boa_10 29 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
OCTOBER 29, 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 September 24, 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: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE
ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
OCTOBER 29, 2001
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A.
Z-7084
65 Dartmouth Drive
B.
Z-7089
19 Arles Drive
IT. NEW
ITEMS
1.
Z -4827-B
6901 Interstate 30
2.
Z -5180-D
1014 Autumn Road
3.
Z -5833-A
3301 Roosevelt Road
4.
Z-7098
1816 S. Pulaski Street
5.
Z-7099
3410 Sussex Circle
6.
Z-7100
5 Longfellow Lane
7.
Z-7101
7311 Indiana Avenue
8.
Z-7102
18 Cimarron Valley Circle
9.
Z-7103
120 Commerce Street
ANCON
a
ssmn
W��-k -"A/N
0
3MId
M31ZVi1J T
nnvelw �v�JJ
� s
G gm 5
FYI
NVH830 O
ula o
October 2�, 2001
Item No.: A
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-7084
Jessie Smith
65 Dartmouth Drive
Lot 164, Kensington Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12.
The new single family residence was
inadvertently constructed with
front steps and one side over the
front platted building line.
Construction of new single family
residence
Single family residential
The R-2 zoned property at 65 Dartmouth Drive is occupied by
a new one-story, brick, single family residence. The newly
constructed house encroaches approximately six (6) inches
over the platted 25 -foot building line along the western
property line, with front steps which encroach approximately
10.5 feet beyond the platted 25 -foot building line along the
southern property line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's
Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for
encroachments over platted building setback lines be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment.
October 29 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The house
has been mostly constructed, with interior and landscape
work left to be completed. It is unclear how the error has
gone unnoticed throughout the building permit process. It
is apparent that during the initial stage of building permit
review the elevation of the structure's front porch was not
known. The front porch is approximately eight (8) feet
above grade.
Staff does not believe that the building line encroachments
will have an adverse impact on the adjacent property, as
both encroachments are along street side property lines. The
construction of the steps results in a 14.5 foot setback
from the southern property line and a 25.5 foot setback from
curb line of Dartmouth Drive. The western side of the house
is located 24.5 feet from the property line and 35.5 feet
from the curb line of Suffolk Drive.
If the Board approves the building variances, the applicant
will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the
changes in the building line for the newly constructed
house. The applicant should review the filing procedure
with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat
requires a revised Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested 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 front steps must remain uncovered beyond the platted
building line.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 2001)
Jessie Smith was present, representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted
that the applicant had not completed the notification process to
property owners within 200 feet of the property, as required.
Staff noted that seven (7) of the 15 property owners within 200
feet of the site were notified in a timely manner. Staff then
noted that the remainder of the property owners were notified
2
October 2� 2001
Item No.: A (Cont.)
of the public hearing no more than four (4) days prior to the
meeting, and three (3) of them were notified the day of the
hearing.
Chairman Ruck noted that the Board felt that the applicant should
notify the surrounding property owners in a timely manner, so
that they may have an opportunity to voice their opinion if they
desire. He stated that it was the Board's opinion that the
application needed to be deferred to the October agenda and that
the applicant needed to renotify the surrounding property owners
of that meeting.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
There was a motion to defer the application to the October 29,
2001 agenda, with the applicant renotifying the property owners of
that meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent. The application was deferred to the October 29, 2001
agenda.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
Staff noted that the applicant had completed the renotification
to surrounding property owners as required by the Board.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
3
October i, 2001
Item No.: B
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analvsis:
MWITM01
William F. Ward
19 Arles Drive
Lot 52, Block 48, Chenal
Valley Addition
"'M
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of
Section 36-254 to permit a new
single family residence with a
reduced side yard setback.
The applicant's justification
is presented in an attached
letter.
Single family residential
Single family residential
A new, one-story brick single family residence has
recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned lot located
at 19 Arles Drive. After construction, the applicant
found that the southwest corner of the structure was
only approximately 4.7 feet from the south (side)
property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum side yard setback of 6.9 feet.
October j, 2001
Item No.: B
According to the applicant, it is his opinion that the
survey pin at the southwest corner of the property was
originally placed in the wrong location, giving the
residence a 9 foot side setback (at the southwest
corner) when it was first laid out. This is further
supported by the fact that the water meter for this lot
was placed 4 to 5 feet onto the property to the south.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance, given
the fact that an apparent error was made in the
original property survey. The southwest corner of the
structure represents an appropriate 32 percent
encroachment into the required side yard. The
southeast corner of the structure complies with the
minimum setback requirement, as the structure angles
away from the south (side) property line. Staff
believes that the survey mistake was not intentional
and that the applicant did not knowingly place the
residential structure within the required side yard
setback.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard
setback variance as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(SEPTEMBER 24, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff noted that the application needed to be
deferred based on the fact that the applicant did not notify
the property owners within 200 feet of the site as required.
The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the October 29, 2001 agenda by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 nays and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 2001)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff noted that the applicant had requested that
the application be deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda,
based on the fact that the applicant had not notified the
property owners within 200 feet of the site as required.
2
October/ J, 2001
Item No.: B
The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
3
foleman o4omes,
01?sal .Estate (7'ZPP'tai9et—Ifo attacto't—�ealtot
Date: 8/24/01
To: City of Little Rock
From: Stephen Coleman
Subject: 19 Arles Drive
The above referenced home is located 4.7 feet from the property line at the right front corner and 7.5 feet
at the right rear corner (as shown on the attached "as is" survey).
At the beginning of construction, the home was placed approximately 9 feet from the right property line.
The method used in placing the home on the lot was as follows:
1. Lamar James extended a sting from the right front survey pin to the right rear pin. The right side
was used in placing the home due to a tree being located on the left line.. A line was also
extended from the right front pin across the lot to the left front pin.
2. The batter board lines were placed with the home being approximately 9 feet front the right line,
as indicated by the right side string line. The location of the home was rotated, to allow about 1
foot at the front line and left side line which would be adequate for brick and a reasonable
margin of error due to the tree on the line and the curve in the front street.
3. Lamar James measured for adequate set backs. I was there to observe the location and the
building inspector viewed the set backs for compliance.
Lamar James and I have the opinion that the survey pin was placed in the wrong location. Also, the
water meters are located about 4-5 feet on the adjoining lot. The water department is currently in the
process of moving the meters to the lot line.
I believe that Lamar James, the building inspector and myself did not knowingly place the home out of
compliance with zoning ordinances at the beginning of construction, based on what we assumed to be an
accurate survey pin. At this time I will request a right side variance be granted for this property.
Cor 'ally,
Stephen Coleman
P.O. Box 241069, Little Rock, AR 72223
October j, 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 -4827-B
Turner Holdings, LLC
6901 Interstate 30
Lots 5 and 7, Tucker's
Commercial Acres
I-2
Variances are requested from
the building line provisions of
Section 31-12 and the easement
provisions of Section 36-11.
The applicant wishes to
construct building additions
to the existing Gold Star Dairy
which cross the front platted
building line and the platted
side building lines and
easements between the two lots.
Industrial
Industrial
With Building Permit:
1. Proposed building addition is in the floodway. City
of Little Rock prohibits building in the floodway;
however, a floodway study could be done to mitigate
impact on the floodway at this location with the
possibility of removing this location from the
floodway. Contact Vince Floriani at 371-4817 for
details.
October( j, 2001
Item No.: 1
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Since the building expansion is less than ten percent
of all the structures on the property and no expansion
of vehicular use areas is proposed, no landscaping
upgrade is required.
C. Staff Analysis:
The property at 6901 Interstate 30 is zoned I-2 and is
occupied by the existing Gold Star Dairy development.
The development consists of Lots 5 and 7, Tucker's
Commercial Acres. There is a platted 40 foot building
line along the front of both lots, with a 30 foot side
building line and a 10 foot easement on each side of
the dividing lot line.
The applicant proposes to construct two (2) building
additions to the existing dairy building which encroach
into the front and side platted building lines and over
the existing 20 foot easement (10 foot easement on each
side of the dividing lot line). The first proposed
addition is a new tank room located on the front of the
existing building which encroaches seven feet over the
40 foot platted front building line. The second is a
building addition on the east side of the building
which will contain additional office space, dry storage
and refrigerated storage. This building addition is
proposed to encroach over the 30 foot side platted
building lines and 10 foot utility easements. There
are also several smaller additions which the applicant
proposes to make to the rear of the existing building
(new tanks and tank room, ice builders and truck
leveler) .
There are two outstanding issues associated with this
application. The first issue is that the applicant
needs to provide staff with a revised site plan and
additional information so that a complete staff review
can be conducted. Staff has requested the following
information from the applicant:
1. Existing and proposed building area for each use
(office, storage, tank rooms, etc.)
2. Existing and proposed building heights
2
October J, 2001
Item No.: 1
3. Parking details, including total number of paved
parking spaces.
4. Sign -offs from all of the public utility companies
regarding the proposed building additions.
The second outstanding issue relates to the floodway
study required by Public Works. As noted by Public
Works, the property is in the floodway and new building
construction in the floodway is prohibited. The
applicant has informed staff that a floodway study will
be done. The applicant needs to provide staff with a
letter stating the name of the firm which will conduct
the floodway study and the anticipated length of time
the study will take to complete. This information will
be considered by staff during additional review of this
application.
Based on the outstanding issues as noted above, staff
will request that this application be deferred. When
the applicant provides staff with the requested
additional information, staff will be able to conduct
an additional and more thorough review of this
application.
D . Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred to
the November 26, 2001 Board of Adjustment agenda.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff recommended that the application be deferred to the
November 26, 2001 agenda, to give the applicant time to
submit additional information to staff. Staff noted that
the applicant had agreed to the deferral.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The application was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the November 26, 2001 agenda by a vote of
5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent.
01
October( j, 2001
ITEM NO.: 2
File No.:
Z -5180-D
Owner:
Central Arkansas Land
Development, LLC
Address:
1014 Autumn Road
Description:
Part of Tract 3, Montclair
Subdivision
Zoned:
O-3
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-281.
Justification:
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Office
Proposed Use of Property:
Office
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
1. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street
improvements to this street including 5 -foot
sidewalk with planned development.
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.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
5. Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities are required.
October! j, 2001
Item No.: 2
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
1. Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers for the
proposed building and parking expansions fully
comply with ordinance standards.
2. An irrigation system must be installed to water
landscaped areas.
C. Staff Analysis:
The 0-3 zoned property at 1014 Autumn Road is occupied
by a 5,590 square foot office building which is located
within the north one-half of the property. The south
half of the property is undeveloped, with some site
work having taken place. The applicant proposes to
construct a second office building (7,014 square feet
in area) immediately south of the existing building.
The applicant proposes to align the west (rear) wall of
the proposed structure with the west wall of the
existing office building. The existing building was
granted a rear yard setback variance by the Board of
Adjustment several years ago. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting a rear yard setback variance for the
proposed new office building.
The rear yard setback for the existing building ranges
from 6.7 feet to 7.9 feet. The proposed rear yard
setback for the new structure ranges from 4.7 feet to
6.3 feet. The proposed rear yard setback for the new
building is slightly less than the existing building
based on the fact that the existing building is not
exactly parallel with the rear property line. Section
36-281(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet.
With the proposed parking expansion, there will be a
total of 48 parking spaces on the site. The Zoning
Ordinance requires a minimum of 31 parking spaces for
an office development of this size. Therefore, there
are no parking issues associated with this proposed
development.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff
feels that the applicant's request to construct a
second office building on the site, with the rear wall
2
October ), 2001
Item No.: 2
aligning with the rear wall of the existing building,
is reasonable. This would allow the applicant to
continue the parking lot along the east property line
(closing the existing driveway) and maintain the
appropriate landscape buffer along Autumn Road. To
staff's knowledge, the existing building with reduced
rear yard setback has had no adverse impact on the
adjacent property, and staff has no reason to believe
that the new building will have any adverse effect.
Also, as noted in the applicant's letter, the owner's
intent is to purchase the property immediately west of
this site and continue this office development onto
that property.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard
variance subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Public Works requirements as
noted in paragraph A.
2. Compliance with the landscape and buffer
requirements as noted in paragraph B.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 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
as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent.
M
I'�YING,
September 21, 2001
Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
-7— Si�o��
RE: Rear Yard Setback Variance for a Proposed Office Building at 1014 Autumn Road.
Dear Mr. Carney:
Enclosed you will find (6) copies of the Preliminary Site Plan, and the Non-residential
Zoning Variance Application for 1014 Autumn Road. The plat shows one (1) existing structure.
and (1) proposed structure, which are being submitted together as a Multi -building Site Plan. We
are requesting a variance on the rear yard setback in order to keep the alignment on the West wall
of both building the same. This alignment is also very important because we are hoping to
develop the property immediately to the West in the near future and this variance will allow us to
maximize our office space. We are requesting that this plan be reviewed and submitted to the
Variance Committee at the October 29, 2001 meeting.
If you have any question regarding this application, please contact me at (501) 223-0497.
cerely,
Randy Alberius
IU12 Autumn Road, Suite 1 -Little Rock, AR 72211 • Office: (501) 223-0497 -Fax: (501) 223-0496 -Email: cas@aristotle.net
2101 Congo Road, Suite 500 - Benton, AR 72015 -Office: (501) 315-6466 or (501) 778-9222 - Fax (501) 315-9229 • Email: cast@aristotle.net
October j, 2001
ITEM NO.: 3
File No.:
Z -5833-A
Owner:
City of Little Rock, Municipal
Airport Commission
Address:
3301 E. Roosevelt Road
Description:
A tract of land located in
the NW 1,4 of Section 18, T -1-N,
R -11-W
Zoned:
I-2
Variance Requested:
A variance is requested from
the off-street parking
requirements of Sections 36-502
and 36-503.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property:
Aerospace Education Center and
Pulaski Technical College
Workforce Development Center
Proposed Use of Property:
Aerospace Education Center and
Pulaski Technical College
Workforce Development Center
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Landscape and Buffer Issues:
Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with
ordinance requirements.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is
required.
October j, 2001
Item No.: 3
Landscape plans are required to be stamped with the
seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
Detailed landscape plans meeting all landscape and
buffer requirements have been submitted and approved.
C. Staff Analysis:
The property at 3301 E. Roosevelt Road is zoned I-2 and
is occupied by the Aerospace Education Center and
Pulaski Technical College Workforce Development Center.
On May 23, 1994 the Board of Adjustment approved a
variance for the Aerospace Education Center for a
reduced number of parking spaces. The total number of
spaces allowed for the center was 247. Some years
later the Workforce Development Center addition was
made to the east side of the Aerospace Center building,
which eliminated some of the existing parking spaces.
There are currently 208 parking spaces on the site. It
is unclear how this building addition was allowed
without further Board of Adjustment review.
The applicant is currently proposing to construct a
7,140 square foot building addition for the Workforce
Development Center. This addition will be made on the
east side of the existing building. With the building
addition the minimum number of parking spaces required
for the entire development is 348 spaces, according to
Section 36-502 and 503 of the City's Zoning Ordinance
and the previous Board of Adjustment approval. The
applicant proposes to add ten (10) spaces with the
construction of the building addition, for a total of
218 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance for a reduced number of parking
spaces. There will be 130 parking spaces fewer than
the minimum requirement.
Staff is supportive of the variance as requested.
Staff feels that the applicant has presented adequate
justification for the variance request (see attached
letters from Mike Callahan and Kenneth Quimby).
According to the letters, there has been no parking
problem on the site during peak hours of operation.
Staff is comfortable with this summation, and feels
that the proposed building addition will not create a
parking problem. Mr. Quimbly notes that many of the
groups that visit the Aerospace Center arrive in buses.
October ), 2001
Item No.: 3
It has also been noted that if the Aerospace Education
Center expands, additional parking will be included in
the expansion project.
Staff feels that the reduced number of required parking
spaces on this site will have no adverse impact on the
general area. If parking does happen to become a
problem on the site, there is additional space west of
the Aerospace Center and existing parking areas to
construct additional parking.
D. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variance for a reduced
number of parking spaces subject to compliance with the
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 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
as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent.
3
FASTER -CUR RENCE-GRAY
Y f a
AR:C'H-iTECTS?
TAGGART FOSTER CURRENCE GRAY ARCHITECTS, INC.
- —--- - -
ARCHITECTURE
September 4, 2001 1--
-----
`✓ v 1
tF S93-
PLANNING
Little Rock City Board of Adjustment c/o
INTERIC7R5
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
F o u N n E Rs
- ---
James Burt Taggart, Jr., A.I.A.
Re: Request for Off -Street Parking Variance
(Retired) j
Pulaski Technical College Workforce Addition
Kenneth "Buck" Matthews
3301 East Roosevelt Road
Little Rock, Arkansas
Charles D. Foster, A.LA
j
City of Little Rock File # 20o1-083
To: City of Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Charles D. Foster, A.I.A.
Jerry E. Currence, A.I.A.
On behalf of the Owner, Pulaski Technical College, submitted herewith is an Application
For Zoning Variance
George W. "Blll" Gray, A.I.A. I
with required supporting documents for the above referenced project.
i
The purpose of this application is to request a variance to allow 208 existing off-streets_o
c I AT E
parking spaces plus 10 new parking spaces to fulfill the combined facility parking
requirements at the above project site in lieu of constructing additional parking spaces.
Paul Michael Callahan, A.I.A.
Our office, on behalf of the Owner, is also separately requesting the City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development to immediately grant, upon payment of required
fees, a partial foundation and structural frame building permit to Bell Construction Company,
Inc., General Contractor for the above referenced project. This is to allow building construction
to proceed while the Application For Zoning Variance is being processed.
ADDRESS
The above referenced project was submitted to the City on July 24, 2001 for review and
4500 Burrow Drive
approval. The City issued written review comments on July 31, 2001. Our office submitted a
North Little Rock, AR 72116
letter dated August 7, 2001 to the City that responded to all review comments. A landscaping
plan was submitted to the City on August 20, 2001 for review and approval. Except for the
General Contractor paying required review and permit fees, all requirements for a building
P H o N E
permit have been met.
-
501 ' 758 ' 7443
The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society has a 99 year lease agreement with the City of Little
i
j
Rock, Municipal Airport Commission, who owns the 19.74 acres of property on which the
F A x I
existing Aerospace Education Center is constructed. Pulaski Technical College has a 94 year
sublease agreement with the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society for 2.22 acres of property as
501 ' 753 ' 7309
shown on the attached survey and architectural site plan. Pulaski Technical College constructed
I
a new two story Workforce Development Center last year on this leased property, and currently
has a construction contract with Bell Construction Company, Inc. to build a new single story
INTERNET
Workforce Addition to the East of the existing Workforce Development Center.
www.TaggArch.com
FASTER -CUR RENCE-GRAY
Y f a
AR:C'H-iTECTS?
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
September 4, 2001
Page Two
City records show that when the Aerospace Education Center was constructed in 1994, a waiver
was granted by the City that required only 247 parking spaces. Construction of new entry drives for the
Workforce Development Center last year eliminated 26 existing parking spaces, but added 87 new parking
spaces with a net add of 61 new parking spaces. Our office conducted an on-site verification of existing
parking spaces on August 7, 2001, at which time 208 existing parking spaces were counted at the
Workforce Development Center and the Aerospace Education Center. The new Workforce Addition will
add ten (10) new parking spaces for a total of 218 available on-site parking spaces.
The existing Workforce Development Center and the new Workforce Addition are classified in Section
36-502, Required Off -Street Parking, of the Little Rock City Code as "college, university, business
college or trade school" requiring one (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross
building floor area. Utilizing this requirement, the required total site parking is computed as follows:
Facili Gross Bldg.. Area Parkin S aces Re uired
Existing Workforce
Development Center 23,535 sq. ft. /300 = 78
New Workforce Addition 7,140 sq. ft./300 = 23
Existing Aerospace
Education Center N/A 247 (variance,)
TOTAL 348
Less existing/new spaces -218
DEFICIT SPACES 130
Joint usage of the existing 208 parking spaces by patrons of the Aerospace Education Center and
students of the Workforce Development Center has not created a parking problem. See the attached letter
from Mr. Ken Quimby, Director of the Aerospace Education Center, that attests to this fact. Also, the
Aerospace Education Center may expand their facility in the future. This expansion will also include an
appropriate increase in the number of paved parking spaces on their portion of the property.
Justification and reasons for requesting a variance in parking requirements can be summarized as follows:
1. The existing 208 and 10 new off-street parking spaces will be adequate for activities at both the
Aerospace Education Center and Pulaski Technical College Workforce Development
Center/Workforce Addition.
2. The configuration and limited land area of Pulaski Technical College's leased property prohibits
construction of 130 additional parking spaces to meet total combined facility parking
requirements as specified in Section 36-503, "Combined Facilities" of the existing City zoning
ordinance.
3. The Aerospace Education Center will offset this existing parking deficit by increasing their paved
parking if a future building expansion project is undertaken. This is permissible according to
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
September 4, 2001
Page Three
Section 36-503, "Combined Facilities" of the existing City Zoning Ordinance which states,
"Nonconforming parking rights may be carried forward to count as part of the parking requirement of a
use replacing a previously established legal use. "
Your consideration of the above information and granting a variance for parking requirements would be
greatly appreciated for the aforementioned construction project.
Respectfiilly,
TAGGART-FOSTER-CURRENCE-GRAY ARCHITECTS, INC.
CLO
Mike Callahan, AIA, CSI
Project Manager
atchs
cc: Dr. Dan Bakke, President, Pulaski Technical College
Mr. David Money, Director, Workforce Development Center
Mr. Ken Quimby, Director, Aerospace Education Center
f -43
�f 3 -14
AEROSPACE
EDUCATION CENTER
Kenneth J. Quimby, President Voice: 501.376.4232 ext. 232
Arkansas Aviation Historical Society FAX: 501.372.4826
September 4, 2001
Mr. Mike Callahan
Taggart-Foster-Currence-Gray Architects, Inc.
4500 Burrow Drive
North Little Rock, AR 72116
Dear Mr. Callahan:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the current parking at the Aerospace Education Center.
Since the Center's opening six years ago, 10 June 1995, we have had ample time to "test" the
available parking. With the opening of Pulaski Technical College's Center for Workforce
Development in March 2000, the AEC campus has enjoyed an even greater traffic flow.
Based on lot observations during the highest density utilization periods, we have not encountered
any significant parking problems. During our peak attendance periods, March to May with PTC
in session, the lots are not filled to capacity. In addition, many of the groups visiting the Center
arrive in busses. Parking is still available for general public during these times.
In extremely rare circumstances, such as President Clinton's recent visit, the number of attending
vehicles has exceeded our lot size. On these occasions, we are able to utilize the area west of the
Center's main facility for overflow parking. As we discussed previously, should the AEC
undertake expansion to the west, additional parking will be included in this expansion project.
I hope this information will assist you in your endeavors. If I may be of any further help, or
should you require additional information, I may be reached at the above numbers. Thanks
again for thinking of the Aerospace Education Center.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Quimby
Aerospace Education Center
3301 East Roosevelt Road * Little Rock, AR * www.aerospaced.org
e-mail: kquimby@aerospaced.org
October j, 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 Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7098
Union African Methodist
Episcopal Church
1816 S. Pulaski Street
Part of Block 318, Original City
of Little Rock
R-4
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-256.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
The R-4 zoned property at 1816 S. Pulaski Street is
occupied by an existing single family residence. The
property is owned by Union African Methodist Episcopal
Church and is used as the Pastor's residence. The
existing residence is a one-story, brick structure,
which has a second lower level on the back, based on
the fact that the property drops approximately 12 feet
from the curb line of S. Pulaski Street to the rear
(west) property line.
The applicant recently began construction on a 22.5
foot by 22.5 foot deck at the southwest corner of the
existing residential structure. Construction on the
October( j, 2001
Item No.: 4
deck was halted when the applicant realized that the
deck was too close to the rear property line and
required approval of a variance by the Board of
Adjustment. Based on the slope of the property, the
rear corners of the deck are approximately 12 feet
above grade. The rear setback for the deck ranges from
13 feet at the southwest corner to 16 feet at the
northwest corner. The deck maintains a five (5) foot
side setback, which conforms to ordinance standards.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The
property immediately west of this structure is occupied
by a church parking lot, with the church building
located to the northwest. There is an existing
commercial building located to the southwest, just off
the southwest corner of this residential lot.
Staff does not believe that the proposed deck, with a
reduced rear yard setback, will have an adverse impact
on these adjacent properties, or the residential
properties immediately north and south. Construction
of the deck will result in a 13 foot rear yard setback
at its closest point with the rear property line. If
the rear property line were at a right angle with the
side property lines, the proposed deck would maintain a
setback of approximately 22 feet.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard
variance subject to the following conditions:
1. The deck is to remain uncovered and unenclosed.
2. A building permit must be obtained for the deck
construction.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (OCTOBER 29, 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.
2
October -4, 2001
Item No.: 4
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved
as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent.
3
-7c
- v4�tc�ea� �l/l.etG�od�st �p�seopa� ClnuneG�
1825 PULASKI STREET • LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 • PHONE 374-3528
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
To Board of Adjustment:
'The property located at 1816 S. Pulaski St., Little Rock, AR :end owned by The Union African
:ethcdist Episcopal Church *which is located at 1822 S, 1'a1a*i St. '! hls property is t 3:z Pastors
r,^siderice. To complete the renovations and improvements made aver the past several years: I
request a variance to build a deck on the rear of this nmprrty. The residence is built no a int that
Las an ,vngle on the left rear property line which would cause the deck to extend to within 13 fey t of
the left rear property line.
This wouid restrict the depth of the deck due to this angle.
The Union AME Church also owns the property at 1.822 S. Pulaski (right of subject property) and
1H17 - 1825 S. Pulaski Street (front of property) The property immediately behind tine pastors
residence is a parking lot for the commercial buildings in the rear. (Day Care Center and a Church)
'The Property to the left is a residence that has a car shed that extends the same distance to the
property line. The Pastors residence also has a rear entrance and could use the area under the deck
as a parking shed. I
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
&,W,4A, ,�
: L -
Rey. Randolph W. Martin, Pastor
C?/ix/0 t
"GOD OUR FATHER, CHRIST OUR REDEEMER, MAN OUR BROTHER"
October{ J, 2001
ITEM NO.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested
Z-7099
Bobby Chaten
3410 Sussex Circle
Lots 204 and 205, Kensington
Place Subdivision
R1W
Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of
Section 31-12.
Justification: The new single family residence
was inadvertently constructed
with front steps and one corner
over the front platted building
line.
Present Use of Property: Construction of new single
family residence
Proposed Use of Property: Single family residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 3410 Sussex Circle is
occupied by a new one-story, brick and frame, single
family residence. The newly constructed house
encroaches approximately three (3) feet over the
platted 25 -foot front building line near the southeast
corner of the structure, with front steps which
encroach approximately 13 feet over the same platted
building line. Section 31-12(c) of the City's
Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for
encroachments over platted building setback lines be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment.
October` -4, 2001
Item No.: 5
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
house has been mostly constructed, with interior and
landscape work left to be completed. It is unclear how
the error has gone unnoticed throughout the building
permit process. It is apparent that during the initial
stage of building permit review the elevation of the
structure's front porch was not known. The front porch
is approximately five (5) to six (6) feet above grade.
Also, the property drops off drastically along the
north and west sides of the structure. To an extent,
this slope dictated the placement of the structure on
the property, resulting in the building line
encroachments.
Staff does not believe that the building line
encroachments will have an adverse impact on the
adjacent property, as both encroachments are along
street side property line. The construction of the
steps results in a 12 foot setback from the southern
property line and a 23.5 foot setback from curb line of
Sussex Circle. The encroachment near the southeast
corner of the structure results in a 22 foot setback
from the south property line and a 33.5 foot setback
from the curb line of Sussex Circle.
If the Board approves the building variances, the
applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat
reflecting the changes in the building line for the
newly constructed house. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested 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 front steps must remain uncovered beyond the
platted building line.
2
October( j, 2001
Item No.: 5
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 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
as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent.
3
October{ j, 2001
ITEM NO.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Z-7100
Scott and Sheb Trotter
5 Longfellow Lane
Lot 7, Beverly Place Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area provisions of Section
36-254.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 5 Longfellow Lane is zoned R-2 and is
occupied by an existing two-story single family
residence. There is an existing brick accessory
building at the southwest corner of the property which
was constructed years ago as a bomb shelter. There is
an enclosed garage immediately north of the accessory
building which is connected to the single family
residence by a canopy (carport) structure. The
applicant proposes to demolish the accessory building
and construct a 22.5 foot by 19.8 foot building
addition to the rear of the garage structure and
enclose the canopy structure which connects the garage
to the house. A new pitched roof will be constructed
over the existing garage/canopy structure.
October( J, 2001
Item No.: 6
The applicant is requesting variances to allow reduced
rear and side yard setbacks for the proposed building
addition. The proposed addition will have a rear yard
setback of three (3) feet and side yard setback of
approximately two (2) feet. The proposed building
addition will be constructed in essentially the same
location as the existing accessory structure and
maintain the same side yard setback as the existing
garage structure. Section 26-254(d)(2) requires a
minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet and Section
36-254(d)(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of
eight (8) feet, based on the fact that this is a corner
lot and the existing single family structure has
greater than 25 feet of setback from each street
property line.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Staff
does not believe that the side and rear yard
encroachments will have an adverse impact on the
adjacent properties, as the proposed building addition
will maintain the same rear yard setback as the
existing accessory building and the same side yard
setback as the existing garage structure. The type of
building addition and building setbacks proposed is
typical of many of the single family residences in this
immediate area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the side and rear yard
setback variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. The eave lines of the proposed building addition
must not extend any more than one (1) foot into the
proposed setbacks.
2. The proposed building addition must have gutters to
prevent any water run-off onto adjacent property.
BOARD OF .ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
2
October( j, 2001
Item No.: 6
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved
as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent.
3
SCOTT C. TROTTER
HILL GILSTRAP
PERI INS & TROTTER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ACXIOM PLAZA
1 INFORMATION WAY, SUITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202
E-MAIL strotter@hgpw.com
TEL 501-603-9000
FAX 501-603-0556
www.hgow.com
September 20, 2001
Board of Adjustment Members
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Board Members:
�Z- 7I 0c,
DALLAS - FORT WORTH
1400 West Abram
Arlington, Texas 76013
TEL 817-261-2222
FAX 817-861-4685
CHICAGO
303 West Madison
Suite 1050
Chicago, Illinois 60606
TEL 312.853-2920
FAX 312-853-2926
Re: Variance Application; 5 Longfellow Lane;
Lot 7 Beverly Place Addition to City of
Little Rock
My father built a bomb shelter during the Cuban Missile Crisis in our backyard at 5
Longfellow Lane. I doubt that it would withstand any attack, and believe me, it is an eyesore
and has no use.
My wife, Sheb, and I at long last plan to demolish the bomb shelter and build in its place
a rear extension to our existing two -car garage. In between the garage and house is an open
carport too narrow for a full size car. The carport and garage have a common flat roof that
always has a leak or two. Our architect has drawn a new, pitched roof to replace the existing flat
roof and to cover the garage extension. Also, we plan to enclose the single carport and connect it
to the house as an extra room.
In meeting with the planning and development staff, it is apparent that a variance is
required. The addition is essentially to be built on the spot of the demolished bomb shelter. The
new roof will be added to the existing garage, and the carport will be enclosed. However, tying
the existing separate carport and garage into the house apparently invokes the zoning law
regarding structures closer than eight feet from the property line. The existing garage and bomb
shelter sit within less than eight feet of the line to the west side and south rear, as will the garage
after the addition.
HILL GILSTRAP PERKINS & TROTTER
Board of Adjustment Members
September 20, 2001
Page 2
The garage addition and new roof, along with the destruction of the bomb shelter, will
improve the appearance of the property for my family and the neighbors and result in currently
wasted space being fully utilized.
My wife and I would very much appreciate your approval of a variance from the eight
foot limit.
Cordially,
HILL GILSTRAP PERKINS & TROTTER
S4 7,,--Yu:i��-
Scott C. Trotter
SCT/kpr
October j, 2001
ITEM NO.: 7
File No.: Z-7101
Owner: Christopher and Erika Kent
Address: 7311 Indiana Avenue
Description: Lot 9, Block 6, Riffel and
Rhoton Forest Park Ridgeland
Addition
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 and the fence/wall
standards of Section 36-516.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Single family residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single family residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Indiana Avenue is an unimproved residential street
with narrow pavement. Future street improvements
will require acquisition of additional right-of-way
for typical residential street and utility
construction. Public Works feels strongly that no
vertical walls should be allowed in future right-of-
ways and requests denial of this variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
The property at 7311 Indiana Avenue is zoned R-2 and
contains an existing two-story brick and frame single
family residence. There is a short retaining wall
along the front (north) property line which follows the
grade of Indiana Avenue, sloping downward from west to
east. The wall is approximately two (2) feet high at
Octobers j, 2001
Item No.: 7
its highest point, which is at the northeast corner of
the property. The applicant proposes to make two (2)
improvements to the property which will require
variances.
The first is a proposed deck addition to the front of
the single family structure. The deck will extend from
the northeast corner of the house out approximately
eight (8) feet and run along the front of the structure
for approximately 32 feet. The deck will be in two (2)
sections. The west section of the deck will be level
with an existing tile walkway which is less than one
(1) foot above grade. The eastern section of the deck
will be approximately 56 inches above grade at its
highest point (northeast corner of the deck). The
front yard setback proposed for the deck will be
approximately eleven (11) feet at the northwest corner
of the deck and 16.5 feet at the deck's northeast
corner. Section 36-254(d)(1) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25
feet. The existing porch on the single family
structure has a front setback of approximately 20 feet.
The second improvement which the applicant proposes to
make to the property involves the existing retaining
wall along the front property line. The applicant
proposes to add from six (6) inches to 29 inches in
height to the existing wall and place a three (3) foot
high fence on top of the wall (see attached letter and
sketch from the applicant). This will result in a
maximum fence/wall height of approximately 7.5 feet at
the northeast corner of the property. Section 36-
516(e)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum
fence/wall height of four (4) feet for a fence or wall
located between a required building setback line and a
street right-of-way.
Staff is supportive of the variance to allow a reduced
front yard setback for the proposed deck. There are
several other structures in this general area which are
located relatively close to front property lines.
Staff feels that if the deck structure is not covered
or enclosed, it will have no adverse impact on the
adjacent properties or the general area.
2
October( ,, 2001
Item No.: 7
Staff is not supportive of the variance to allow an
increased fence/wall height along the front property
line. As noted in the Public Works comments (paragraph
A.), future street improvements will require the
acquisition of additional right-of-way for Indiana
Avenue. The future acquisition will result in ten (10)
additional feet of right-of-way along this side of the
street. Public Works opposes any additional
improvements within this future right-of-way area. If
the applicant were willing to move the retaining
wall/fence back ten (10) feet from the front property
line, staff would be happy to review a variance request
for that fence/wall location. However, moving the
fence/wall back ten (10) feet from the front property
line would cause two (2) and possibly all three (3) of
the mature trees in the front yard to be removed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard
setback variance for the proposed deck subject to the
following conditions:
1. The deck is to remain uncovered and unenclosed.
2.A building permit must be obtained for the deck
construction.
Staff recommends denial of the requested fence/wall
height variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
Staff noted that Public Works and Staff had changed the
staff recommendation on the fence/wall height variance.
Staff noted support of the fence/wall height variance
subject to the existing retaining wall being increased in
height no more than one (1) concrete block width
(approximately 8 inches) with the wall remaining stepped
down from west to east, and the three (3) foot tall fence
being placed on top of the wall and also stepped.
3
October( i, 2001
Item No.: 7
Staff noted that a Public Works representative had met with
the applicant, and that the applicant was supportive of the
revised staff recommendation.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved
as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent.
4
To whom it may concern,
We wish to modify the zoning variance at the residence of 7311 Indiana
Avenue. The following are reasons why we are proposing this variance.
The front yard at said address has an excessive slope that washes away with
rain. This prohibits us form growing any kind of grass or greenery in the
yard. The concrete wall along the front and side of the yard has been
damaged and we wish to repair it with an additional height of 6-8 inches.
This will provide us with a more level area.
The deck and 3 foot fence is a matter of safety. We have two small children
one of which is mild mentally retarded. His perception of danger is very
limited. The stretch of road that we live on is in poor condition and is
extremely narrow and steep. Indiana Avenue is located just off Mississippi
and Cantrell, two major streets in our city, and is used as a shortcut for
many. Our street is used as a thoroughfare for many apartment dwellers in
our neighborhood as well. And more apartments are being built at present.
Because of the slope of our street the automobiles use excessive speed when
traveling on it.
Our children CANNOT go into the front yard without risk.
The deck will provide a safe haven for our family, while the fence will allow
some security against the road.
In closing we believe this will benefit the neighborhood. Due to apartments
and many rental properties the neighborhood aesthetics have suffered. This
will not only allow us to be closer to our neighbors but will also bring some
beauty to the area.
We have enclosed several photos of our street, home, wall and neighbors
walls to illustrate our need. We thank you for your time and hope that you
will consider this project necessary.
S'ncorel ,
5 vo'
�
Chris & Erika Kent
The proposed deck will measure about 8 ft.x 23 ft. The deck will
have a standard railing that will extend down onto the ground level
platfrom deck. The platform deck will be set level with the tile
walkway which will give it a height of about 2-3 inches. The tile
walkway will remain, but the the steps will be covered by the deck.
The deck will be about 20 inches tall at its lowest point and 56
inches tall at its highest point.
r7lz
1
CQ,
The concrete wall will extend from the edge of the driveway, to the
edge of the front yard, andalong the side of the house. Additions
to the wall will measure 6 inches tall at its lowest and 29 inches at
its highest. The fence that will be placed on top of the wall will
measure 3 feet tall. It will extend from the side of the driveway, to
the edge of the front yard, and along the side of the yard to the
edge of the house.
The fence will have this appearance or something very similar. It will
not be a privacy fence!
V)
ON
O
W
4-
II.
o�
O
"a
4-
-
o�
W
O
-
o
°'
O
.
0
^►
O
.�00
V
'Q
o,
s
�
LCA
�
06 -
Z
V
-
,Q
f-
4--
3
ON
W
4-
II.
o�
tU. o
"a
4-
o�
-
o
°'
o
.
0
^►
W
pXj
'Q
o,
s
�
d
01
o}i
>
4-
o�
0
^►
.'�
'Q
o,
s
O
d
,Q
f-
4--
th
4-
°+-
O
°
H
N
=
d
t
v
October( 2001
ITEM NO.: 8
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Z-7102
Edward E. Schulte
18 Cimarron Valley Circle
Lot 15, Block 33, Pleasant
Valley Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 and the easement
regulations of Section 36-11.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 18 Cimarron Valley Circle is
occupied by an existing single family residence. There
is an existing metal carport structure on the west side
of the residence, which has a nonconforming side yard
setback of 3.5 feet. The structure also extends
approximately 1.5 feet over the 5 foot utility easement
which runs along the west property line.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing metal
carport structure and replace it with an enclosed
garage (26.5 feet by 22 feet), maintaining the same
"footprint" as the existing carport. Therefore the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced
October J, 2001
Item No.: 8
side yard setback and a variance to encroach into the
existing utility easement. The new garage structure
will have a side setback of 3.5 feet and encroach 1.5
feet into the five (5) foot utility easement. Section
36-254(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet for R-2
zoned property. Section 36-11(f) of the code prohibits
building construction "...that encroaches on, over or
into any easement."
Staff is not supportive of the variances as requested.
Staff feels that the proposed garage should maintain a
five (5) foot side yard setback, keeping it out of the
existing utility easement along the west property line.
The applicant has not provided staff with sign -offs
from all of the public utility companies approving the
proposed building addition. Additionally, staff feels
that a 25 foot wide garage is sufficient width for
parking two (2) vehicles.
Staff would support a revised application to make the
garage addition a maximum width of 25 feet (including
eave line), thereby maintaining a five (5) foot minimum
side yard setback and keeping the addition out of the
utility easement. Staff would also suggest installing
gutters on the garage addition to prevent water run-off
onto adjacent property. Staff has informed the
applicant of this issue and as of this writing is
awaiting a reply.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the side yard setback
variance subject to the following conditions:
1. The structure (including eave line) must maintain a
minimum five (5) foot side yard setback.
2. The garage structure must have gutters to prevent
water run-off onto the adjacent property.
Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow
encroachment into the existing five (5) foot utility
easement along the west property line.
2
October J, 2001
Item No.: 8
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 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 as
recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0
absent.
3
4e.,7- 4g
-2,- 7/°-I—
Edward E. Schulte
#18 Cimarron Valley Circle
Little Rock, AR 72212
501-221-23141501-258-2504
September 19, 2001
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning & Development
723 Vest Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
ATTN: Mr. Monte Moore, Subdivision Administrator
Dear Mr. Moore:
This is to request a "Residential Zoning Variance" at 18 Cimarron Valley Circle, Little
Rock, AR 72212.
This variance is to convert an existing metal carport into an enclosed garage. The
existing metal carport was built over 20 years ago. The garage will have the same
"footprint" as the existing metal carport.
The garage will be architecturally compatible with the existing house. It will greatly
enhance the appearance of the property and make the property more in harmony with the
neighborhood. The existing metal carport is located 3 feet 6 inches from the side property
line.
The existing air conditioner units are located at the side of the house thus making it
necessary for the garage to extend to the existing carport dimension.
I request approval of the variance. Please contact me should you need any additional
information.
Sincerely.
Edward E. Schulte
October 2001
ITEM NO.: 9
File No.: Z-7103
Owner: City of Little Rock as Trustee
for the Central Arkansas Library
System
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:
120 Commerce Street
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8,
Pope's Addition
UU
Variances are requested from
the sign provisions of Sections
36-353 and 36-543.
The applicant's explanation is
presented in an attached letter.
Vacant warehouse building
Mixed commercial uses
The property at 120 Commerce Street is zoned UU and is
occupied by an existing warehouse building (Cox
Building), which is currently being renovated. A new
parking lot was recently constructed along the south
and west sides of the building. The applicant is
proposing to place thirteen (13) projecting banner
signs on the building. The applicant proposes to place
six (6) of the signs on the southwest elevation of the
building, one (1) sign on the south elevation and six
(6) signs on the east elevation. The applicant notes
that each banner sign will be 36 inches by 48 inches
and attached to two (2) permanent metal poles (see
October �, 2001
Item No.: 9
attached sketch). The number of signs proposed by the
applicant will be used by the individual business
tenants and for promotions of the Central Arkansas
Library. The applicant has submitted elevations of the
building (see attached sketches) showing where the
signs will be located on the building and that the
signs will have a nine (9) foot clearance over
pedestrian walkways.
Section 36-543 of the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits
the use of banner signs in all zoning districts.
Section 36-353(e)(1)d. limits the number of projecting
signs in the River Market Design Overlay District to
one (1) sign per 100 feet of primary street frontage
per building. The applicant is requesting variances
from these ordinance standards for the proposed
projecting banner signs.
The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) met on
October 4, 2001 and discussed the applicant's proposal
for signage at 120 Commerce Street. The DRC is
recommending approval of the sign variances requested
by the applicant with the following conditions:
1. The variances be approved for two (2) years, at
which time the Board of Adjustment review the
signage to assure the structural integrity and
maintenance of the signs.
2. The number of projecting signs is not to exceed
thirteen (13) .
3. No signs are allowed on the north (Markham
Street) fagade of the Cox Building.
4. No more than three (3) of the signs will be used
for each business.
5. The applicant must obtain a franchise for the
signs along Commerce Street.
As noted in the attached letter from the River Market
Design Review Committee, the Committee feels that the
proposed projecting banner signs are appropriate and
will aid in "...creating a festive, pedestrian -oriented
district."
2
October J, 2001
Item No.: 9
Staff is supportive of the variances as requested.
Staff feels that the signage as proposed will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the
general area. The permanent banner signs approved by
the Board of Adjustment several years ago for the
Museum Center in the River Market District have worked
out well and been properly maintained. Staff supports
the River Market Design Review Committee's review and
recommendation on this application.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign
variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a franchise permit
from the City for the signs on the Commerce
Street fagade before the issuance of a sign
permit.
2. Each projecting banner sign must not exceed
twelve (12) square feet in area.
3. Letters on the signs must not exceed one (1)
foot, six (6) inches in height and text shall
not exceed three-quarters of the height of each
sign.
4. Signage colors, typeface and style shall be
compatible with the River Market District and
approved by the River Market DRC.
5. The projecting signs must be placed at a 90
degree angle to the building.
6. The projecting signs must maintain a nine (9)
foot clearance over pedestrian walkways.
7. The height of the projecting signs shall not
extend past the sill of the second story
windows.
8. The projecting signs shall extend a maximum of
three (3) feet from the face of the building.
3
October j, 2001
Item No.: 9
9. The number of projecting signs must not exceed
thirteen (13) total, with each building
elevation limited to the number of signs noted
in paragraph B. of this report.
10. No signs will be allowed on the north (Markham
Street) fagade of the Cox Building.
11. No more than three (3) signs can be utilized by
an individual business tenant.
12. Sign permits must be obtained for all signs as
per City Ordinance requirements.
13. The variances be approved for two (2) years. At
the end of this time period the Board of
Adjustment will review the projecting banner
signage to assure the structural integrity and
maintenance of the signs.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 29, 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
as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent.
4
socks an
Mann ■■
,4,rchitects, PLG
in czeciat(on with
ARCHITECTS P.A.
September 24, 2001
Mr. Dana Carney
City of Little Rock
Zoning Division
723 West Markham, 1 st Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Renovation of the Cox Building
Central Arkansas Library System
Main Library Annex
Project #9904
Request for Sign Variance
Mr. Carney:
On behalf of the Central Arkansas Library System, Stocks - Mann Architects are
requesting a signage variance for the attached property. This existing building is
owned and will be operated by the Central Arkansas Library System as an annex to
the Main Library upon completion of the planned renovation.
We are proposing the use of 3' wide x 4' tall digitally printed double faced mesh
banners wall mounted, top and bottom, to the existing masonry wall as per the
attached building elevations.
We offer the following justifications for this variance request:
a. Banners are currently in use in the River Market area on the light fixtures as
indicators of the River Market area and also are currently in use on the
Museum Center.
b. Banners offer tenants access to pedestrian and a vehicular traffic in lieu of
flush wall signs or window signage:
c. Banners offer tenants the flexibly of changing out signage for specials or
pending events on a temporary basis.
d. These are lighter than other type of projected solid signage made of wood or
metal. The mesh type banner will not catch the wind like other type of solid
signs.
e. Glass area on this building is sufficiently less than other glass areas at street
level as compared to other buildings in the River Market.
401 WEST CAPITOL, SUITE 402 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-370-9207 FAX 501-370-9208
f. Due to the number of organizations of the Library and the tenants in the
building, additional signage above the 1 per 100 feet of frontage is needed
for the promotion of their organization or business.
Please find attached three (3) copies of Site Survey, Site Development Plan, the
elevations indicating areas and the number of banners being requested, a drawing
indicating the size of the banners, the "Application for Zoning Variance (Signs)" and
a signed "Affidavit" authorizing Stocks - Mann Architects to act the agent regarding
the variance request.
An "Acknowledgement of Franchise Conditions" was granted as per City of Little
Rock letter to Jamison Architects, dated April 24, 2000, for metal canopies and
grates on the east elevation (Commerce Street).
Please call if you have any questions or request additional information.
Sincerely,
R. Mark Mann
copies: file 9904 PM - Regs
Rig cr
Frank Porbeck, Chairman
Market
Design
_ 7103
GregHart,Member
Tim Heiple, Member
Review
Jim Schimmer,Member
Committee Patty Wingfield, Member
Planning and Development - 723 W. Markham -Little Rock -Arkansas - 72201.501-371-4790 -fax 371-6863
October 16, 2001
Mr. William Ruck, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Chairman Ruck and Board Members,
The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) has met. and discussed the proposal for
signs/banners at 120 South Commerce (Cox Building).
The DRC is recommending that the BOA issue a variance to allow banners to be used as permanent
signs on the Cox Building. After a lengthy discussion with the applicant, DRC members felt that
banners used as signs would be appropriate. The DRC members referred to the signs (banners) on
the Museum Center and how they had held up to the weather and time. The DRC also asks that a two
year variance be placed on the signs, so they can be reviewed.
The DRC is also recommending that the BOA issue a variance to allow more than one (1) projecting
sign per one hundred feet of building fagade. The applicants proposal was within the DRC's goal of
creating a festive, pedestrian oriented district. The number of projecting signs will not exceed
thirteen (13) for the building and none are allowed on the north (Markham) fagade of the Cox
Building. The applicant has been informed of the District guidelines of only three signs per business.
The issuance of a sign permit will be based on Public Works granting a franchise permit for the signs
on Commerce Street.
The DRC members look forward to working with the Board of Adjustment members on protecting
the visual integrity of the district.
:5 Vii -_5'
Shawn Spencer
DRC Staff
O
U
W
w
LW
L_
O
w
U)
Q
LL
O
a
Q
O
00
di
Q
E
L
Z3
Q
i
I
r
c
LU
Q
z
-7;
4
M
0
W
W
0
W
Q
❑��Q
❑
LL1
U
U
J_
oz❑�oQ
Z
W
W
LL-
U
Q
Z_
W
�
�
zU
Q
W
�
15.
LL
(D
D�
E
L
Z3
Q
i
I
r
c
LU
Q
z
-7;
0
W
W
❑
oz❑�oQ
Z
<
W
LL
Z_
U
Q
W
�
Q
LL
Q
Z=
U
(D
-j
ry
E
L
Z3
Q
i
I
r
c
LU
Q
z
-7;
October 29, 2001
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Date: Alr4. 210, 200f
Chairman