boa_08 27 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
AUGUST 27, 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 July 30, 2001 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman
Scott Richburg
Gary Langlais
Andrew Francis
Fred Gray, Vice Chairman
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Brad Chafin
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
AUGUST 27, 2001
2:00 P.M.
I. NEW ITEMS
1.
Z -4305-D
2300 Cottondale Lane
2.
Z-7073
31 Dartmouth Drive
3.
Z-7075
1819 N. Jackson Street
4.
Z-7076
1806-1810 S. Battery Street
5.
Z-7078
#2 Tracy Austin Court
6.
Z-7080
1309 Cantrell Road
7.
Z-7031
7515 Fairways Drive
n
0
O
N
H
3NId
931ZHa3
I\
W �
nnvelw
�
^'
s
W
W
�
■ `
0�0 b4 c
b4 T
NtlWa3O _
NI
�
AtlMOtlO89BB NJatl
S3H0
a3113aO
a NO�NOd'(
JNIN IN
C.
z
— 8
y MOa
3NId
1
Oyy
Q
3NId
8tl0
N0111Wtl 110J5
5
SONiy
�
Q
Natld a1v3
uUMINn
Of
A11Sa311Nn
SON18d5 HW9
Q
3H511H
WES If
i
alOna
MOaatl8 NHOC
yyery
`��C
17 N
f
3NN13H
—
0
O803mYHS S
31 VSM.
Slays
W Hatld 43NO08
—
a
y
NVWM08l
simn AM
3O01a AWV
" sLimn ko �R\t
Yls
�
y X173
�
W
S1IW11 Alto
'
r
Lr)
K
BEV
v
NYM1IMS
W
16VM31S
OOS
o$ VM IH
—'
s1tWi7 Alq
0J
Jap
f4) 31VONN33 b�
g
O
o
1
O
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 1
File No.: Z -4305-D
Owner: Windriver L.L.C.
Address: 2300 Cottondale Lane
Description: Tract F -2B, Riverdale
Zoned: 0-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
sign provisions of Section 36-553
to permit a second ground -mounted
sign on this office property.
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Office Building
Proposed Use of Property: Office Building
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
The 0-2 zoned property at 2300 Cottondale Lane is occupied
by a 4 -story, 34,020 square foot building and an associated
parking lot. The site has a small, precast, concrete
monument sign that identifies only the building name and
street address. The applicant proposes to place a second,
monument style, ground -mounted sign on the property. This
second sign will be 5 feet in height, will have an area of
30 square feet and will have space for identification of 3
of the building's tenants. Section 36-553 of the code
limits Office zoned properties to one ground -mounted sign.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance and
believes that the problem could be better addressed by
replacing the existing ground -mounted sign will one large
enough to meet the applicant's needs. The office district
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
permits ground -mounted signs to be 6 feet in height and to
have an area of 64 square feet; well above that of the two
signs proposed by the applicant. One ground -mounted sign
would be more compatible with other office signage in the
Riverdale office area. Additional identification could be
gained through the use of wall signs.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant, Jimmy Moses, was present. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
denial.
Mr. Moses addressed the Board and stated his reasons for
requesting a second sign. He stated the building was unique in
that it had a restaurant as a tenant. Mr. Moses stated the
restaurant needed additional signage. Mr. Moses stated it was
his desire to have a second sign, segregated from the building
identification sign.
Ms. June Riddick addressed the Board in opposition to the item.
She stated she designed the building and it was her desire to
keep the signage "low-key." Ms. Riddick stated the restaurant
occupied only 10% of the building and the restaurant owner was
aware of her desire to keep the signage low-key. She stated the
existing building identification sign was compatible with other
signs in the area. Ms. Riddick stated she would prefer to see
the restaurant create a new entrance that would be more clearly
identifiable. Ms. Riddick described the proposed sign as more
appropriate for a commercial strip center and "denigrating."
Mr. Moses informed the Board that Ms. Riddick was a minority
owner of the site; that her son, Dr. Bauer, whom he represented,
owned 90%.
During the ensuing discussion between Ms. Riddick and Mr. Moses,
each agreed that there was no desire to remove the existing sign.
There was no agreement on the issue of a second sign.
Fred Gray commented that he did not agree with the proposal to
have a second ground -mounted sign. He stated he would prefer to
see the restaurant put a tasteful sign on the building.
2
August 27, 2001(
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
In response to a question from Mr. Moses, Ms. Riddick stated she
did not want wall signs on the building, other than for a small
identification sign at the restaurant entrance.
Fred Gray commented that the existing sign could be modified to
accommodate the building's tenants.
Ms. Riddick again stated her opposition to any change in the
existing sign.
William Ruck stated he would prefer to see the issue deferred to
allow the parties to discuss the issue.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that deferring the
item would not change the issue before the Board. He stated
staff would still oppose a second sign. Mr. Carney noted that
the other options, such as wall signs or increasing the size of
the existing ground sign, were allowed by right and, as such,
would not require Board approval.
Jimmy Moses requested a vote on the issue.
A motion was made to approve the variance request to allow a
second ground -sign. The vote was 0 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent.
The motion was denied.
3
MOSES
TUCKER
REAL ESTATE
To: Mr. Dana Carney
From: Jimmy Moses
Subject: Sign Varian Windriver Building
Date: 7-26-01
Dana, we are hereby submitting an application to add a second sign on
the Windriver property. Initially, a small ground mounted, masonry sign was
installed adjacent to the street that identifies the building name with a street
number.
Subsequent to that installation, one of the building owners/tenants, Brave
New Restaurant realized they had no signage whatsoever, and the public was
confused, as to where the restaurant had relocated. As we designed a sign for
the restaurant, the building's other major tenant requested, that they too, be
included on a second sign.
Thus, we are submitting the plan to install the attached plan for a second,
monument sign, 5'x6' in size, which would be located within the building's parking
lot and be sized to accommodate the restaurant and, two (2) other tenants.
Thanks in advance for considering our request.
All information contained herein is secured from sources we believe to be reliable. However, no information is guaranteed in any way.
Any reproduction of this material is prohibited without the consent of Moses Tucker Real Estate, Inc.
Moses Tucker Real Estate, Inc. is the agent for the owner of the property described herein.
Commercial Brokerage • ;\lanagement • Leasing • Development • Consulting
201 East Markham, Suite 100 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone 501-376-6555 • Fax 501-376.6699
www.mose,tucker.com
August 27, 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-7073
Roy Louden
31 Dartmouth Dr.
Lots 118-119, Kensington
R-2
A variance is requested from the
easement provisions of Section
36-11 to permit construction of'a
garage addition over an easement.
The applicant owns the two adjacent
lots which are separated by the 5
foot easement. All utility
companies have approved the
construction over the easement.
Single Family
Single Family
Driveways shall conform to Section 31-210 or Ordinance No.
18,031.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 31 Dartmouth Drive is occupied by
a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence. The
applicant's ownership consists of two lots; Lots 118 and
119. His home is located on Lot 119. Lot 118 is vacant.
The applicant proposes to construct a garage addition onto
the side of the house; extending over the lot line, onto Lot
118. This is permitted since the two lots will then be
considered a "zoning lot." There is, however, a 5 foot
easement along the common lot line between Lots 118 and 119.
August 27, 2001(
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
Section 36-11 of the Code prohibits construction on, over or
in an easement.
Staff is supportive of the variance request to allow the
garage addition to be built over the easement. The garage
addition meets or exceeds all required zoning setbacks and
does not extend beyond the platted building line on the
front. All utility companies and the Public Works
Department have approved the proposal. These are the only
entities with rights to the easement.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject
to 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval as
noted in the "Staff Recommendation" above.
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
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 3
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7075
Laura Raborn
1819 N. Jackson Street
Lot 46, Shadowlawn
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
to permit an addition with reduced
setbacks.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property at 1819 N. Jackson Street is occupied
by a one-story, frame, single-family residence and a
detached, frame, garage. The applicants propose to
construct a 512 square foot master bedroom suite addition
onto the rear of the house. The addition will tie onto the
detached garage structure, making the two structures into
one. The new addition itself will have a 13± foot rear
yard. The garage structure (which becomes part of the
principal structure once the connection is made) has rear
and side yard setbacks of 7.3 feet and 1.6 feet
respectively. These will not change. The Code requires
rear and side yard setbacks of 25 feet and 5 feet for this
lot.
August 27, 2001(
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although the
garage becomes part of the principal structure and the
setback requirements change, in reality, nothing structural
changes. The setbacks for the garage portion of the house
remain the same as when the garage was free-standing.
Allowing the addition to the house to have a rear yard
setback of 13 feet is not out of character for the
neighborhood. There is adequate separation from the
structures on the lot to the east. The house does have a
front yard setback of 30 feet to the porch and 38± feet to
the main body of the house itself. This is in excess of the
Zoning Ordinance requirement of a 25 foot front yard
setback. The increased front yard setback has the effect of
pushing the house farther back on the lot. Staff does not
believe the requested variance will have a negative effect
on adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
E
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Raborn
1819 N. Jackson St.
Little Rock, AR 72207
501-664-0805
July 19, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney
City of Little Rock Zoning Department
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201 V.
Dear Mr. Carney:
At the suggestion of our architects, Herron & Horton, I am writing in regards to our
zoning variance request. Our goal is to meet the 7/27/01 filing date and subsequent Legal
Ad and Meeting Date. Enclosed is a detailed property survey and addition plan (3 copies)
as well as the filing fee. This letter is to serve as the requested cover letter detailing our
proposal and justification for requesting a variance.
My husband and I want to add a master bedroom and bathroom off the back end of our
house. By expanding in the backyard (and therefore needing a zoning variance), several
problems can be avoided. First, we want to maintain the original appearance of the house
from the street view so the house maintains the historic and quaint look of the
neighborhood and specifically, of our block.
Second, we discussed other options with the architects, such as building in the north or
south directions. However, the driveway and garage inhibit southbound plans and a
beautiful old oak tree would most likely parish due to a northbound addition. The plan we
are presenting will allow full driveway and garage access and most importantly, will not
disturb the oak. Lastly, due to the age of the house, we are told that building upward is
not advisable.
After much thought and planning, we believe the proposed addition will have the least
impact on the neighbors, on all existing structures and on the natural elements. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Laura Brainard Raborn
August 27, 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:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7076
Patsy Jordan Steverson
1806 S. Battery Street
South '-i� of Lot 20, all of Lot 21,
North 1,� of Lot 22, Block 42,
Centennial Addition
R-3 and R-4
A variance is requested from the
fence height provisions of Section
36-516 to permit construction of a
6 foot tall fence.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-3 and R-4 zoned property located at 1806 Battery
Street is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single-
family residence. The applicant's property consists of two
lots; the house is located on the northern lot and the
southern lot is yard. The southern lot was previously
occupied by a condemned house. The applicant bought the
property and had that dilapidated structure removed. She
now proposes to enclose portions of her yard with a 6 foot
tall privacy fence. The fence would enclose the entirety of
the vacant lot and the rear and side yard of the lot
occupied by the house. The 6 foot fence is proposed to
extend to the front property line of the vacant lot. The
Code limits the height of fences erected within the setback
August 27, 2001(
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
adjacent to the street to 4 feet. The front 25 feet of the
proposed fence fall within this setback area.
Staff is sensitive to the applicant's desire to provide
security and privacy and to reduce unauthorized access to
the lot. However, we do have concerns about the visual
appearance of a 6 foot privacy fence within the front yard
area. Staff recommends that the fence be modified so that
it is a solid fence up to a height of 4 feet, with the
remaining 2 feet to be constructed of trellis to allow
passage of light and air. This style fence would be less
visually intrusive and more aesthetically compatible with
the neighborhood. The portions of the fence outside of the
front 25 foot setback may be constructed of solid materials
up to a height of 6 feet.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of the application as
filed. Staff recommends that the portion of the fence
within the front yard 25 foot setback be constructed of
solid materials only up to a height of 4 feet with the
remaining 2 feet to be constructed of trellis. Staff
further recommends that the fence be constructed in "good
neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial.
Mrs. Steverson addressed the Board. She presented photos and
described the problems she had with people trespassing on the lot
and throwing trash on her property. Mrs. Steverson stated it was
her desire to make the lot part of her yard and she needed a 6
foot tall fence for privacy and security.
Andrew Francis asked Mrs. Steverson if she felt that building the
fence as suggested by staff would compromise her desire for
security. She responded that it would.
Fred Gray asked if part of the idea of bringing the fence to the
front property line was to prevent people from parking in that
area. Mrs. Steverson responded that it was.
2
August 27, 2001(
Item No.: 4 (Cont.
William Ruck expressed concern about extending a 6 foot tall
fence out to the property line. He stated he would hate to see
the street lined with 6 foot tall fences.
Mr. and Mrs. Steverson described their neighborhood as being
different than that portion of Battery Street south of Wright
Avenue. Each stated that a 4 foot tall fence would not provide
security or privacy.
Fred Gray commented that the fence would not need to extend all
the way to the front property line to prevent people from parking
on the lot. Mrs. Steverson agreed.
Scott Richburg noted that pulling the fence too far back from the
front property line would still leave room for people to park.
Gary Langlais suggested that the curb of the street be repaired
to eliminate the old driveway onto the vacant lot.
Scott Richburg stated she would prefer to see the fence pulled
back 5-6 feet from the front property line. Fred Gray also
suggested a 5 foot setback.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the front property
line was located 2 feet behind the sidewalk.
A motion was made to approve the fence height variance subject to
the following conditions:
1. The fence is to be constructed in "good -neighbor" fashion,
with the finished side facing out.
2. The fence is to be located 7 feet behind the back edge of the
sidewalk.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3
1806 South Battery St.
Little Rock, AR 72202
July 24, 2001
Board of Adjustment
City of Little Rock
Little Rock, AR 72201
Greetings!
My name is Patsy A. Jordan and I reside at the above
address, in central Little Rock. Last summer I pur-
chased a condemnedhouse next door at 1810 Battery,
had it taken down, and the land cleared. The house u
was an eyesore of overgrown grass/weeds and was often
used for dumping.
This request if for permission to build a wooden fence
six feet high (6 ft.) in front of the vacant lot, which
is now a part of the yard which faces east. The same
fence will be placed on the sides facing north and the
back facing west. The home structure adjoining will
not be fenced from the front, only the side and back.
The request is being made due to extreme problems of lit-
tering, trespassing/which includes days and late nights
and parking of vehicles. There is a total disregard for
trespassing signs in place, along with efforts to beautify
and maintain the site.
The Alert Center Officer on Wright Avenue, on request,
made a visit to one of the neighbors' house where some
children frequent, to request that children not be per-
mitted to come into the yard, playing, passing, litter-
ing.
Several trespassing signs have been placed as advised by
the Alert Center and on each occasion, they were destroyed
by the next morning -shredded.
We have also experienced two break-ins of a storage house
on the back. A wooden fence six feet high should do a much
needed service by eliminating much debris from littering,
as well as the parking, trespassing, stealing and other con-
cerns.
Thank you for consideration of this request and your con-
cern for the beauty of the city.
IRS;
e
A lz,,� -
ordan-Steverson
enc: Pictures
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Landscape Review:
Z-7078
Dale McGinnis
#2 Tracy Austin Court
Lot 492, Otter Creek
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-254
and the building line provision't of
Section 31-11.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property at #2 Tracy Austin Court is occupied
by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence.
The property has recently been purchased by the applicant.
When he approached staff about a proposal to add a sunroom
to the rear of the house, it become apparent that the house
had been constructed across a platted 25 foot building line.
Since the applicant proposes to construct the sunroom
addition so that it lines up with the existing house, staff
determined that a building line variance would be needed.
The variance can address both the sunroom addition and the
existing house.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The house
has been in place several years. It is unclear how the
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
error went unnoticed through the building process but staff
surmises that it occurred because of a "bow" in the property
line on the Wimbleton Loop frontage. The "bow" is
negligible but it is enough that when a string is pulled
from pin -to -pin, it results in a 4-5 foot error at the
midpoint of the lot. It is apparent that the house having
been built over the building line has not had any effect on
adjacent properties. Staff does not believe that allowing
the sunroom addition will have any greater impact. The
addition will result in a setback of 20+ feet from the
Wimbleton Loop property line and 30+ feet from the curb of
the street itself.
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 for the existing home and the
sunroom addition. The applicant should review the filing
procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if
the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line
variance subject to a one -lot replat reflecting the change
in the building line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to a one -lot replat.
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.
E
July 26, 2001
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
Dear Sirs,
My wife and I have recently purchased # 2 Tracy Austin Court in the Otter Creek Community of
Little Rock. When Purchasing the house we envisioned what we thought would be the ideal home for
our retirement. A community atmosphere surrounded by nature being trees creeks and a
neighborhood that took care of their properties. When looking for property we knew that whatever.
house we purchased we would be doing our own personal touches. When we found the house on
Tracy Austin Court we felt it was as near perfect layout as we had found. We saw the tall ceilings in
the den walking out to a concrete patio area with a post and lean to type roof we thought we could
close in to form a sunroom.
In planning for the sunroom, we got a contractor to work with us on designing the room and re -doing
the rest of the house. We are going to put ceramic tile throughout the house, repaint, install a more
neutral color vinyl siding (replacing Masonite siding painted a red/brown color), and replacing all the
doors and window with the energy efficient Pella brand.
When the contractor went to the city building permit section, they were told they would have to get a
variance on the house because it was built too close to the street on the side.
We believe what we plan for the house will greatly enhance the aesthetics of the neighborhood. We
would be replaceing the post and lean to type roof with a roof line that matches the side of the house
facing the street. Pella doors and windows will be used and the vinyl siding will be neutral colors and
blend in with nature better than the redibrown color the house is now. The lot is now beatifully
landscaped and we plan to add more after completion of the project. Architectural shingles will be
applied over the entire house assuring a long term low upkeep home.
The existing slab with the roof over it is about 2 feet from the side of the house on Wimbledon Street.
We are requesting to build even with the pre-existing house on the side and build about 7 feet past the
back of the house. These measurements will bring us to approximately 20 feet from the side property
line and about 25 feet from the back property line.
Again, I think the addition will make the house much more appealing to the neighborhood by
alleviating the lean to roof on the back corner of the house that can easily be seen from the street.
This addition will in not interfere with traffic at the intersection as it is on the back side of the house.
The colors we chosen to use will have more eye appeal, and fit into the surrounding neighborhood
more attractively.
Thanks Much for your time in considering this request
Sincerely,
Dale McGinnis
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 6
File No
Owner:
Address•
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-7080
Charles Phillip Boyd, Jr.
1309-1317 Cantrell Road
Lot 5, Weeks Subdivision of Block
359, Original City
O-3
Variances are requested from the
sign height and area provisionsi'of
Section 36-553.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Law Firm and parking lot
Law Firm and parking lot
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Landscape Review:
Boyd Law Firm is located in the 1890's structure located on
the 0-3 zoned property at 1317 Cantrell Road. The law firm
has recently purchased the adjacent 0-3 zoned property at
1309 Cantrell Road. That property had previously been
occupied by a sign manufacturing business. The sign company
buildings have been removed. The applicant will develop a
parking lot on the property to serve the adjacent law firm.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to place a new ground -
mounted sign on the newly acquired lot. Since the two lots
will be developed as a single use, they will be considered a
"zoning lot" and the new sign will not be an off -premise
sign. The new sign is proposed to be 10 feet in height and
will have a total area (including sign face and brick frame)
of approximately 80 square feet. The sign code limits
August 27, 2001(
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
ground -mounted signs in the office zone to 6 feet in height
and 64 square feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The actual
sign area itself is 77" X 100" (53.31 square feet), below
the allowable area of 64 square feet. It is the addition of
the decorative, brick support that pushes the area up to 80
square feet. The property consists of two lots which have
been combined into 1 use. The one sign is less obtrusive
than if each lot had its own sign. The property fronts onto
a highly trafficked arterial street. A somewhat greater
degree of visibility is desirable as clients search out the
site while negotiating the fast moving, congested roadway.
It is also for this purpose that staff believes the final
location of the sign must be approved by Traffic Engineering
prior to the issuance of a sign permit. The site is near
the convergence of Cantrell Road and LaHarpe Blvd., at the
Baring Cross railroad bridge. Visibility can be an issue if
the sign is not properly placed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign height and
area variances subject to final approval being received from
the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a sign permit.
Permits must be obtained prior to placement of the sign on
the property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to the condition 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
The Boyd Law Firm
Trial Lawyers Representing Injured People
CHARLES PHILLIP BOYD, JR., J.D. P.O. BOX 3494
1317 CANTRELL FACSIMILE - (501) 372-1807
CHRISTOPHER D. ANDERSON, J.D. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-3494 TOLL FREE - 1-800-952-4303
EDWINA KEITH, PARALEGAL (501) 372-0770 E-mail address: boydlawf m@aol.comt
July 27, 2001
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Application for Zoning Variance
1309 Cantrell Blvd.
Dear Sirs and/or Madams:
1�1
bought a building located at 1317 Cantrell approximately 5 years ago to operate
a law firm. This building was built in the 1890's, and there is little frontage for a parking lot
between said building and Cantrell Road. When my clients, and employees, attempt to
park in front of this building, it creates a hazard to the motorist traveling east and west on
Cantrell Road.
I purchased the lot adjacent, and east, of my property in 1997 (See Exh. A).
Attached hereto is a sketch of the proposed landscaping/terracing to be constructed on
said property. Included in said plans is a sign for my law firm (see Exh. B). This work will
be first class, with an estimated total price of $25,000. In order for the sign to be visible,
it needs to be at least 10 feet high. The sign itself is approximately 100" by 77", with a brick
masonry foundation/flower bed as a base, and perimeter surrounding same. The
landscaping contractor was not aware of the limitation on the size of this proposed sign until
after all the work had been completed and actual work started. (See Exh. C)
There are two large billboards directly East of my parking lot and "proposed sign",
which are leased by Donrey Advertising. These billboards have advertised everything from
whiskey, to motels, in the past. Said billboards hide the view of my property from motorists
traveling West on Cantrell, and provide another basis for the fact that the sign I propose
needs to be at least 10 feet high.
Of more significance to the City, the existing parking lot is vacant, and has been an
eyesore for the community for many, many years prior to my purchase of same. The
Variance I seek will allow me to put a sign on the property which goes along with the
landscaping I propose, that will help beautify this area of Cantrell for the entire City. The
proposal will make ingress and egress to the property much safer for all motorists along
this busy boulevard. The landscaping will comply with all other city ordinances and
regulations. Finally, the landscaping I intend to perform is in line with the renovations that
have been conducted on this area of Cantrell by landowners over the past several years.
For the reasons listed hereinabove, I respectfully request that the City of Little Rock
issue a Zoning Variance, and allow me to construct the §�iqn as proposed.
Si
Encs.
f/
Ilip Boyd, Jr.
August 27, 2001
Item No.: 7
Name: Robert Alvey
Address: 7515 Fairways Drive
Type of Issue: Time Extension
Staff Report:
On May 21, 2001, the Board approved a variance to allow an
accessory structure to remain in an easement on the R-2 zoned
property at 7515 Fairways Drive. The applicant had begun
construction without a permit and had been stopped by Code
Enforcement. The building complies with zoning setback and area
coverage requirements (once the older accessory building is
removed). Since the structure had been built within an easement,
approval was needed from Public Works and the Public Utility
Companies. All of these entities signed -off except Entergy. The
applicant stated he was working with the power company to gain
their approval but had not completed those negotiations at the
time of the May board meeting. The Board's approval included
allowing the applicant 90 days to gain approval from the utility
company or to remove the building. That approval has not been
received. The applicant is requesting an extension of time as he
continues to work with the Utility.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(AUGUST 27, 2001)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and
recommended approval of a 30 -day extension.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The issue was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for a
30 -day extension. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
O
U
W
0_
W
H
O
z
w
F-
0
Q
LL
O
Q
O
m
WIN
I
a
O
O
a
LLJ
o
0
Q
0
w
<
U
Q
J
a�
W
U
LL
Q
Z
(D
c
m
W
`L<
}
z
z
m
Y
0
�
2U
cr-
G�
Q
a
O
O
a�
c
0
Q
c
a�
a�
a
z
Q
m
Q
z
Li
U)
m
Q
O
-
=
-
w
Q
z
0
w
}
O
F-
ozoc¢��Q
o
Z
Z
Q
W
LL
w
>-
Q
w
U
z>
Q
o
=
Y
N
�
w
�
CD
Z
Q
U
August 27, 2001
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Date: �(
Chairman ec et ry