. It
should also be noted that experienced parking and traffic
consultants have long recommended that parking space and
aisle geometry for parking facilities should be based on rota-
tion of the design vehicle to the desired angle rather than on
rotation of the parking space dimensions. The available drive
aisle is the width left between two vehicles parked directly
opposite each other. The controlling factors for design of the
drive aisle are determined by the design criteria for curbs,
walls, or other parking space constraints that protrude into
spaces and/or the drive aisle.
Base Single Wall to Interlock to Curb to Stall Width
Angle Module loaded Interlock Interlock Curb Overhang Interlock Projection
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 o i WP
45 48,0„ 30,4„
45,0.,
42,0„
a
45
48'0"
178"
12'8'
50
4919'
18'3'
13'3'
2'9"
11'1"
55 5110" 32'4"
487"
55
51 '0"
18'8"
13'8'
60
52'6'
1910"
14'6'
65
53'9"
19'2"
15'5"
70
55'0"
19'3"
166"
75
56'0"
i 911 "
1710'
90
60'0"
18'0"
24'0'
*Design vehicle - 6'7" x 170'.
and a restraint, such as a curb stop, is generally about nine
inches. Combining this dimension with design vehicle length
results in a recommended parking space length of 18 feet. It
should also be noted that experienced parking and traffic
consultants have long recommended that parking space and
aisle geometry for parking facilities should be based on rota-
tion of the design vehicle to the desired angle rather than on
rotation of the parking space dimensions. The available drive
aisle is the width left between two vehicles parked directly
opposite each other. The controlling factors for design of the
drive aisle are determined by the design criteria for curbs,
walls, or other parking space constraints that protrude into
spaces and/or the drive aisle.
Base Single Wall to Interlock to Curb to Stall Width
Angle Module loaded Interlock Interlock Curb Overhang Interlock Projection
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 o i WP
45 48,0„ 30,4„
45,0.,
42,0„
44,6"
119"
3'0"
12,0"
50 49'9" 31'6"
470"
44'3"
45'11"
I'll"
2'9"
11'1"
55 5110" 32'4"
487"
46'2"
46' 10"
2-1 "
2'5'
10'5"
60 52'6" 33'6"
50'4"
48'2"
48'2"
2'2"
2'2"
9,101
65 53'9" 34' 7"
51 ' 1 1"
50'1 "
49'3"
2'3"
11101
9'5"
70 55.0" 35'9"
53'7"
52'2"
50'4"
2'4"
1'5"
911"
75 560" 36'l 1"
54'1 1 "
53' 10"
51'2"
2'5"
1 ' 1 "
8' 10"
90 6C',3" 42'0"
60'0"
60'0"
55'0"
2'6"
0'0"
8'6"
Dimensions hove been rounded to nearest inch,
'Design vehicle - 67' x 17'0'.
46
Mar -23-01- -"I :47P P. 08
COMMON PARKING DIMENSIONS
yi_ Ws '--4 Legend
_-4 M .M'9µ' W P.M
A MWe Wet
0' Ovhng
Sri � \\. vPon. 6
VP
sv WP - Wan Prpjo'
sw .
WO . weu ghat
coLurn or so . 9n.00
EN^.ROACMNC1 r �' O-WSW�c. E C .'69
(2 MAX) �_�--in]eh-20.9.
r �.
Determining Aisle and Module Dimensions
Parking designers u.sc the terns module for the combined
dimension of two parked vehicles and the aisle between.
Trial and error originally determined parking modules. Hov,
ever, Edmund Ricker, an early pioneer in the field of parkin
design geometries, developed a series of equations that m
eled the movement of a vehicle into a parking space. Over
> the years, the equations have undergone refinement and
now better simulate the aisle/parking space relationship. Tf�
combination of these equations and practical experience has
resulted in the development of a set of module dimensions
that provide an acceptable minimum level of comfort for the
timing movement as seen in Figure 8-4.
When designing basic parking space geometry for a par-
ticular parking facility (surlace lot or structured parking), the
designer should account for fundamental parking criteria,
some of which include site location, site dimensions, site
constraints (trees, power poles, buildings, and so forth), sur-
rounding streets, traffic flow, parking demand generators,
local zoning and landscaping mandates, surface conditions,
and parking user categories, Each criterion can be unique to
each parking location, thereby creating circumstances where
the parking geometry
adjusted on a case must be carefully considered and
-by-case basis to allow for the location's
maximized potential.
Most of these criteria are "givens," allowing for little flex-
ibility. However, user characteristics may mandate some flex-
ibility in parking space geometry to maximize the efficiencies
Of the parking facility. We have previously discussed recom-
mended stall widths for low -turnover, medium-tumover, and
high -turnover parkin{;. BY holding to the above modules and
adjusting the stall width, the designer can ensure comfort-
able parking dimensions.
It is important to note that the dimensions provided in
this chapter list recommended minimums. It may be appro-
priate and prudent to provide wider spaces in accordance
,- with the location -based criteria discussed above Consultants
have found that increasing; stall width and decreasing aisle
vvidth is a preferred method of maintaining an overall mini-
mum level of comfortwhile maximizing user acceptance. An
adjustment of three inches less per module for each one
inch in additional stall width is recommended.,
Figure 8-5 presents some additional dimensions that are
useful for laying our parking facilities for the minimum mod-
ule dimensions shown in Figure 8-6. It is important to note
that the interlock dimension and srall width projection (par-
allel to the aisle) are calculated for an R -foot, 6 -inch stall.
The recommended minimum dimensions assume park-
ing lot conditions nithout ph?'sical restrictions. When a curb
stop is not provided, such as in a shopping center parking
lot, vehicles Occasionally pull into the parking space too far,
thereby reducing the aisle .xidth of the adjacent module.
This can be a particular problern in the Snow Belt. where
Space markings are sometimes obscured. Therefore, when a
curh, mall, or other physical restraint is provided at each
g parking space, the aisle width (and therefore the resulting
�- module) can be reduced by one foot.
It is common in parking structures for columns to
extend beyond the face of the bumper wall or vehicle
Th,
restraint and therefore into the module. Encroachment_5 also
occur in parking lots at light poles. It is recommended that
columns, light poles, or odrer appurtenances be allowed to
encroach into the module and affect up to 30 percent of
parking spaces. The encroachment should be limited to
• a maximum combined reduction of rn'o feet (i.e., six
inches into parking spaces on one side of the aisle
and I foot, 6 inches on the other side) below the
module widths recommended in Figure 8-2; or
• one foot below the module if the one -foot credit is
taken for vehicle restraints at every parking space.
Column encroachments into the width of a parking
space are occasionally used in short -span designs on the the-
ory that if the column is clear of the door, zone, the
parking space width is maintained. However, the fuming
movement into the parking space is constrained by the col-
umn; the clear space for turning into a typical parking space
between two design vehicles in the two adjacent parking
spaces is the parking space width plus at Ieast 20 inches. To
maintain the same clear space for tuming movement into
each parking space, the parking spaces adjacent to walls,
columns, or other obstructions must be widened by at least
ten inches.
47
Ma-r-23—�" 01:49P
r
Why Small -Vehicle -Only Parking Spaces Do
Not Work
At the time the small -vehicle -only parking space was intro-
duced, the mix of automobiles consisted of very large and
very small vehicles; therefore, the small -vehicle space was
largely self -enforcing. One common layout placed angled
large -vehicle spaces on one side of the aisle and 90 -degree
small -vehicle spaces on the other side of the aisle. The diffi-
culty of the turning movement into the 90 -degree parking
spaces and the restriction on door opening discouraged larg-
er vehicles from using the small -vehicle -only parking spaces.
The practicality of small -vehicle -only parking spaces
was, however, short lived. Since manufacturers started down-
sizing larger passenger errs, much debate has raged over
what is and is not a small vehicle. Confusion has increased
as the dimensions of smaller -sized large vehicles and larger -
sized small vehicles began to blur and, more recently, as cer-
tain models were upsized. Light trucks, vans, and the popu-
lar sport utility vehicles now account for half of total person-
al vehicle sales.
If a small -vehicle space is available in a convenient loca-
tion in a parking facility, many drivers of intermediate or
even larger vehicles park in the small -vehicle spaces, thus
impeding traffic flow and compromising safety within the
facility. In addition, when large vehicles park in small -vehicle
parking spaces, they frequently encroach into the adjacent
parking space such that a domino effect occurs down the
row and eventually renders a parking space unusable. As a
result, the effective capacity and improved efficiency provid-
ed by small -vehicle parking spaces is negated. If. on the
other hand, small -vehicle spaces are placed at inconvenient
locations, small -vehicle drivers may park their vehicles in
standard -sized spaces, forcing later -arriving large vehicles
into an inadequate and inconvenient small -vehicle parking
space. It has thus become apparent that specially located
small -vehicle spaces are not effective unless a facility is
policed to prevent the use of large -vehicle spaces by small
vehicles or vice versa.
Newspapers ranging from the Wall SireetJournal to Uri
Today have run °expos4s" on the inability of small -car -only
stalls to accommodate today's vehicles. A number of cities,
such as Honolulu, have dropped provisions allowing small
spaces, and others (including Palo Alto, California) are
increasing the fines imposed on large vehicles parked in
small stalls. Therefore, small -car -only stalls should be used
only in remnants of space and should not exceed 15 percent
of total capacity.
Conclusion
Due to the convergence of vehicle sizes, small -vehicle -only
parking spaces are no longer a national parking design alter-
native. In addition, LTVUs are an increasingly important fac-
tor in parking design geometries. Sales of small vehicles
48
FAINUMSE
dropped significantly in the 1990s as the American passenger
vehicle underwent a general, slow upsizing. Therefore, a
rational approach to parking space and module sizing can
and does support moderate module dimensions for one-size-
fits-all
ne-sizefits-all designs
It is time for municipalities to review and revise their
parking ordinances. Requiring excessively generous parking
geometries wastes resources, land, and money and conflicts
with other community interests such as increased green
space and reduced stormwater runoff. Where small -vehicle -
only parking spaces are permitted, overly generous standard
parking space dimensions virtually force facility owners to
specify small -vehicle -only parking spaces to achieve a cost-
effective design.
:Moreover, excessive dimensions for standard parking
spaces make it difficult for facility owners or operators
whose properties include only small -vehicle -only parking
spaces to restripe to a one -size -tits -all design without an
unacceptable loss of parking spaces.
Notes
1 Parking Standards Design Associates, A Parking Stan-
dards Report. I.w kngeles, March 10, 1971. Originally,
square footage was used to describe class size, and
compact vehicles were in what is now Class 8. By the
time the PCC adopted this approach in 1989, the typical
compact vehicle was in Class 7..
2 Mary Smith, -Parking Standard~," Parking, July/August
1985,
3 Parking Standards Design Associates. A Parkins
Standards Report.
4 Mary Smith. -Parking Stan&ards."
April 26, 2001
Members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment
c/o Mr. Dana Carney
Zoning and Subdivision Manager
City of Little Rock
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Carney:
Enclosed is an application for Zoning Variance on behalf of the George W. Donaghey Foundation
for its parking structure to be constructed at 8th and Main Streets in Little Rock.
The application requests approval of a standard -sized parking space of 8'6" for this parking deck
development. The City of Little Rock Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance currently requires 9'0"
space widths.
Wittenberg, Delony & Davidson, project architect, has engaged International Parking Design (IPD)
to serve as its consultant in the design of the new Donaghey parking structure. IPD specializes in
the design and layout of multi-level parking. IPD's experts have recommended the space width of
8'6" as the accepted standard in the industry. It is recommended in the Dimensions of Parking, 4th
edition, a book written by the Parking Consultants Council and periodically updated by this
organization. This publication is a product of a partnership between the Urban Land Institute and
the National Parking Association. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of "Chapter 8: Parking
Geometries" from the publication, which confirms the 8'6" space as the recommended standard.
Recognizing the industry practice, the City of Little Rock has routinely approved the 8'6" space
design in several of the parking decks now in use in downtown Little Rock. Among these are:
• Regions Center Parking Deck
• USAble Parking Deck
• MetroCentre Parking Deck (7th and Scott Streets)
• Stephens Building Parking Deck
• City of Little Rock Parking Deck (2nd and Main Streets)
An attached exhibit shows the spacing for each of the above decks.
With the exception of the visitors section on the ground level, all of the new parking deck will be
utilized by State employees in the State Urban Campus complex at 7th and Main Streets. There
400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1200 L. DICKSON FLAKE, CRE, CCIM, SIOR J. FLETCHER HANSON III INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP$
POST OFFICE BOX 3546 NOLAN L. RUSHING GAINES BONNER Counselors of Real Estate
PHYLLIS LASER GLAZE, CPM DAVID B, CARPENTER Commerci2l.1—tment Institute
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 DIANA G. LACY DENISE BOWERS Institute of Real Estate Management
PHONE 501.372.6161 • FAX 501-372-0671 DRu E. ENGLISH, CPM GARY L. JONES International Council of Shopping Centers
E-MAIL bq{a@bq{a.com MELANIE GIBSON, CCIM, CPM KIRK A. HOFFMAN Little Rock Board of Realtors, Inc
LEAH M. SEARS KAREN R. FLEMING National Association of Realtors
http:/h�tivw.bgfa.com KEVIN H. HUCHINGSON, CCIM, SIOR PAT PfLLERT Society of Industrial and Office Realtors
Members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment
April 26, 2001
Page 2
will, therefore, be a routine familiarity and knowledge of the operation and layout of the deck. A
parking angle of 65 degrees is being used, allowing for easier maneuvering in and out of parking
spaces. All of the parking spaces are to be of the standard 8'6" size, with no allocation for compact
spaces. Therefore, any vehicle can park in any space.
This application complies with the recommendations of nationally accepted authorities - the Urban
Land Institute and the National Parking Association - and it is consistent with previous City
approvals. We request your taking similar action with this application.
Sincerely,
L. Dickson Flake
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Thomas R. Adams, AIA
Mr. J. French Hill
Mr. Robert L. Laman
May( - 1, 2001
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Reauested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7031
Robert Alvey
7515 Fairways Drive
Lot 2, Fairways Addition
"'M
A variance is requested from
Section 36-11 to permit
construction of an accessory
building within an easement.
The applicant was unaware of
the prohibition. Additional
information is provided in an
attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property at 7515 Fairways Drive is occupied by
a single family residence and a deteriorating accessory
structure. The applicant began construction of a new
accessory building with the intent of razing and removing
the old building once the new one was complete. The new
accessory building complies with all applicable zoning
regulations, with one exception. It is located partially in
an easement. The applicant had not obtained a building
permit and was stopped by the City. When a survey was
presented, it was evident that a portion of the new
structure is located over the 35 foot easement that
encumbers a large portion of the rear yard. Section 36-11
of the code prohibits construction within an easement. The
May -1, 2001
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
applicant was advised to obtain approval from the public
utility companies and to file for a variance.
Approval has been given b
Water Works, Wastewater,
Energy Arkla. As of this
approval. The 35 foot ea
lines and a substantial d
structure in the area of
once the new building is
removed. Staff believes
the utility companies and
the easement. If approva
utility company, Entergy,
removed or relocated. St
the Public Works Department,
outhwestern Bell and Reliant
writing, Entergy has not given
;ement does contain overhead power
•ainage ditch. The amount of
:he easement will actually be less
!onstructed and the old building is
:he proposal is reasonable, however
Public Works have first right to
is not received from the final
the structure will have to be
.ff believes it is appropriate to
approve the variance subject to approval being granted by
all utility companies. If the approval has not occurred by
the time of the Board hearing, a reasonable length of time
should be granted to allow the applicant to continue working
with Entergy.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject
to the following conditions:
1. Approval for the structure must be granted by all utility
companies within 60 days of the Board's action. Failure
to receive such approval will result in the City
instituting action to cause removal of the building.
2. If all approvals and permits are received, the existing,
old accessory building must be completely removed from
the property upon completion of the new building.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
Robert Alvey addressed the Board and apologized for having
created the situation by not first applying for a building
permit. He stated his only intent was to replace a dilapidated
structure with a new one. Mr. Alvey stated he was getting mixed
2
May( -1, 2001
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
messages from Entergy; messages of approval or of a requirement
to relocate either the power lines or the structure.
William Ruck asked Mr. Alvey if the staff recommended 60 days to
resolve the issue was sufficient. Mr. Alvey responded that it
was. Mr. Ruck and Norm Floyd both expressed concern that 60 days
might not be adequate to resolve the matter. Each stated that a
longer period might be needed.
Kareen Cooper, of 5001 Western Hills, spoke in opposition. He
expressed concern that the structure had been built too close to
the property line and was in the way of utility company access
through the easement. Mr. Cooper stated he had lost his view of
the golf course because of the construction of the building.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the structure
met or exceeded all required zoning setbacks and height
regulations.
William Ruck asked if the building could be moved out of the
easement. Mr. Alvey responded that the structure was 90%
complete.
Gary Langlais asked the purpose of the building. Mr. Alvey
responded that it would be used to store an ATV and a utility
trailer. He stated a portion of the building would also contain
his hobby/woodworking shop.
A motion was made to approve the variance subject to compliance
with the conditions proposed by staff, with the 60 days suggested
in condition No. 1 to be changed to 90 days. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3
24 April 2001
Zoning and Planning Department, City of Little Rock
Dear Sirs and Madams:
Attached please find copies of a property survey for my home at 7515 Fairways Drive, Little
Rock.
On one copy you will find marked in highlighter a building under construction. This building,
which will serve as a garage and workshop, is intended to replace an existing structure adjacent
and east of the new construction. Despite efforts to salvage the existing structure, it is in disrepair
beyond practical renovation (the roof and flooring are both rotting away), and has become an
eyesore to the neighborhood.
I have learned that the site of both the old building and the new building fall within an easement
at the rear of my property. I am seeking approval to continue construction within said easement. I
respectfully request approval to proceed with plans to replace the existing building, thereby
enhancing the neighborhood while allowing me continued storage space.
Res ectfully Submitted,
obe J.
501-56 170
Utility Approval/]Decline of Request
Little Rock City Public Works Department
YES / NO
Name
Date
Little Rock Municipal Water Works
YES NO
Name at
Little Rock Wastewater Utility
YES NO
me Date
Entergy Inc.
YES / NO
Name
Date
Southwestern Bell TeIeDhone Co. /
YES /NO - �Q �/
Name U
I Date
�a,
May( _ 1, 2001
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-7032
Mike and Kelley England
5403 Sherwood Road
Plot 185, Prospect Terrace No. 3
R-2
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit construction of additions
with a reduced side yard setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single ,Family
Single Family
Sidewalk on west side encroaches on adjacent property.
Remove and relocate.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 5403 Sherwood Road is occupied by
a split-level, brick and frame, single-family residence.
The lot slopes down from the street so that the house has
the appearance of one-story from the street and two -stories
from the rear. The applicants propose to substantially
remodel the home including adding an additional level (to
give a two-story appearance from the street) and a two-story
addition to the rear. Both additions will result in reduced
side yard setbacks of 1-2 feet. The Code requires a side
yard setback of 5.5 feet for this lot.
There are two issues before the Board, the proposed second
story and the proposed new addition where an elevated deck
May _l, 2001
Item No.: 7 (Cont.)
is now located. Staff's support is divided between the two
issues.
The existing house now has a side yard setback of 2± feet on
the west side. Although allowing a second floor does
increase the overall impact, it is being built over the
existing footprint of the house. It will be built over an
area that now is being used as living space. The habitable
area will come no closer to that side property line. Staff
believes it would be appropriate to limit the eave/overhang
on the west side to no more than 6 inches and to require
guttering or some other approved device to prevent water
run-off onto the adjacent property.
The proposed living/family room addition to the rear of the
house is a different issue in staff's opinion. That area is
now occupied by an elevated, open deck. The deck is at the
main level of the house and is completely open at the ground
or basement level. The open, uncovered, unenclosed deck is
supported by posts and has a side yard setback from the west
property line of 1.5 - 2 feet. Allowing that area to be
converted into a two-story addition to the house would, in
staff's opinion, greatly change the complexion of the
structure and would unreasonably impact the adjacent
property. The open area at ground level, below the area of
the existing deck would become enclosed structure as would
the area of the unenclosed, uncovered deck. Pushing that
much more structural intrusion into what is already a
crowded side yard is clearly overbuilding that portion of
the site.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not support the application, as filed. Staff
recommends approval only of the request to add the second
level to a portion of the existing house as shown subject to
the following conditions:
1. The eave/overhang on the west side of the structure is
to be limited to no more than 6 inches.
2. Guttering or some other approved device is to be
installed on the structure to prevent water run-off
onto the adjacent property.
2
May( -1, 2001
Item No.: 7 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
Tim Heiple was present representing the application. There were
no objectors present. Staff presented the item and explained the
recommendation.
Tim Heiple addressed the Board and presented a letter of support
from the neighbors adjacent to the west, Vic and Susan Fleming.
Mr. Heiple stated he did not understand staff's concerns about
the addition onto the rear of the house.
Fred Gray asked what uses are in the adjacent portion of the
neighbor's home. The applicant, Kelley England, responded that a
library, media room, living room and office were located in that
area of the neighbor's home. In response to a question from
William Ruck, Ms. England stated a den and a playroom would be in
the portion of her home nearest the neighbor's property.
During the ensuing discussion of the dimensions of the deck and
the proposed addition, Mr. Heiple stated the deck angles away
from the property line.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reiterated staff's concerns
about increasing the massing of structure in the greatly reduced
side yard setback.
In response to a question from Gary Langlais, Mr. Heiple verified
that the letter of support was from the owners of the adjacent
property.
In response to a question from the Board, Ms. England stated
there would be 15-18 feet of separation between her home and the
Flemings home.
A motion was made to approve the application, subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. The eave/overhang on the west side of the structure is to be
limited to no more than 6 inches.
2. Guttering or some other approved device is to be installed on
the structure to prevent water run-off onto the adjacent
property.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3
Heiple Wiedower
Architects Planners
5403 Sherwood Road
Little Rock, Arkansas
The owners of this house purchased it last fall with the intent of enlarging it to accommodate
their needs and to more fit in the size and scale of the majority of the houses in the
neighborhood. The additional space is primarily a new second story addition on the front 2/3
of the house and a living room/ family room addition replacing an existing deck. As you can
see on the site plan, the existing west end of the house encroaches on the side yard set
back. Also, the existing den (former garage) encroaches on the 20' building line.
The design for these additions includes removing the existing den that encroaches, adding a
second story on the existing house that encroaches, and adding a 2 story addition to the
south where the existing den is, which also encroaches. Because of the severity of the slope
of the lot, there is no other way to get the additional space.
The owners and l believe the 2nd story addition brings what is the smallest house on the
block up to the average size house on this block. We want to emphasize that these
additions do not encroach anymore than the existing structure does.
William Wiedower AIA
Heiple + Wiedower Architects
319 President Clinton Ave; Ste 201 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + (t) 501-707-0115 + (0 501-707-0118
May ���, 2001
Item No.: 8
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. Landscape Review:
Z-7034
Fourche Dam Pike Partners
7701 Frazier Pike
Tract F, Area 104,
Little Rock Port Industrial Park
I-3
A variance is requested from the
buffer provisions of Section 36-522
to permit a reduction in a required
street side buffer.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Distribution warehouse for
Entergy Corporation
Distribution warehouse for
Entergy Corporation
The Zoning Ordinance requires an average on-site buffer
width of 50 feet along Fourche Dam Pike and with a minimum
width at any point of not less than 25 feet. The Landscape
Ordinance minimum width requirement is 9 feet.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required
to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A water
source within 75 feet of landscaped is required.
May (_Lf 2001
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
C. Staff Analysis:
Entergy Corporation's Distribution Warehouse is located on
the I-3 zoned property at 7701 Frazier Pike. The property
is occupied by a large warehouse building, a parking lot and
a large area of outdoor storage. To accommodate a need for
additional outdoor storage, Entergy proposes to convert the
existing parking lot into additional storage space. A new
parking lot is proposed to be constructed on the west end of
the building, fronting onto Fourche Dam Pike. The new
parking lot will result in a buffer width of 2118" along the
Fourche Dam Pike frontage. The Code requires an average
street buffer width of 50 feet; with a minimum width at any
point of not less than 25 feet.
With consideration given to enhancing the remaining buffer,
staff will support the requested variance. The property is
located in the Port Industrial Park and is surrounded by
similar, I-3 Heavy Industrial zoned properties. Although
the buffer width would be reduced to 2118", there is an
additional 45± feet of grassy right-of-way area between the
property line and the paved edge of Fourche Dam Pike. The
area of the buffer is now a landscaped yard with 5-6 nice
trees. That area would be replaced with pavement. The
applicant does propose to landscape the new parking lot with
trees and shrubs along the Fourche Dam Pike frontage and to
install interior and building landscaping. The landscape
area along Fourche Dam can be enhanced by including a berm.
Installing a 3 foot tall berm as well as the required trees
and shrubs would help to mitigate the visual impact of the
loss of so much of the required buffer depth.
The Little Rock Port Authority has submitted a letter
supporting Entergy's plans with one condition; that being
that there is no outside storage any further west than the
west building line (facing Fourche Dam Pike). Staff
believes this is a reasonable request and would agree to
include it as a condition of approval of the buffer
variance.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested buffer variance
subject to the following conditions:
E
May �_�, 2001
Item No.: 8 (Cont.)
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance
including any variance or waiver as may be granted by
the City Beautiful Commission.
2. The landscape/buffer area along the Fourche Dam Pike
perimeter of the new parking lot is to include, in
addition to the required landscaping, a 3 foot tall
berm to further screen the parking lot.
3. There is to be no outside storage on the site any
further west than the west building line adjacent to
the Fourche Dam Pike perimeter.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 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.
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.
3
,1111114 CUS &
, , E IEL
See beyond the expected.
Cushman & Wakefield of Arkansas, Inc.
425 W. Capitol Avenue
R O. Box 551
Little Rock,Arkansas 72203
(501) 377-4000 Tel
(501) 377-5404 Fax
April, 21st 2001
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
RE: VARIANCE REQUEST
Asphalt Paving Project at 7701 Frazier Pike
This Variance request, for Entergy's Distribution Warehouse, located at 7701 Frazier Pike Rd. is a request to allow a
decrease in the buffer zone of a proposed Asphalt Parking area. The proposed parking lot would be built between
Fourche Dam Pike and the West end of the building. The proposed lot would extend into the buffer zone approximately
twenty feet (20'). This would be necessary to provide the needed parking for employees working at this location. The
existing parking area is being proposed as a new laydown area for materials . The present storage yard, located at this
site, is full, overflowing and no place to store needed material. This condition came to surface during the ice storms of
December, 2000, as replacement material was being delivered for the damaged Electrical Distribution system in the State.
Your approval of this project would be very much appreciated; and should allow adequate storage and parking at this
facility for some time to come.
CORDIALLY YOURS
1aAl'porgy
Marion Powers
Sr. Facility Manager
Cushman & Wakefield
Abu Dhabi • Australia • Austria • Belgium • Brazil • Canada • Channel Islands •' China • Czech Republic • Denmark • Finland • France • Germany
Great Britain • Greece • Hong Kong Hungary • India • Ireland • Israel • Italy • Japan • Kuwait • Lebanon • Mexico • The Netherlands • Northern Ireland
Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania Russia • Singapore • Slovakia • South Africa • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • Thailand • Turkey United States
LITTLE ROCK.... a%
PORT AUTHORITY&
Memo To: Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator
Memo From: Paul Latture
Subject: Variance Proposed at Frazier Pike and Fourche Dam Pike
Date: May 2, 2001
As we understand the proposed variance, there are actually two projects involved in the
owner/tenant's plan for this building, now occupied by Entergy at 7701 Frazier Pike.
First, the owner/tenant is seeking the variance to build a parking lot on the west side of the
building, facing Fourche Darn Pike. The variance will result in a reduced buffer area along
Fourche Darn Pike.
Second, if granted the variance, the owner will use the existing parking lot, now located
on the south side of the building facing Frazier Pike, as outside storage.
The Port Authority's Bill of Assurance prohibits outside storage on the `front" of the
building facing the street (which is on the south side of the building facing Frazier Pike).
The Port's conversations with Entergy indicates that Entergy does not plan any outside
storage west of their current front door (facing Frazier Pike). The Port Authority would
have significant concerns about any outside storage any closer to Fourche Dam Pike than
the current west building line.
To that end, the Port Authority would ask that, as a condition of the variance, there will
be no outside storage any further to the west than the west building line (facing Fourche
Dam Pike). With that assurance, the Port Authority would have no objection to the
variance and would be happy to make any necessary exceptions within our Bill of
Assurance.
INIDUSIRIAL. PARK PORT RAILROAD RIVER TERMINAL
7500 Lindsey Road o Little Rock, Arkansas 72206
(501) 490-1468 o Fax: (501) 490-1800 o E-mail: Irpa®gte.net
FOREIGN TRADE ZONE
May�2001
Item No.: 9
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7035
Ethan and Lara Schock
1711 N. Palm Street
Lots 21, 22 and part of 23,
Cliffewood
R-2
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516 to permit construction of an
8 foot tall fence.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
1. Fence on Cantrell Road side should be moved to the
building line. This is a structure rather than a fence
and adequate traffic safety zone should be provided.
2. Fence on utility easement side should also be moved
outside utility corridor (AP&L and gas) to provide room
for future maintenance on utility easement side.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 1711 West Palm Street is
occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The property is located at the corner of N. Palm
Street and Cantrell Road, with a side yard relationship to
Cantrell. The applicants propose to construct an 8 foot
tall wall/fence along a portion of the east property line
and the north (Cantrell Road) property line. Fences/walls
erected within setbacks adjacent to streets are limited by
the Code to a maximum of 4 feet in height. Other fences,
May(--, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
such as the one along the east property line are not to
exceed 6 feet in height. Depending on cost, the fence/wall
may be a combination of brick, wood and iron.
Staff has concerns about the proposal, particularly about
erecting an 8 foot tall wall/fence along Cantrell Road.
This portion of Cantrell Road is already characterized by a
large number of tall fences/walls built close to the street.
Most of those were built prior to the fence/wall regulations
becoming part of the zoning ordinance. The visual effect of
this series of tall walls is that of driving through a
tunnel. Staff questions the appropriateness of continuing
that trend. The applicant is allowed to erect a 4 foot tall
wall/fence along the Cantrell Road perimeter by -right.
Staff believes allowing a minor variance permitting a 6 foot
tall fence/wall along the Cantrell perimeter is reasonable.
A 6 foot tall fence/wall would provide privacy from passing
vehicles and would provide as much sound barrier as an 8
foot tall structure. Noise protection will be better
obtained by planting trees and tall, fast growing shrubs
inside of the fence. Along the eastern perimeter, a 6 foot
tall fence/wall is permitted by -right. Again, staff does
not believe adequate justification has been presented to
support an 8 foot tall fence/wall.
Where the Planning Staff has concerns more from an aesthetic
and visual perspective, the Public Works staff's concerns
are more pragmatic. Their concern centers upon allowing any
structure of this design (brick and iron possibly) because
it creates a safety hazard due to its proximity to the
traffic lanes on Cantrell. The lanes are very close due to
an inadequate right-of-way. There may be possible support
for a wood fence only.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff cannot support the application, as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant, Kay Anderson, and Architect John Allison were
present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and outlined the concerns of
both the Planning and Public Works Departments.
2
May(_ , 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
Kay Anderson addressed the Board and presented photographs of
other walls in the area. She stated she had lived in the
neighborhood 28 years and had not found the walls along Cantrell
to create a "tunnel effect." Ms. Anderson stated that the walls
were segmented. She made reference to several walls that she
stated were 7 ',2 - 12 feet in height. Ms. Anderson referenced
Public Works concerns and stated the wall was not directly on the
curb line. She stated that she felt it would be better if a car
leaving the road hit the wall rather than entering the yard and
hitting a child. Ms. Anderson stated she had considered moving
the wall back to the 8 feet side yard setback but decided against
it because: 640 square feet of yard would be lost, there are 2-3
large trees in the way, east bound motorists would then see the
neighbors tall stone wall jutting out and that wall would become
a safety hazard.
Ms. Anderson, Mr. Allison and the Board then looked at proposed
plans for the wall.
Norm Floyd asked about access by the gas company to an apparatus
the utility company had in the back corner of the yard.
Ms. Anderson responded that access through the yard would be
provided for the utility.
Ms. Anderson presented a letter from Kurt Knickrehm, of 1801
Shadow Lane. In his letter, Mr. Knickrehm voiced his support for
the variance. Mr. Knickrehm had himself received a variance to
construct a similar wall on the Cantrell Road perimeter of his
property. In the letter, Mr. Knickrehm extolled the virtues of
having the wall.
Norm Floyd stated he agreed with all of the issues presented by
Ms. Anderson but that he could not support an 8 foot tall fence.
He stated he agreed with staff that 6 feet was tall enough.
Ms. Anderson responded that the two additional feet of wall
height would provide more of a sound barrier.
In response to a request from William Ruck, Mr. Allison presented
a rendering of the proposed wall. He described it as being 711"
in height with regularly spaced, 7111" columns or piers. Norm
Floyd commented that the wall, if approved, would have to be
built as shown in the rendering. In response to a question,
Mr. Allison stated the columns or piers extend 4" beyond the face
of the wall.
Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, stated that Traffic Engineering
wanted an 8 foot safety zone between the traffic lanes and the
3
May _�, 2001
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
wall. Mr. Borkowski also stated the Master Street Plan required
a right-of-way of 55 feet from centerline.
Fred Gray asked if it was better to keep an out of control
vehicle in the road or to allow it to veer off into a yard.
Mr. Borkowski stated he could not answer that question. Norm
Floyd interjected that he could speak to that issue. He stated
it was better to have a wall to hit at an angle rather than to
hit a tree or another obstruction head-on.
Fred Gray stated he supported the variance as a safety issue and
that he was more comfortable with the 711" height rather than an
overall height of 81.
Scott Richburg voiced reservations about voting for the variance.
He stated he would prefer to see the wall pulled back. Mr.
Richburg stated he did not see strong justification for the
variance.
A motion was made to approve the variance request subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. The wall along the east perimeter of the site is to be built
outside of the easement.
2. Access is to be provided for the utility companies.
3. The wall along the north (Cantrell) perimeter is to be
designed as shown in the rendering presented by and described
by the applicant and her architect.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent.
4
Mr. and Mrs. Overton S. Anderson
Agents for Ethan J. and Lara Schock
5327 Sherwood Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
April 27, 2001
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Variance Request; 1711 N. Palm
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As agents for Ethan J. and Lara A. Schock, we wish to apply for a zoning variance to construct a
wall on portions of the north, east and west property lines of the above property which would be
eight feet in height. The north property line borders on Cantrell Road/Highway 10, a high traffic
thoroughfare which generates a high noise level. Among the purposes of the wall are to buffer
traffic sounds and to provide a safe place for children to play. Several property owners along
Cantrell Road in the area of the subject property have found it advisable to construct similar
walls.
The plan is that the wall would extend from the northeast corner of the property to the west a
distance of about 80 feet; along the east side (adjacent to an alley/easement) for a distance of
about 155 feet and along the south side a distance of about 80 feet. Depending on cost estimates
obtained, portions of the wall may be a combinations of brick, wood and iron.
The intent is to construct an attractive wall that would enhance not only the subject property but
adjoining properties as well.
We would appreciate your early approval of this project so that construction may proceed in the
near future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ve y o s,
Overton S. Anderson; Kay M. Anderson
6M�A��( V VdJ ��e-
it
May( _1 , 2001
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-7036
Baird, Inc.
3701 Old Cantrell Road
Tract 16, Riverside Commercial Park
C-3
A variance is requested from the
on-site parking provisions of
Section 36-502 to permit a
reduction in the number of on-site
parking spaces.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant restaurant building
Restaurant
With Building Permit:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to
55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Old Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
3. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Cantrell and Old Cantrell Road.
4. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
7. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
May( -1, 2001
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
B. Landscape Review:
A landscape upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape
Ordinance will be required equal to the expansion proposed.
C. Staff Analysis:
After reviewing the site plan and the numbers submitted by
the applicant, it was determined that no variance was
needed. Once the building at 3701 Old Cantrell is expanded,
it will have a total of 2,195 square feet, requiring 21 on-
site parking spaces. The site will have 19 spaces. Twenty-
five percent of the required parking is permitted to be off-
site. There is parking available on the adjacent property
which was acquired by the applicant. The applicant now
controls the property at 3701 Cantrell, the Loca Luna site
adjacent and the dance studio tract also adjacent. All
parking will be shared. Additional spaces are leased from
businesses nearby.
D. Staff Recommendation:
In light of the fact that no parking variance is needed,
staff recommends that the application be withdrawn.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that no variance was needed and the item
should be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
May 41, 2001
Item No.: 11
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7037
Arkansas Repertory Theater
601 Main
Long Legal, Original City
AJA
Variances are requested from the
sign provisions of Section 36-557
and the Development Criteria of
Article V, Division 6 of Chapter
36.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Professional Live Theatre
Professional Live Theatre
Franchise will be required for banners extending over or
located within the public right-of-way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The Arkansas Repertory Theatre is located in the building on
the UU zoned property at 601 Main Street. In an effort to
increase the theatre's visibility and to enhance the visual
appeal of the block, the theatre proposes to hang decorative
banners on the building's fagade. The theatre proposes to
hang five, 3 feet by 5 feet banners to hang perpendicular to
the building on the second level; two, 4 feet by 12 feet
banners to hang at the corner on the third level and one
banner to hang on the street lamp pole outside the front
door. Article V, Section 6 of Chapter 36, the UU District,
prohibits ground -mounted signs but states that otherwise,
signs are to be regulated and permitted as elsewhere in the
City. Section 36-557 of the Code limits the placement of
May 1, 2001
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
banners to one per street frontage, for a specific length of
time. Permit guidelines require the banners to be mounted
flush against the wall.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
Repertory Theatre is a cultural attraction that will benefit
from the increased visibility and enhanced visual atmosphere
created by the banners. The banners will not advertise
hours of operation or individual events. Each banner will
simply read "The Rep -Share the Experience." Encouraged by
the success of the River Market District, staff is hopeful
that similar revitalization can begin to occur on the
north/south streets, particularly Main Street. There is a
large "gap" in activities available on Main Street, between
the Markham intersection and the South Main area that
includes Juanitas and Community Bakery. The recent
announcement that the Center Theater will be renovated and
reopened adds to the hope that the "Mid -Main" area is on the
verge of rebirth.
Staff would suggest that the banners be approved for a
period of 2 years, with Board of Adjustment review for
possible continuation. The Board can then review the issue
in the context of any changes which may occur along Main
Street. All of the proposed banners are located either over
or in the public right-of-way and a franchise will be
required to coincide with the Board's approval. Again,
staff's support is based on the Repertory Theatre being a
cultural attraction and the banners not having a commercial
message.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to
allow the Banners for a period of two years only, with
additional Board action required to allow placement beyond
that point subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. A franchise must be obtained to coincide with the
Board's approval.
2. The banners must be maintained in good condition,
otherwise they must be removed.
R�
May _1, 2001
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
3. The banners are to contain no commercial message and
are to only include the identification of the location
as "The Rep, Share the Experience."
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 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.
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.
3
Arkansas
Repertory
Theatre
Robert Hupp
Producing Director
P.O. Box 110
601 Main Street
Little Rock, AR
72203-0110
501.378.0445
Administration
501.378.0405
Box Office
501.378.0012
Fax
www.therep.org
Apri126, 2001
City of Little Rock
Board of Adjustment
Attn.: Dana Carney
Dear Sirs:
The Arkansas Repertory Theatre respectfully requests a variance
for the purpose of hanging decorative banners on its building's exterior.
As you know, The Rep, located on the corner of 6th and Main
Streets, has been a longtime anchor for its section of Main Street. Like the
city and groups such as The Downtown Partnership, we are eager to help
create the same "look" and excitement of the Rivermarket area to blocks
further south. We believe these banners, which will closely resemble those
at The Museum of Discovery, will not only increase the theatre's
visibility, but also enhance the appeal of the block. Coupled with the
recent purchase, and planned renovation, of the Center Theater at 4th and
Main, our project will go a long way toward making mid -Main Street an
attractive destination.
Our concept (please see attachments) includes: five (5) banners,
3'x5', to hang perpendicular to the building on the second level (numbered
1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 on the diagram); two (2) banners, 4'x12', to hang at the
corner on the third level (numbered 3 and 4 on the diagram); and one (1)
banner on the existing street lamp pole just outside our front door
(numbered 8 on the diagram) �,
The banners will be done by Arkansas Flag and Banner, who
produced, among others, the banners at the Museum of Discovery and
Arkansas Arts Center. It is intended that the banners will last a period of
two or three years --they will not change with each show at The Rep.
This year The Rep is celebrating its 25th Anniversary Season. Our
season concludes with the opening of Cole Porter's Anything Goes on June
1, 2001. We'd love to show off our new banners in conjunction with those
festivities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kelly For
Director of Marketing
May 1, 2001
Item No.: 12
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-7038
E. Eugene Efird
2615 Flakewood Road
Long Legal
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 explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at 2615 Flakewood Road is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-family
residence. The owner is now remodeling the home. The
remodeling includes the removal of the existing carport,
construction of a substantial addition and construction of a
new carport onto the front of the house. All of the project
conforms to Code with the exception of the proposed new
carport. It is proposed to be built over a 30 foot building
line. The carport will result in a side yard setback of 3.5
feet and a front yard setback of 10 feet. The Code requires
side and front yard setbacks of 7 feet and 25 feet
respectively.
Staff feels the variance request is reasonable. Flakewood
Road virtually dead -ends at this lot. A creek and wooded
May _i, 2001
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
hillside are located just beyond the property. The property
has the feeling of being fairly isolated and the carport
would not have the appearance of being out of character with
other development in the area. The carport is set back 21+
feet from the curb of Flakewood, which is not a heavily
trafficked street. The carport is being built over an
existing concrete paved driveway. The reduction in side
yard setback would not appear to have a negative impact on
the adjacent property which has a driveway -side relationship
to this lot. The carport should remain open and unenclosed
to assure passage of air and light and to help mitigate the
impact of the reduced setback.
If the Board approves the building line variance, 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 setback and
building line variances 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 carport addition is to remain open and unenclosed
on all sides other than at the point it adjoins the
house.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 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.
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.
N
April 26,2001
TO: The Department of Planning and Development,
the City of Little Rock and
The Board of Adjustment
FROM: E. Eugene Efird and Gwendolwn Efird
at 2615 Flakewood Rd., Little Rock Ar. 72207
RE: Requested variance to place support pillows for a new car port beyond the thirty
foot building line.
We need to take in most of our present car port for a new building addition.
We are requesting the placement of ground posts and the extension of a car port beyond
the building line. This addition would not be blocking vision for turning a corner. Our
car port would be eleven feet high with an eight foot ceiling, or three feet, top to
bottom. Since our one adjoining neighbor has a two story house, with a chain link fence
and trees in his front yard, this car port would not be blocking any view from the street
in front of us. Our neighbor said that he sees no problem. We hereby request a
variance for the purpose of extending the carport.
E. Eugene Efird
May 1, 2001
Item No.: 13
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
P IWDN I
Arkansas Banker's Bank
1008-1012 West 2nd Street
Description: East 1/3 of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block
257 and West 1/3 of Lots 7, 8 and
9, Block 257, Original City.
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
UU
A variance is requested from the
"Build -to -line" provisions of the
development criteria of Article V,
Division 6, Chapter 36.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Two, historic office buildings
Two, historic office buildings,
tied together to create one
building.
With Building Permit:
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.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
B. Landscape Review:
A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape
Ordinance will be required equal to the expansion proposed.
May 1, 2001
Item No.: 13 (Cont.)
C. Staff Analysis:
The W zoned lots located at 1008 and 1012 West 2nd Street
are each occupied by an historic, two-story, brick and frame
structure. Each building was previously a residence but was
converted many years ago into offices. The applicant
proposes to tie the two structures together with an
addition, creating one building. The addition is to be
built at the rear of the buildings so as not to negatively
affect the historic appearance of the structures. The new
W Zoning District has a "build -to -line" provision, that
requires new construction to be built to the front building
line.
Staff is very supportive of the requested variance. The W
standards are more appropriately applied when a new building
is being constructed on a vacant site. It was never the
intent of the district standards to impose development
criteria that would negatively impact historically
significant structures. These two former residential
structures have large, sweeping porches with tall columns on
the front. Both structures currently sit 9-11 feet back of
the front property line. Requiring an addition between the
two to be built to the front property line is, in staff's
opinion, out of the question. It is best that any such
addition be located as proposed, nearer the rear of the
structures. Staff hopes that the addition is designed so as
to be compatible with the style of the existing structures.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject
to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver as may be granted by the Director of
Public Works or the Board of Directors.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance
including any variance or waiver as may be granted by
the City Beautiful Commission.
2
May _1, 2001
Item No.: 13 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the required notices had been sent
6 days prior to the hearing, not 10 days as required by the
Board's Bylaws. It was noted that all other notice requirements
were met. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to waive
the Board's Bylaws and to accept the notices. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Staff then presented the item and a recommendation of approval
subject to compliance with the conditions outline in the "Staff
Recommendation".
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.
3
Heiple Wiedower
Architects Planners
1008! 1012 W 2nd Street
Little Rock, Arkansas
The owner of two adjacent historic office buildings located in the "urban use" area of
downtown Little Rock wishes to build additional space by attaching the two buildings with a
two story structure. In order for this addition to not distract from the historic facades of the
two existing buildings, we propose to set the south wall of the addition back 16' from the
existing south walls of both buildings. Since the "urban use" zoning requires a "build -to" line,
the addition will require a variance of the "build -to" line.
William Wiedower AIA
Heiple + Wiedower Architects
319 President Clinton Ave; Ste 201 + Little Rock, AR 72201 + (t) 501-707-0115 + (fl 501-707-0118
May 1, 2001
Item No.: 14
Name:
Address:
Lloyd Harris
1818 S. Monroe Street
Type of Issue: Administrative appeal of staff's
denial of a request to continue
parking a commercial vehicle
on the R-3 zoned property at
1818 S. Monroe Street.
Staff Report:
Lloyd Harris is the owner/occupant of the R-3 zoned property
located at 1818 S. Monroe. Mr. Harris owns and operates a
Freightliner, 18 -wheel tractor and occasionally parks the vehicle
at his home. The truck is alternately parked in the yard or on
the street. He states in his letter that he is preparing a
designated place in his driveway for the truck. A complaint was
made by a neighborhood resident and Mr. Harris was issued a
notice directing him to cease parking the commercial vehicle on
the residential property in violation of Section 36-512.
After receiving a courtesy notice from Code Enforcement,
Mr. Harris appealed to Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and
Development. Section 36-515 of the Code permits the planning
director to approve variances from Section 36-512 if the property
owner can evidence a circumstance or hardship unique to the
property. Mr. Lawson chose not to grant the variance and
Mr. Harris was advised to appeal to the Board of Adjustment.
1818 S. Monroe contains a one-story, brick and frame, single-
family home typical of those in the neighborhood. The property
has only a single -wide driveway. There does not appear to be a
separate, paved parking space on the site for the truck.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 21, 2001)
The appellant, Loyd Harris, was present. No other parties were
present. Staff presented the issue and informed the Board that
there had been a complaint made by a neighborhood resident.
Mr. Harris stated he had no option but to park the truck at his
home. He stated it had been broken into when it was parked
May 1, 2001
Item No.: 14 (Cont.)
elsewhere. Mr. Harris stated he was "on -the -road" most of the
time and the truck was only at his home on a limited basis.
William Ruck asked Mr. Harris if he had spoken with his neighbors
about the issue. Mr. Harris responded that he was aware who had
filed the complaint because he had parked the truck on the
street, in front of a neighbor's house, one time and that
neighbor had complained to him.
In response to questions, Mr. Harris stated he was an independent
trucker, contracted to a specific company. He stated he could
park the truck at a terminal when he was "overnighting" out of
town but that he could not park it at a local terminal when he
was at home. Fred Gray asked what other independent truckers do
when faced with the same situation. Mr. Harris responded that he
was not sure; that he had only been in the business a short -time.
Norm Floyd commented that a variance could not be granted that
would allow the truck to be parked in the street. Mr. Floyd
stated he was going to have to vote against the appeal because:
the Neighborhood is too small to park such a vehicle in the yard,
there was a complaint and the truck is too visible because there
is nowhere on the property to park and screen the truck.
Chairman Ruck called the question on the applicant's appeal. The
vote was 0 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent, denying the appeal. The
Board suggested to staff that the applicant be given 30 days to
remove the truck.
E
GCV2lt ,di/v;
Ell,
•
0
0
W
W
0
Z
5W
d
a
LL
O
a
0
m
-I-
.4
of
c
0
Q
z
U)
co
C
z
W
U)
CC)
Q
W
Q
z
o
LU f-
�O�
O U Q
Z O W C� W
Z Q LL D? Q
CO
W0QZ=U
a
as
as
�J
4n
�U
O
�
�DCD
O
W
Q
U3
(D
Q
-�
w
m�}:U=Y
Z
u
Q
Lr
-
Z
W
E
OJ
LL
�
CD
-<i
U
Q'
c
0
Q
z
U)
co
C
z
W
U)
CC)
Q
W
Q
z
o
LU f-
�O�
O U Q
Z O W C� W
Z Q LL D? Q
CO
W0QZ=U
May 21, 2001
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
Date: `