Loading...
boa_12 17 2001LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 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 November 26, 2001 meeting were approved as mailed by unanimous vote. III. Members Present: William Ruck, Chairman Fred Gray, Vice Chairman Scott Richburg Gary Langlais Andrew Francis Members Absent: None City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA DECEMBER 17, 2001 2:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM: A. Z -4827-B II. NEW ITEMS 6901 Interstate 30 1. Z-7115 3911 Foxcroft Road 2. Z-7117 119 Main Street 3. Z-7124 101 Main Street 4. Z-7120 4405 Gooch Drive 5. Z-7121 4 Parliament Place 6. Z-7122 2600 Boulevard Avenue 7. Z-7123 27 Willow Oak Court 8. Z-7103 120 Commerce Street 1 Q) O 3NId Z 11nvBIH1 u �J < � 7 e NYna3p N 00 � JQ � AYMOtlpa9 NOaY 43153H0 Vol � 83H380 pNIN IN Q 5 'Y M08000A $ 3NId f�38's ddb' 3NId aY N0111YIY 11005 b —> Q Ndtld 81Y3 All& 3 Nn Cif AlISa3AINn SSNIUS 83A39 Q S3HsnH IddSS IVI dj 1001H0 tlKJn a MOHVS NHOr � 'ry 3NN13H — 0 OW331ADVHS 8 31 0Y 5 SIOaYS — to NtlHatld A3N008 NY OB S11N(1 Alo — 3OOla ANN lb u S11N11 Alp fie\` bIS sumn Alio ZY �r NrmmRs 1aYM3lS 'SSybyrz OH H IH � o = SIINfI Alio g+ Jap d�lO3 31YUN83d O /Z ` V f O December 17, 2001 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Z -4827-B Owner: Turner Holdings, LLC Address: 6901 Interstate 30 Description: Lots 5 and 7, Tucker's Commercial Acres Zoned: I-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 and the easement provisions of Section 36-11. Justification: 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. Present Use of Property: Industrial Proposed Use of Property: Industrial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: 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. December �7, 2001 Item No.: A B. Landscape and Buffer Issues: An upgrade in landscaping Landscape Ordinance equal (460) will be required. for details. C. Staff Analysis: toward compliance with the to the expansion proposed Contact Bob Brown at 371-4864 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 December _L7, 2001 Item No.: A 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. 3 December 7, 2001 Item No.: A Staff Update: The applicant has submitted the additional information and a revised site plan as requested by staff. Existing and proposed building area for each use (office, storage, processing, etc.), existing/proposed building heights, existing parking details and sign -offs from all of the public utility companies have been submitted to staff. Upon further review of this application, staff has determined that three (3) additional variances are required and have been requested by the applicant. The first is a variance to allow construction of two (2) of the proposed tanks with an increased building height. Two (2) of the proposed new tanks are proposed to have a height of 71.7 feet, from the base of the tank to the top of the guardrail. These tanks are to be located at the rear of the existing building. Section 36-320(d) allows a maximum building height of 45 feet for structures in I-2 zoning. The applicant notes that the proposed building additions and additional new tanks will not exceed the 45 foot height allowance. Several of the existing tanks are 49 feet in height. The second additional requested variance is from the minimum off-street parking standards of Section 36-502. The ordinance requires a minimum of 68 parking spaces based on the following existing and proposed building areas: Existing Office 5,000 SF Existing Storage 10,519 SF Existing Processing 19,249 SF Existing Mechanical Space 1,351 SF Existing Building Total SF 36,119 SF New Office 2,400 SF New Dry Storage 4,100 SF New Refrigerated Storage 10,000 SF New Addition Total SF: 16,500 SF Total Square Footage: 52,619 SF 4 December -7, 2 001 Item No.: A According to the applicant, there will be a total of 45 paved parking spaces remaining at the northwest corner of the property after the proposed building addition. The applicant notes that the facility is a 24-hour operation and the employees arrive in shifts. Additionally, the truck drivers park their personal vehicles (and have for a number of years) within the fenced gravel area for security reasons. The applicant has stated that the 45 remaining parking spaces will be more than sufficient to serve the business. The third additional variance request is from Section 8, Article IV, the "Flood Loss Prevention" section, to allow` new building construction within the floodway. Section 8-284 requires that variances to allow new construction in the floodway be granted by the Board of Adjustment. Laha Engineers, Inc. has provided the Public Works Department with floodway calculations related to the proposed development of the property. Public Works has noted agreement with the calculations (see letter dated November 6, 2001 from David Hamilton, P.E.). However, the applicant must submit a floodproofing plan to Public Works for review and approval. Staff will attempt to have this issue resolved prior to the public hearing. Otherwise, staff supports the requested variances. Staff feels that the variances to allow encroachment over platted building lines, encroachment into an existing utility easement, increased building height for two (2) of the proposed tanks, a reduced number of off-street paved parking spaces and building construction within the floodway, are reasonable and will allow the applicant a needed expansion of the existing business. Additionally, the proposed building additions, with variances, will have no adverse impact on the abutting properties or the general area. The property is located along a major interstate, with industrial zoned property to the north and south and a large area of floodway to the east. If the Board approves the building line variances, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the building lines for the proposed building additions. The applicant should review the filing procedures with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. 5 Decembers , 2001 Item No.: A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of this report. 2. The applicant must submit a floodproofing plan to Public Works for review and approval. 3. A one -lot replat reflecting the changes in the building lines as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 26, 2001) The applicant, Troy Laha, along with other representatives of the property ownership, were present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the issue relating to the required notice of property owners within 200 feet of the site needed to be discussed. Staff explained the requirements for notification. Troy Laha addressed the Board and noted that the property owner to the south, Mountain Pure Water Company, signed a letter of notification on this date (November 26, 2001). Staff noted that the notification as completed by the applicant did not conform to the Board of Adjustment bylaws. There was a general discussion pertaining to this issue. There was a motion to defer the application to the December 17, 2001 agenda, to allow the applicant time to complete the notifications to property owners as required by the Board's bylaws. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred to the December 17, 2001 agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 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. A December( 2001 Item No.: A The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 7 11/12/2001 14:30 501--562--5467 LAHA Et ;F SURVEY / PA13E 01 Chy of Uttle Rock Civil Engineetins. Division 13 Depai fetoent of 701 West Markham Public Wow Lithe Rock, Arkansas 72201-13CO 371-4811 Fax 371-4460 � _ 44� 14 November 3, 2001 RE: Floodway Variance — Gold Star Dairy — 6901 Interstate 30 N1r Troy Baha P.Q,Box 190261 Little Pock, Arkansas 72219 Dear Mr, Laha We are in receipt of your letter of November 2, 2001 and your calculations for proposed excavation arlume in the floodway at Gold Star Dairy. Based on your submittal. we agree that fill in the fioodway necessitated by the buliding addition will be equalized by the volume excavated, resulting in no rise in flood pool level. However, to approve this development within the auspices of the National flood Insurance Program, our office must approve a floodproofing plan for the addition. The level of floodproofing must be to an elevation of 1.0 foot above the base flood level of El. 257,0, which equals El. 258.0 If you have any questions please call me at 2"-5402. Sincerely, David Hamilton, P, E. Civil Engineer II December' 2001 ITEM NO.: 1 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7115 Todd and Lisa Cooper 3911 Foxcroft Road Lot 6, Foxboro Addition R-2 A variance is requested from the area regulations of Section 36-254 to permit a new single family residence with a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 3911 Foxcroft Road is undeveloped and wooded. The property slopes downward from south to north and west to east. There is approximately 45 feet of slope from south to north and 30 feet from west to east. The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence on the property. The proposed residential structure conforms to all of the minimum building setbacks for R-2 zoning, with exception of the proposed rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing a 10 foot rear setback along the west property line. Section 36-254(d)(3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant notes that due to the severe Decembers 2001 Item No.: 1 slope of the lot, moving the proposed structure down the hill to the north would make construction much more difficult and costly, and in addition, the structure would still not conform to the minimum rear yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Given the fact that this is an unusual dagger -shaped lot with extreme slope, it would be difficult to construct a single family residence of any size, and maintain the minimum required front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed structure will have a rear yard relationship with the existing houses to the west. It appears that these adjacent structures are set back 25 feet or more from their respective rear property lines. Staff feels that the separation between these structures and the proposed residence will be adequate, and that the proposed house will have no adverse impact on these adjacent properties or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2001) The applicant, Todd Cooper, was present. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the applicant had informed staff that he wished to revise the application, in an attempt to satisfy the concerned parties. Chairman Ruck noted that the Board had some concerns with revising the application on such short notice, not knowing the impact of the proposed revision on the adjacent properties. Todd Cooper addressed the Board in support of the application. He stated that he wished to amend the application by moving the proposed house 10 feet closer to the street, providing a minimum 20 foot rear yard setback, and encroaching over the front platted building line. He noted that the house could also be shifted to the north, which would lessen the encroachment over the front platted 2 December , 2001 Item No.: 1 building line to approximately five (5) feet. He noted that there was very limited buildable area on the lot. Chairman Ruck asked how far north the proposed building could be moved. Mr. Cooper regarded that it could be moved approximately 20 feet to the north. Andrew Francis asked Mr. Cooper if he posted the public hearing sign on the property, and if so when. Mr. Cooper stated that the sign was posted on the property the day before the deadline to do so. Fred Gray asked if the proposed house could be moved even further north on the lot. Mr. Cooper explained that moving it too far to the north would cause increased building costs. Chairman Ruck discussed the proposed amendment to the application. There was a general discussion relating to the location of the concerned parties' properties and additional discussion pertaining to the amended application. Don Ryan addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that he represented the Rogers and the Schultzes, property owners to the west. He requested that the application be deferred based on the fact that Mrs. Rogers was out of town and could not attend the meeting. Mr. Ryan stated that he did not believe Mr. Cooper owned the property. He noted that the proposed house would tower over the properties to the west. He noted that the owners of the lots to the west abided by the required 25 foot rear setback and explained. There was a general discussion pertaining to who owned the property. Mr. Cooper noted that he owned the property and bought it from a Mr. Strauss. Marilyn Schultz addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She expressed concern with the proposed placement of the house. She stated that she wanted Mr. Cooper to provide a 25 foot rear setback. She presented the Board with letters of opposition from her and her two (2) sons. 3 December 2001 Item No.: 1 The Board took time to read and review the letters presented by Mrs. Schultz. Andrew Francis asked if the required 25 foot rear setback was measured from the easement line or the property line. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, noted that the required setback is measured from the property line. Fred Gray noted that it appeared that the applicant could move the proposed house far enough north, and meet all of the required setbacks. He noted that moving the house further north would take it closer to Mrs. Rogers' house. He stated that he was interested to see if the house could be placed on the lot without a variance. Andrew Francis requested that the lot elevations, as presented on a sketch by the opposed parties, be made part of the public record. He also asked about building height. Staff explained that the height of the proposed building is measured from the lowest finished floor. Chairman Ruck stated that he thought a deferral of this application would be in order. Mr. Cooper questioned the reason for deferral. Chairman Ruck noted that a deferral would be appropriate based on the complexity of the issue and in light of the opposition. Andrew Francis stated that the property owners to the east should be properly notified of the front yard setback variance associated with the revised application. There was additional discussion related to the possibility of moving the house further north and meeting all of the required setbacks. Fred Gray asked Mr. Cooper about his time frame for construction. Mr. Cooper noted that there was no specific time frame, but he wished to begin construction of the house as soon as possible. Gary Langlais asked how far the two (2) houses to the west were set back from the rear property lines. Mr. Ryan noted that the Rogers' house was approximately 25 feet from the rear line (to the patio) and that the Shultz house was approximately 35 feet from the rear property line. Mr. ►H December 2001 Item No.: 1 Cooper noted that Mrs. Rogers' patio and pool were very close to the rear property line. Chairman Ruck asked Mr. Cooper if he wished to have a vote on the application or if he would accept a deferral. Mr. Cooper responded that he would leave it to the Board's discretion. Mr. Ryan stated that he was not sure what the revised application involved. There was a motion to defer the application to the January 28, 2002 agenda. There was discussion of the motion. Cindy Dawson noted that Mr. Cooper needed to renotify the property owners within 200 feet. Staff noted that a letter explaining the revised application and a revised site plan needed to be submitted by Mr. Cooper. The Board noted that the letter and site plan must be submitted to staff no later than January 10, 2002. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred to the January 28, 2002 agenda. 5 November 13, 2001 To the Little Rock Board of Adjustment: We are requesting a variance from the rear 25' setback provision on residential lots in the Foxboro Subdivision. When we purchased lot number 6 in the Foxboro Subdivision, a plat map was provided that indicated a 25' building line on the front (east) side and a building line drawn on the south side of the lot. Additionally a 10' easement line was drawn on the back (west) side of the lot. The lot is triangular in shape, coming to a point at the south end. In other words, the lot is long and narrow. Believing that the building area was in the confines of the 25' front setback on the east end, the building line drawn on the south end and the 10' rear easement as were all identified on the original plat map, we designed the house to take into account the severe uphill slope of the lot and the narrow building area. It has now come to our attention that on some non -corner lots, there is an additional 25' rear setback that was not identified on the original plat map that we were given when we purchased the lot. We are requesting a variance to the rear 25' setback provision on the grounds that it would be virtually impossible to build a house on the sloping, triangular shaped lot with both a 25' front and rear setback provision. As can be seen on plans filed with this application, we propose to adhere to the 10' easement setback on the rear of the lot as well as the two additional building lines drawn on the original plat map. Furthermore, we plan to build retaining walls in the rear to further shield our rear neighbors from the structure. Additionally, due to the severe slope of the lot, moving the house down the hill to the north would make the construction much more difficult and costly and, as the house is designed now, it would still not fit in the confines of both a 25' front and real setback. Thank you for your consideration, Todd Cooper c\ December _1, 2001 ITEM NO.: 2 File No.: Z-7117 Owner: J. Chandler Co., Inc. Address: 119 Main Street Description: The south 26 feet of Lot 4 and all of Lots 5 -and 6, Block 2, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Ku A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36- 553 and the development criteria of Section 36-342.1 to permit an under canopy sign which extends into the public right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Office/Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Mixed Office/Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The UU zoned property at 119 Main Street contains an office/commercial building which is immediately south of the old Wallace Building. One of the ground floor tenants (Club International) is requesting variances to allow an under -canopy sign, which extends over the property line and into the public right-of-way. The building at this location sits on the property line. The sign will be nine (9) square feet in area and mounted under the existing canopy, with a clearance of December 1, 2001 Item No.: 2 approximately ten (10) feet above the existing sidewalk. According to Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. (W District Development Criteria), "objects shall not project from the building fagade over the public right-of-way except for awnings and balconies." In addition, Section 36- 342.1(c)(11) permits signage in the W District as allowed in Section 36-553, signs permitted in institutional and office zones. Section 36-553 allows one (1) under -canopy sign per occupancy, not to exceed 12 square feet in area, with a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. The sign is required to have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over sidewalks. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. to allow an under -canopy sign which projects into the public right- of-way, and a variance from Section 36-553 to allow an under -canopy sign which has no setback from the property line. The applicant has applied for a franchise permit for the sign. The franchise application has gone through the review process, with approval by the Board of Adjustment being the only outstanding issue. Once the Board approves the variances associated with the sign, the franchise can be granted. Staff believes that the requested variances are reasonable and supports the application. The proposed under -canopy sign should aid in the identification and location of the business, and would not out of character with other signs in the general area. Staff feels that the under -canopy sign will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an under -canopy sign subject to the following conditions: 1. A franchise must be obtained for the sign. 2. A sign permit must be obtained. 3. The sign should not exceed 12 square feet in area. 2 December _ , , 2001 Item No.: 2 4. The sign must maintain a minimum nine (9) foot clearance over the sidewalk. 5. Only one (1) under -canopy sign will be allowed for this occupancy. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Fred Gray asked about the proposed orientation of the under -canopy sign (parallel to the street). Willie Hadley noted that the sign was proposed parallel to Main Street in order to be visible to the vehicular traffic along the street. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. 3 1401mes Signs & Artwork, LLC Fax ?Transmittal Form To Monte Moore Name: LR Planning Organization Name/Rept: CC: Phone number: 501-371-4792 Fax number: 501-399-3435 ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review O Please Comment ❑ Please Reply From Willie Hadley Bus. 501.568-8457 Fax: 301-566-4385 E-mail: mercedel64gyahoo.com Date sent- Time entTime sent: Number of pages including cover page: 9108 Tedburn Or. Little Rock, AR 72249 Bus. 504-568-8457 Faz: 501-5664995 E-mail: anerce&164Y yahooxom Message: I'm writing the letter to explain the important of having the lighted sign under the canopy of the business. There is very little visibility at night to see where my business is (CIub International). Without the customers not being able to find the business nay business suffer. I really need this sign to make it easier for the customers to land my business. The sign would go under the awning facing the Meet. Sign would be mounted to the ceiling of the awning. Thank you for reviewing this problem. Ld Wd7It7:Gn L00Z 02 LS7939S : 'ON SNOHd NSNSISSSW_IQH : WMI� December (_it 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-7124 Block 2 Limited Partnership 101 Main Street Part of Block 2, Original City of Little Rock UU A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-553 and the development criteria of Section 36-342.1 to permit projecting signs which extend into the public right-of- way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Office, Commercial and Residential Mixed Office, Commercial and Residential The UU zoned property at 101 Main Street contains the old Wallace Building, which is currently being redeveloped for a mixture of office, commercial and residential uses under the name "Block 2." The tenant (San Francisco Bread Co.) who is located on the ground floor of the building, at the corner of West Markham and Main Streets, is requesting variances to allow two (2) projecting signs (one for each street frontage) December - 7, 2001 Item No.: 3 which extend over the property line and into the public right-of-way. The building at this location sits on - the property line. Each of the signs will be round, approximately 12.5 square feet in area, and be located ten (10) feet above the sidewalk. The signs will contain the San Francisco Bread Co. logo. According to Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. (W District Development Criteria), "objects shall not project from the building fagade over the public right-of-way except for awnings and balconies." In addition, Section 36- 342.1(c)(11) permits signage in the W district as allowed in Section 36-553, signs permitted in institutional and office zones. Section 36-553 allows' one (1) projecting sign per occupancy, not to exceed 12 square feet in area, with a minimum setback of five (5) feet from property lines. The sign is required to have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over sidewalks. In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 36-342.1(c)(9)a. to allow two signs which project from the building into the right-of-way, and variances from Section 36-553 to allow two (2) projecting signs for this occupancy, each with approximately 12.5 square feet in area, and no setback from the property lines. The applicant has applied for a franchise permit for the signs. The franchise application has gone through the review process, with approval by the Board of Adjustment being the only outstanding issue. Once the Board approves the variances associated with the signs, the franchise can be granted. Staff believes that the requested variances are reasonable and supports the application. The proposed projecting signs should aid in the identification and location of the business, and would not be out of character with other signs in the general area. Staff feels that the projecting signs will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow two (2) projecting signs subject to the following conditions: 2 December 1, 2001 Item No.: 3 1. A franchise must be obtained for the signs. 2. A sign permit must be obtained for each sign. 3. The signs will have a maximum four (4) foot diameter. 4. The signs must maintain a minimum nine (9) foot clearance above the sidewalks. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 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 and 0 nays. 3 CATALIA GROUP, LLC 3 San Francisco Bread Co. Z�— 70-4 San Francisco Bread Co. 101 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development RE: Zoning Variance (Signs) Dear Sit or Madam: November 20, 2001 The following are reasons for San Francisco Bread Co.'s variance request: 1. When traveling north on Main Street, there are such obstructions such as awnings, canopies, and trees planted along the sidewalks, which could potentially obstruct the view for many people. Please refer to Picture #1 below. 2. There are currently 2 tenants occupying space in the Wallace Building — Sim's Barbeque and San Francisco Bread Co.. There are also plans for a comedy club to occupy the space in the Beal -Burrow Building. Two signs protruding from the corner of out restaurant, (one visible for those traveling on Markham and the other visible for those traveling on Main), would greatly enhance the look of the building and also make it easier for visitors to locate the restaurant. Please refer to Picture #2 below. Picture 1 Picture 2 3100 NORTH MAIN ST. • NORTH LITTLE ROCK • AR • 72116 PHONE: 501.758.8110 • FAX: 501.758.4343 December( ., 2001 ITEM NO.: 4 File No.. Owner: Address: Z-7120 Curran Papan 4405 Gooch Drive Description: A 0.25 acre property located in Section 24, Township 2 North, Range 14 West Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: R-2 The applicant is requesting an appeal of an administrative interpretation, in order to construct an accessory building on the property before the principle structure is constructed. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4405 Gooch Drive is undeveloped, with some site work having taken place recently. The property is located at the south end of Gooch Drive, south of Taylor Loop Road. The applicant is requesting an appeal of an administrative interpretation, in order to construct an accessory storage building on the property before the principle structure (single family residence) is constructed. The applicant requested to construct the accessory December _1, 2001 Item No 4 building before the principle structure, but was denied by staff based on the following definition of an accessory building, taken from Section 36-2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: Accessory building or use means a building or use which: (1) Is subordinate to and serves a principal building or principal use; (2) Is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to the principal building or principal use served; (3) Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants of the principal building or principal use; and (4) Is located on the same zoning lot as the principal building or principal use. The applicant is proposing to construct a 12 foot by 20 foot accessory building near the southwest corner of the property. The building would initially be used to store building materials and tools, while the principle structure is being constructed. Once the house is completed, the building would be used for storage of lawn and garden equipment and as a hobby shop. The applicant notes that the accessory building will be set back three (3) to five (5) feet from the side and rear property lines. The applicant also notes that he plans to begin construction of the principle structure in the spring of 2002. In reviewing this requested appeal, staff would suggest that the Board keep in mind the following area and height regulations for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning, according to Sections 36-156 and 36-254 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: • Maximum height - 35 feet • Minimum front setback - 60 feet • Minimum side and rear setbacks - 3 feet • Minimum separation from principle structure - 6 feet K December( /, 2001 Item No.: 4 • Not occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear yard Should the Board choose to approve the applicant's appeal, staff would also suggest that the Board consider a time certain, as to when construction of the principle structure must be started in relation to the accessory structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 2001) The applicant, Curran Papan, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and explained the proposed appeal. Curran Papan addressed the Board in support of the appeal. Chairman Ruck asked about the timing of the construction of the accessory building and single family residence. Mr. Papan noted that he wished to begin construction on the accessory building as soon as possible and construction on the residence in the spring of 2002. Fred Gray asked Mr. Papan if he would act as the general contractor for the construction. Mr. Papan responded that he would. Andrew Francis recommended that Mr. Papan keep in mind all of the required area building setbacks and separation requirements when placing the accessory building and residence. There was additional discussion related to this matter. Chairman Ruck stated that he did not want the applicant to create any setback variances that would have to come back to the Board. Fred Gray asked Mr. Papan if a professional would design the house. Mr. Papan responded that he would have a design professional. Gary Langlais provided additional discussion related to the appeal. There was a motion to approve the appeal subject to the following conditions: 3 r December /, 2001 Item No.: 4 1. The placement of the accessory building and the principal structure must comply with all of the area regulations (building setbacks, building height, separation, etc.). 2. The construction of the principal structure must begin within one (1) year of the time that construction begins on the accessory building. Andrew Francis asked what would happen at the end of the one (1) year time frame if construction was not started on the principal structure. There was additional discussion pertaining to the motion. Chairman Ruck amended condition 2. of the original motion to the following: 2. Construction of the principal structure must begin within one (1) year of this approval date. The amended motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The appeal was approved. 4 November 19,2001 7 / Z Dear Little Rock Board of Adjustment members, I Curran Papan, owner of the property listed as 4405 Gooch drive in Little Rock would like for the Board of Adjustments to consider my request allowing me to build a storage building on this property prior to the construction of our future home. I Curran Papan have recently finalized the purchase of the lot located at 4405 Gooch drive. I purchased this lot in October of 1997 as a future home site. After several years of litigation, the property is now clearly titled in my name. My family and I are planning to build a home on this property. Prior to building the home I was planning to build a storage building that would first be used to safely store building materials away from thieves. Once the house is complete, the storage building would then be used to store lawn and garden equipment and serve as a workshop. I own several power tools and occasionally do woodworking projects as a hobby. I am wanting to build a storage building measuring 12 feet wide and 20 feet long. I am planning to construct this building on a reinforced concrete foundation 4 inches thick with 8 inch footings .The walls of this building would use 2x4 framing construction on 24 inch centers and 2x6 rafters to support the roofline. This proposed building would have one door and two windows. The window openings would be framed in during construction, but the actual windows would not be added until the building was no longer used for storing constructions materials. I was told by the Building Permit Department that the structure must be at least 3 feet from the back and side property lines although I am considering increasing this to 5 feet. We are planning to start building our home in the Spring of 2002. I would like to begin construction of this storage building as soon as possible since Winter is rapidly approaching. Thank you all for considering my proposal. Sincerely, Curran Papan December /, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 File No.: Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property Z-7121 James Built Homes, Inc. 4 Parliament Place Lot lA, Block 5, The Villages of Wellington R-2 Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section 36- . 254 to allow a new single family residence with a reduced rear and side yard setbacks. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 4 Parliament Place is occupied by a newly constructed one-story, brick and frame single family residence. The property backs up to Wellington Village Road, with a narrow strip of green space between the lot and the street. The applicant obtained a building permit for the single family structure, including an administrative approval of a rear yard setback for the northwest corner of the structure, which encroached approximately ten (10) percent into the required rear yard. However, an as -built survey after completion of the home revealed that the northwest corner of the structure was slightly December( / , 2001 Item No.: 5 closer to the rear property line than approved and that the structure was approximately six (6) inches too close to the side (north) property line. The area regulations of Section 3-254 of the City's Zoning Ordinance require a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet and a minimum side yard setback of eight (8) feet. The rear yard setback for the existing structure ranges from 21.2 feet at the northwest corner of the structure to 28.5 feet at the southwest corner. The existing side yard setback ranges from 7.5 feet at the northeast corner of the structure to 7.7 feet at the northwest corner. Staff is supportive of the requested variances, as they are very minor in nature. The property has a rear yard relationship with a narrow strip of green space and a street right-of-way, as there are no adjacent single family structures to the west. The structure encroaches into the required rear yard at the northwest corner only, as the southwest corner of the structure exceeds the minimum required setback. The reduced side yard, being a less than ten (10) percent encroachment, could typically be approved administratively by staff. There will be adequate separation of this structure from the single family structure immediately north. Staff does not believe that the requested variances will have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested rear and side yard setback variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 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 and 0 nays. K JAMES BUILT HOME Inc. Creating A Precious Gem P.O. Box 23806 Little Rock, AR 72221 (501) 868-1228 or 517-5538 r 2-7/,,2-1 November 18, 2001 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Dear Board Members, James Built Homes, Inc. is requesting a zoning variance for 4 Parliament Place. Prior to construction of the home at 4 Parliament Place, it was known that the home would encroach into the rear 25' building line. A request was made and granted for a waiver for the home to encroach 2'6" into the rear set back. Refer to original survey dated March 22, 2001 by Jack Wilkes. During the process of construction, the footing subcontractor inadvertently positioned the home 3' 9-1/2" feet into the rear set back and 6" into the side setback. Refer to survey dated November 7, 2001 from Donald Brooks. The discovery of this error was not discovered until Bharath Iyer, a potential buyer for the home, had a survey performed on November 7, 2001. The side setback encroachment is minimal, 6"or less, on the right side of the home. Even though the rear setback encroach is more severe, the impact on the neighborhood is very minimal because the rear of the property backs up to a major street (Wellington Hills). In between the property and the street is a "green space" of approximately 15' Because of the limited impact of the property at 4 Parliament Place encroaching into set backs, James Built Homes, Inc. is asking that the Little Rock Board of Adjustment approve the request for a zoning variance for the property. Thank you for your time in hearing this request. Sincerely, Randy L. Jame President, James Built Homes, Inc. December , 2001 ITEM NO.: 6 File No.. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7122 Donna B. White 2600 Boulevard Avenue Lot 1, Block 2, Boulevard Terrace Addition R-3 A variance is requested from the fence provisions of Section 36 516 to allow a six (6) foot high privacy fence between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-3 zoned property at 2600 Boulevard Avenue is occupied by a one-story, frame single family residence. The applicant recently removed a chain link fence which enclosed the rear yard of the lot and replaced it with a six (6) foot high wood privacy fence. The applicant has noted that the six (6) foot high fence was constructed for security proposes, due to several thefts which have occurred on this property. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet for this lot. Portions of the six (6) foot privacy fence were erected within the side December 2001 Item No.: 6 yard setback adjacent to West 26th Street. According to Section 36-516(e)(1)a. of the code, fences constructed within the required setback adjacent to streets are limited to four (4) feet in height. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff's inspection of the site revealed that the six (6) foot high privacy fence, as constructed, creates no sight - distance problems for vehicular traffic on Boulevard Avenue or West 26th Street. There is a platted alley along the property's west boundary, but the alley was never constructed and does not function for vehicular traffic. The single family residence immediately west of this site (southeast corner of West 26th Street and Jackson Street) fronts onto Jackson Street, with the two properties having a rear yard relationship. Had the adjacent residence fronted on West 26th Street, staff would have had concerns with the fence's relation to that property's front yard. Since this is not the case, staff does not believe that the proposed fence will have a negative impact on this adjacent property or the general area. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance subject to the applicant obtaining a building permit for the fence construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 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 and 0 nays. 712-2- TO 1Zz TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN: This is to inform you why I decided to put a private fence on my property of 2600 Boulevard. One main concern is that my property has been vandalized several times with in the past couple of years. My home has also been broken into several times. So far 3 bikes have been stolen along with an airconditioner, 2 laNNmmowers, also at least $300 worth of my children's video games toys and also money, but also while my property was unoccupied some one had the audacity to dig up my child's swing set knocked off the concrete and had it prepared to haul off in wide open space, but know one seems to know who attempted to steal it. Also several time men as well as women have walked over to the ditch across the street from my home and relieved themselves in front of my children, and I feel that my children should not be exposed to that kind of behavior from anyone person stranger or not. And I am full aware that you feel that this enclosed area is not nessacery, but put your self in my situation, if you could prevent your children from seeing such sites would you? I also know you think I would keep electricians from doing there jobs, because I know its not there obligation to have to ask to go into our yard to check there meter. We are prepared to give the electric company our permission to check the meter at all times. Even when where not at home. So hopefully we can keep the fence up with out a problem. Because my money and my father and sons hard work put that fence together. It would make my father and son and especially unhappy. Thank you for your time and concern. The White Residence December �7, 2001 ITEM NO.: 7 File No. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Z-7123 Beverly Ann Barnes 27 Willow Oak Court Lot 39, Block 7, Parkway Place Addition Phase II R-2 A variance is requested from the building line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit a room addition which crosses a rear platted building line. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 27 Willow Oak Court is occupied by a one-story frame single family residence. There is an existing deck on the rear of the structure, which is approximately four (4) feet above grade. The lot has 25 foot platted building lines along the front and rear property lines. Parkside Drive runs along the lot's rear (north) property line. The applicant proposes to remove the existing deck from the rear of the building and construct a 12 foot by 22 foot sunroom addition. The proposed addition will encroach slightly over the rear platted building line. December 2001 Item No.: 7 The addition will encroach 0.7 foot over the platted building line at the addition's northwest corner, and 2.3 feet at the northeast corner. Section 31-12(c) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that variances for encroachments over platted building setback lines be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The proposed rear yard setback, being less than a 10% encroachment, could have been signed off on administratively by staff, if a platted building line were not involved. The single family residence has a rear yard relationship with a street right-of-way (Parkside Drive), and therefore, staff does not believe that the requested variance will have a negative effect on the adjacent properties or the general area. If the Board approves the building line variance, the applicant will have to complete a one -lot replat reflecting the change in the rear building line for the proposed 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 rear building line variance subject to completion of a one - lot replat reflecting the change in the rear building line as approved by the Board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 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 and 0 nays. F--%/2-3 To Whom It May Concern: We are hereby requesting a residential zoning variance to build onto Miss Beverly Barnes residence located at 27 Willow Oak Court a sunroom addition to measure 22' x 12'. Miss Barnes lot in relationship to her home has an unusual shape and a very large easement along the back of her property. This sunroom addition would encroach upon the existing 25' easement 9 inches at one corner and 2 feet 5 inches at the opposite corner. Due to the unusual shape of Miss Barnes lot it makes it nearly impossible to build any reasonably shaped structure along the back of her home. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Steve Cox 1 St American Windows & Doors December _/, 2001 ITEM NO.: 8 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 issues. B. Staff Analysis: 120 Commerce Street Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Pope's Addition UU The applicant is requesting a revision of the previously approved Board of Adjustment variances to allow banner signs at this location. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Mixed Commercial Uses Mixed Commercial Uses On October 29, 2001, the Board of Adjustment approved several variances to allow banner signs to be placed on the Cox Building at 120 Commerce Street. A total of 13 banners were approved; six (6) to be located on the east side of the building, one (1) on the south side, and six (6) on the southwest side. The variances were approved subject to a number of conditions (see attached October 29 Board of Adjustment minute record). Also attached is the applicant's original cover letter, December �7, 2001 Item No.: 8 dated September 24, 2001 and the River Market Design Review Committee letter, dated October 16, 2001. The applicant is requesting a revision in the previous Board of Adjustment approval for the location of some of the signs only. The applicant proposes to move the one (1) banner sign from the south side of the building and the six (6) banner signs from the southwest side of the building to the light poles within the existing parking area between the building and East 2nd Street. See the attached site plan sketch for proposed banner sign locations. The total number of signs has not changed. The River Market DRC has reviewed the proposed revision and has no objection. The DRC's recommendation of approval is based on the number of banner signs remaining the same and compliance with all other conditions of the previous approval. (See attached letter dated December 3, 2001). Staff is supportive of the revision as requested. Staff feels that the banner signs as proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Staff feels that the banner signs will be compatible with the uniqueness and atmosphere of this entertainment -oriented district. Staff supports the River Market Design Review Committee's review and recommendation on this application. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the revised application subject to the following conditions: 1. The banner signs attached to the light poles must have a minimum clearance of nine (9) feet over the sidewalks. 2. The total number of banner signs for this property must not exceed thirteen (13). 3. Compliance will all other conditions of the previous approval as noted in the Board of Adjustment minute record dated October 29, 2001. E December , , , 2001 Item No.: 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (DECEMBER 17, 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 and 0 nays. W Stocks ■■ Mann ■■ Architects, PLC in association with a i ARCHITECTS P.A. November 15, 2001 Mr. Monte Moore City of Little Rock Planning and Development 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 Revision — Application to Board of Adjustment File No. Z-7103 Mr. Moore: 174,0 ► l_ 7/u3 On behalf of the Central Arkansas Library System, Stocks - Mann Architects are requesting a revision to the Application to the Board of Adjustment for the Cox Building, 120 Commerce Street. Please find attached a site plan indicating the relocation of the seven (7) banners originally granted to go on the southwest and south side of the Cox Building. We are requesting that these seven banners be allowed to be relocated to the light poles within the parking area as indicated. Please call if you have any questions or request additional information. Sincerely, R. Mark Mann copies: file 9904 PM — Regs Linda Bly, CALS 401 WEST CAPITOL, SUITE 402 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7 220 1 501-370-9207 FAX 501-370-9208 Committee Patty Wingfield, Member Planning and Development • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863 December 3, 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 discussed the revision of the previously approved BOA variances granted to allow banner/signs on the Cox Building at 120 Commerce Street. The DRC has no objection to moving the banner/signs from the south and southwest facades of the building to the existing light poles within the interior of the existing Library parking lot. This recommendation of approval is based on the number of banner/signs remaining the same and compliance with all other conditions of the previously approved variances. The DRC members look forward to working with the Board of Adjustment members on protecting the visual integrity of the district. Shawn Spencer DRC Staff Frank Porbeck, Rlveir Chairman Market Greg HaMMember Design 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 December 3, 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 discussed the revision of the previously approved BOA variances granted to allow banner/signs on the Cox Building at 120 Commerce Street. The DRC has no objection to moving the banner/signs from the south and southwest facades of the building to the existing light poles within the interior of the existing Library parking lot. This recommendation of approval is based on the number of banner/signs remaining the same and compliance with all other conditions of the previously approved variances. The DRC members look forward to working with the Board of Adjustment members on protecting the visual integrity of the district. Shawn Spencer DRC Staff October may, 2001 --� —� ITEM NO.: 9o�t? 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 120 Commerce Street Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Pope's Addition WMQ 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 Proposed Use of Property: Mixed commercial uses STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: 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 2y, 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 J 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 41 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." Fa October 29, 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 29, 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 Stocks ■■�-�'- Mann an 5-1- -71 () 3 :architects, PLC In O=oCICtion with • / � ` S \ a • C J 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 i+l 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 501-770.9208 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 River Frank Porbeck, Chairman Market°� Greg Hart, Member v Design 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 assigns 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. Shawn Spencer DRC Staff CK O U W w w O H w U) a U- 0 0 Q O m .3 Iff -�Il- w Q Z 0 w �Q � o H w y_ i- 0 O QoCDcU)< C) UJ LL � ¢ (D : LU W Q� o Z Q Z Qv�cr- LL CD Q U j -�Il- w Q Z 0 w �Q � o H O w F- o o z o ( `t Q Z Qv�cr- w LL ul � ry- Z U Z > Q (D ::D_ m 1— � LL � C Q U -�Il- w Q Z 0 w �Q December 17, 2001 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:16 p.m. Date: <=> 2'0' 20D 2 Chairman