boa_01 31 2000r '. /r ....-.... x..14.. ..w •.. i .. � .. -� .
r!
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JANUARY 31, 2000
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 December 27, 1999 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman
William Ruck, Vice Chairman
Norm Floyd
Scott Richburg
Fred Gray
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JANUARY 31, 2000
2:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEM
A. Z -6689-B 300 East Markham Street
II. VARIANCE ITEM
1. Z -3458-A 9720 I-30
III. OTHER MATTER
2. Z -3915-B 12024 1-30; Paving Deferral Time Extension
%VNaVd ANON
� W
U �
Pr _
fQPRN'� a
2�
I V!
simn Alto
NVOS M9 N"
a T�
Slimil Airj30(
tV -
H
e
T
O
co
O
m
Jan'U-.cy 31, 2000
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:
Z -6689-B
Olde Towne, Inc.
300 East Markham
Part of Block 35, Original City of
Little Rock
GB
Variances are requested from
the sign location, appearance,
lettering and illumination
provisions of Section 36-353 (River
Market Design Guidelines).
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Former warehouse building now being
remodeled.
Retail Shops and Restaurant
No issues associated with this sign variance.
B. Staff Analvsis:
Vesta's is a new retail business which has opened in the
newly remodeled building located at 300 East Markham Street,
in the River Market District. Vesta's occupies the corner
of the building which fronts onto East Markham and
Cumberland/LaHarpe. Signs have been proposed for the
business which exceed ordinance standards for the River
Market District.
A 4' X 8' (32 sq. ft.) wall mounted sign has been placed on
the west hall, facing Cumberland/LaHarpe. Section 36-
353(c)(2)a limits the size of signs in this area to 25
square feet.
Jan(i__ry 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
The letter "V" in "Vesta's on this same sign is 210" in
height. Section 36-353(c)(3)a limits the height of letters
to 1'6".
Signage is proposed to be placed on the perpendicular/
projecting architectural element on the Markham Street fagade.
Again, the letter "V" in "Vesta's is proposed to be 2'0" in
height, exceeding the maximum of 116" allowed by Section 36-
353 (c) (3) a.
The signage on this perpendicular/projecting sign will have
metal lettering which will be back -lit with neon to produce
a silhouette effect. Section 36-353(d)(4)b prohibits the
use of neon on projecting signs.
The last variance request concerns the number of proposed
signs. Section 36-353(c)(1)(b) limits businesses to a
total of 3 signs. Vesta's proposes a total of 5 signs;
the wall sign on the Cumberland fagade, the perpendicular/
projecting sign on the Markham Street fagade, 2 window signs
on the Markham Street fagade and 1 on the front door with
hours of operation.
The River Market Design Review Committee has discussed the
issue and recommends approval of the requested variances. A
copy of the Committee's report is attached. Staff concurs
with the Committee's recommendation.
The signage needs on the Cumberland/LaHarpe fagade are
different than elsewhere in the District. Signs on this
fagade face a heavily traveled state highway which is not as
pedestrian oriented as the remainder of the District. The
minor sign area and lettering variances for the sign on the
west fagade should have no effect on other area businesses.
The "esta's" part of the lettering on the perpendicular/
projecting sign on the Markham fagade is 6" in height, well
below the allowable 1'6". Only the "V" in "Vesta's" exceeds
116" in height, being 210" tall. Staff believes the overall
appearance of the sign is appropriate, considering the
reduced size of the majority of the lettering.
Neon is not permitted to be the main source of light,
illumination is to be from a concealed source of light or a
decorative source. The neon will be installed in the back
of the channel letters on the perpendicular/projecting
E
i
Janu"ry 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.
signs, producing a silhouette effect. The neon will not be
visible.
Vesta's proposes to have 2 small, window signs, which when
added to the other proposed signs, exceed the allowable 3
signs per business. The small window signs are at street
level, to serve the pedestrian traffic on East Markham
Street. These signs will not exceed 16" in height and the
lettering will be of an unobtrusive dark color.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign location,
appearance, lettering and illumination variances subject to
the signs being designed in the size and color as proposed
by the applicant and approved by the River Market Design
Review Committee.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 27, 1999)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
One letter of opposition from an area property owner had been
received.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had failed to
complete the required notification procedure and the item needed
to be deferred to the January 31, 2000 meeting. The item was
placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote
of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 31, 2000)
Gary Langlais abstained on this issue. Jamie Moses was present
representing the application. There were no objectors present.
One letter of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded
to the Board. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval subject to the signs being designed in the size and
color as proposed by the applicant and approved by the River
Market Design Review Committee. It was noted that the Design
Review Committee had determined that the addition of a "light"
border around the word "Vesta's" on the Markham Street windows
met the original agreement between the applicant and the DRC.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Moses what the status was of a temporary,
"easel" sign located in front of Vesta's. Mr. Moses responded
3
Jan,ary 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
that he did not know. Mr. Gray informed Mr. Moses that he was
sure a permit was needed for the temporary sign.
Norm Floyd asked why some of the requested signs had been erected
prior to approval having been given and permits issued. Mr.
Moses responded that some signs were put up prior to Christmas to
advertise the business for that important retail season.
Williams Ruck asked Mr. Moses to present some justification for
the requested variances. Mr. Moses responded that the site was
on a corner and had two facades, not one as many businesses in
the River Market District. He also noted that the store fronted
onto a state highway on one side.
Norm Floyd commented that the galvanized material used on the
architectural projection on the Markham Street fagade appeared to
be deteriorating. Mr. Moses responded that the material would
not be allowed to deteriorate or to become dangerous.
Mr. Floyd stated that he would prefer to vote separately on the
variance issues. During the subsequent discussion, the Board
determined that it would vote on three issues:
1.The variances associated with the wall sign on the
Cumberland/LaHarpe Frontage.
2.The variances associated with the sign on the projecting,
architectural element on the Markham Frontage.
3. The request to have a total of 5 signs.
A motion was made to approve the sign size and lettering
variances for the wall sign on the Cumberland/LaHarpe Frontage
subject to compliance with the condition proposed by staff. The
vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais).
The variances were approved.
A motion was made to approve the lettering size and use of neon
variances requested for the sign to be placed on the projecting,
architectural element on the Markham Street Frontage subject to
compliance with the condition proposed by staff. After the
second, Norm Floyd stated that he was opposed to this type of
sign, that he felt it was out of character for the River Market
District and did not meet the intent of the district. The vote
on the motion was 2 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining
(Langlais). The motion failed and the variances were denied.
A motion was made to approve the request to have a total of 5
signs subject to compliance with the condition proposed by staff.
4
l
January 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
After the second, Norm Floyd commented that the site did have two
frontages and perhaps additional signage was not unreasonable.
Fred Gray commented that the additional signage on the windows
and door would be directed to pedestrian traffic. Scott Richburg
stated that he was also in support of the request to have the
additional signs as proposed. William Ruck stated that he felt
the signage on the building was gaudy and not in keeping with the
River Market District but that he would accede to the Design
Review Committee on this issue. The vote on the motion was
4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). The motion
was approved.
5
WITTENBERG DELONY & DAVIDSON ARCHITECTS
November 24, 1999
Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Vesta's — a retail store in the Olde Towne Building
300 E. Markham St.
WD&D # 99024
Dear Dana,
Vesta's is the comer store of the 3 retail shops located along Markham Street. The store
also fronts LeHarpe/ Cumberland Street which is more traffic oriented. The existing sign
was placed on the LeHarpe Street side to be noticed by street traffic, therefore the sign
was made large enough to be seen at a distance. The logo is a proportional lettering with
a larger "V" in a cursive lettering spelling Vesta's. In trying to make the smaller letters
read the capitol "V" is increased to about 2'-0". We are asking a variance for the size of
the sign and the letter "V".
The perpendicular sign at the canopy will be the same size with the logo Vesta's made of
metal lettering with neon lighting backing each letter will produce a silhouette effect. We
have agreed to lower the sign letters below the building parapet. We are asking for a
variance on allowing neon and the size of the letter "V".
Finally, we would like to have 2 window signs and 1 on the front door with the hours of
business on it. We wanted to attract pedestrian traffic and the other two signs are geared
more to vehicular traffic. We feel the window signs are similar to the other window signs
in the River Market area. The window sign letter "V" will not exceed 16" and the logo
will be proportionate to the others. The door sign area size will not exceed 8.5"x 11 ".
These signs will be purple vinyl letters with the logo/ letterhead. We would like to ask
for a variance on the number of signs allowed for this business, especially since it is on
the corner of such an important intersection.
If you have any questions please call.
Sincerely,
WI TE BERG, DELONY & DAVIDSON, INC.
Cha Y ung, Project Designer
c: Mr. Ret Tucker
400 W. CAPITOL AVENUE. SUITE 1800
Ln7LE ROCK. AR 7220 1-485 7
501/376.6681
501/376-0231 FAX
River Greg Hart, Chairman
Market Christie Godwin, Member
Design Larry Jacimore, Member
Reviw FrankPorbeck, Member
it Committe Don Renshaw, Member
Planning and Development • 723 West Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201 • 501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863
January 28, 2000
Mr. Langlais, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Chairman Langlais and Board Members,
I have been in contact with the River Market Design Review Committee concerning the alteration of
signs previously agreed upon at 300 East Markham. The DRC has determined that the addition of a
white border around the word "Vesta's", on the Markham Street windows, meets the original
agreement between the applicant and the DRC. The committee members did comment that it would
have been appropriate for the applicant to appear before the Board of Adjustment and apply for a sign
permit before mounting the signs to the storefront.
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
December 9, 1999
Mr. Langlais, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Chairman Langlais and Board Members,
The River Market Design Review Committee (DRC) has discussed the issues concerning the
recommendations to the Board of Adjustment for the signs at 300 East Markham. The first sign is the
4'x8' Vesta's sign that faces Highway 10. DRC members felt that this sign is more vehicular
oriented and should be allowed to exceed the requirements within the ordinance. The west fagade of
the building at 300 East Markham is the only building within the District that has a large amount of
traffic running perpindicular to the fagade. The second issue with this sign is the `V' in Vesta's
exceeds the limits set by the ordinance. `Vesta's' is a logo and the `V' is proportioned to the other
letters in the word. Since the sign is larger to be seen by vehicular traffic the "esta's" had to increase
in size, thus making the `V' exceed the limit. The DRC also recommends approval on this waiver.
The second sign in question is a perpendicular sign on Markham Street. The `V' in this sign also
exceeds the limit set in the ordinance. To make the "esta's" readable the `V' has to be enlarged. The
second issue with this sign is the use of neon. Neon as the main design of the sign is not allowed.
The applicant in this case is using neon as a source of light. The neon tubes will not be seen from the
street. DRC members feel that the use of neon in this situation is proper and would recommend that
this sign be issued a waiver.
The third sign(s) in question are window signs facing Markham. The applicant is asking for two
additional signs for a total of five — the ordinance allows three per business. The applicant stated that
these signs would be of a dark purple vinyl (as in her existing logo). Since the letters are of a very
dark color the DRC members felt that allowing these two signs would be appropriate. The DRC
members felt that a lighter color or brighter colors would not be appropriate in this situation: Both
signs shall not exceed 16" in height. DRC members feel that these signs would be appropriate and
would recommend that a waiver should be issued.
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 �✓`'
12/03 14:01 FAX 501 565 2228 Ellis Melton Co /
MELTON PROPERTIES, LLC
301-307 East Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
December 3, 1999
Members of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment
c/o Dana Carney
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
VIA FACSIMILE 371-6863
Re: Application for sign variance 300 East Markham — Vesta's
Dear Sirs:
We own property at 301-307 East Markham, across the street from the property asking
for the sign variance.
The River Market District has sign rules to protect the integrity of the District. We are
opposed to lifting those restrictions as long each business gets street signage.
We are against the awarding of the variance for size of the letters. The 1'6" letter height
limit has-been determined to be adequate to read from the street.
We are opposed to the variance for extending signage above the eave height. This
extension of the sign above the eave serves no purpose in helping this merchant
advertise his store.
Each of the tenants in our building would like a larger, more visible sign. But, they kept
their signs within the design limitations established by the Overlay District and we think
other businesses should do the same.
In our opinion, the intent of the sign codes for the District has been stretched to the limit
at 300 East Markham by putting architectural features, that by any measure are just
signs, into the design of the front fagade of the building. These "signs" exceed both the
allowable sign size and placement codes for the District.
Sincerely,
Presley Melton
Janry 31, 2000
Item No.: 1
File No.: Z -3458-A
Owner: Mark Riable, Ltd.
Address: 9720 I-30
Description: Long Legal; part of SW 1-,4, Section
35, T -1-N, R -13-W, City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
C-4
A variance is requested from
the area regulations of Section 36-
302 to permit construction of a new
building with a reduced rear yard
setback of 15 feet.
Due to the required right-of-way
dedication, the parking
requirements and the shallow depth
of the lot, the building needs to
be constructed nearer the rear
property line.
Commercial
New, office -warehouse building
1. Warehouse Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street. A dedication of right-of-way to 30
feet from centerline is required.
With Building Permit
2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to
this street including 5 -foot sidewalk with planned
development.
Jan _ry 31, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
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. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 210 or Ordinance 18,031.
This site is permitted to have only one driveway.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, 7,500
square foot, office -warehouse building on the C-4 zoned
property located at 9720 I-30. The property actually fronts
onto Warehouse Road, approximately 300 feet north of the
I-30 Frontage Road. The building is proposed to have a rear
yard setback of 15 feet at one corner. The code requires a
rear yard setback of 25 feet for this C-4 zoned lot.
Staff believes the variance request to be reasonable. The
tract is fairly wide but is shallow. After the required
right-of-way is dedicated, the lot will be 126 feet deep on
the south and 163 feet deep on the north. Moving one corner
of the building slightly to the east will allow for
installation of the required parking and landscaping in the
front. Only the southern corner of the building is proposed
to have the reduced setback of 15 feet. From that point,
the building angles away from the property line so that the
north end of the structure meets the required 25 foot
setback. All other required setbacks are met or exceeded.
An area of fairly dense shrubbery and other vegetation is
located behind the proposed building to provide some
screening of the site. This area of trees and shrubbery is
to remain. A private road is beyond the shrubbery,
providing additional separation from the C-4 and I-2 zoned
properties to the east. The applicant also owns these
properties.
There are other issues unrelated to the setback variance
which must be resolved prior to issuance of a building
permit. The 6 foot high wood fence indicated around the
dumpster must be changed to 8 feet in height. The perimeter
landscaping strip on the south falls below the minimum of 4
feet (3 feet indicated). This area must be increased. The
major issue concerns the driveways onto Warehouse Road. The
applicant proposes to utilize the two, existing driveways.
Current city code allows only one driveway. This issue will
have to be resolved with Public Works. It may require a
waiver by the Board of Directors to allow the two proposed
driveways. If it is ultimately determined that only one
2
Jan"ary 31, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
driveway is permitted, the site plan will have to be
modified. Again, these issues do not affect the variance
issue before the Board of Adjustment.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waivers of those requirements as may be
granted by the Board of Directors.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
3. The existing trees and shrubbery are to remain between
the parking lot and building and the eastern perimeter,
as indicated on the site plan.
4.A final, revised site plan addressing the issues raised
by staff must be submitted and approved prior to issuance
of a building permit.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 31, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above. Condition no. 1 was amended by staff to
read:
"Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waivers of those requirements as may be
granted by the Board of Directors or the Public
Works Department Director."
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3
Jai—ary 31, 2000
Item No.: 2
File No.: Z -3915-B
Name: CalArk Trucking
Address: 12024 I-30
Type of Issue: 12 month extension of a previously
granted 24 month deferral of the
paving requirements of Section
36-508.
Staff Report:
CalArk Trucking Company is located at 12024 I-30; a 30± acre, C-4
zoned tract bounded by Otter Creek Road on the north and I-30 on
the southeast. The trucking company is located on the western
22± acres of the tract. On November 24, 1997, the Board of
Adjustment granted a two year deferral of the paving requirements
of Section 36-508, allowing the trucking company to utilize a
gravel parking area for the company's trucks and employee
vehicles. There was some question, at that time, of a possible
realignment of the Otter Creek Road overpass over I-30 which
could have affected this site. That two year deferral expired on
November 24, 1999. CalArk is now asking that the paving deferral
be extended for one additional year.
On November 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a
preliminary plat, dividing the easternmost 8± acres of the site
into 4 lots which are to be sold for potential development by
other parties. CalArk states it is uncertain how the truck
terminal facility will be "laid out" on the remaining property.
It appears that the possible realignment of the overpass is no
longer an issue. The 4 lot plat was approved without the
realignment issue being of concern, other than for some specific
driveway placement.
Although staff is anxious to see CalArk's property properly
developed with required paving and landscaping, it does not
appear that allowing some additional time is unreasonable. The
site has a long history of some use of unimproved vehicular use
areas. There are no other uses immediately adjacent to the site
which could be impacted by the time extension. Staff believes it
is appropriate to limit the extension to run until November 24,
2000, 12 months from the expiration of the previous deferral.
i
January 31, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a 12 month extension of the
previously granted 24 month deferral of the paving requirements
of Section 36-508 subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments as outlined in the
November 24, 1997 minutes of case no. Z -3915-B.
2. The extension is to run only until November 24, 2000.
3. By November 24, 2000, the property is to be paved and
landscaped to comply with applicable city codes or use of the
unpaved area is to cease.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 31, 2000)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. It was
noted that Public Works Comments were relevant only when
development occurs on the site.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
K
December 21, 1999
Mr. Dana Carney
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Extension of Zoning Variance
Dear Mr. Carney:
lArk
ec00,---
ci
I would like to request an extension to the zoning variance granted to CalArk in
November 1997.
The reason for the request to extend is that we are in the process of selling a
portion of the property, approximately 7 acres, for retail development and it is
uncertain at this point how we will layout the truck terminal facility. Therefore,
I would like to extend the variance for an additional 12 months.
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(501)455-3399.
Sincerely,
huck Reimer
President
CR/vh
The wheels of
American business
P.O. Box 990
Mabelvale, AR 72103-0990
501/455-3399
800/444-3399
501/455-5241 FAX
November 24, 1997
Item No.• 2
File No.
Owner•
Address•
Description:
Zoned•
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report•
A. Public Works Issues:
Z -3915-B
Thomas Bartholomew/Cal Ark Trucking
12024 I-30_.
Long Legal, part of the NW 1/4, NW
1/4, Section 9, T -1-S, R -13-W
C-4
A variance is requested from the
pavement requirements of Section
36-508 to permit a 24 month
deferral of paving.
Development of the property cannot
be completed until the Arkansas
Highway Department finalizes plans
for redevelopment of the Otter
Creek/I-30 Interchange.
Undeveloped
Expansion of trucking facility
1. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood
hazard permit, and a special grading permit for flood
hazard areas is required. Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) and National
Pollution and Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit are required.
2. Provide striping and signage plans for the development
for Traffic Engineering approval.
.3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5. A dedication of right-of-way for Otter Creek Road will
be required to 45 feet from centerline for this 5 lane
minor arterial.
6. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards with any planned
construction.
7. Otter Creek Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count
of 3000.
8. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage.
9. Provide with proposed street construction:
November 24, 1997
Item No • 2 (Cont.)
a. Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).
b. Street cross sections of proposed streets at 100'
stations.
c. Street profiles showing existing and proposed
centerlines.
d. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming_to.Sec.. 317175
and the "MSP".
e. Utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way
shall be per Article V of Sec. 30.
•f. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec.
31-403.
g. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
h. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway
right-of-way.
10. Each frontage street is 21 feet with 3 foot shoulders
without sidewalk.
H. Staff Analysis:
Cal Ark Trucking occupies the C-4 zoned property located at
12024 I-30. The property is located at the I-30/Otter Creek
Interchange. Cal Ark is requesting a 24 month deferral of
the paving requirement of Section 36-508 to allow continued
use of a gravel parking area.
Cal Ark intends to fully comply with the City's paving
requirements. They cannot however make long-term plans for
the use of the property until the Arkansas Highway
Department has decided on a definite design for a new I-
30/Otter Creek Interchange. It is possible that a
substantial portion of this site will be absorbed into the
new interchange for access roads and exit/entrance ramps.
An aerial photograph has been submitted by the applicant
showing the potential road alignment.
Staff believes it is reasonable to grant the 24 month
deferral. The site has had some unimproved area used as
truck parking since before it was annexed into the City.
The potential is there for the applicant to construct an
expensive paved and landscaped parking area only to have it
destroyed by realignment of the interchange.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the 24 month deferral of the
paving requirements of Section 36-508 subject to compliance
with Public works Comments.
2
November 24, 1997
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(NOVEMBER 24, 1997)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with Public Works Comments. The applicant offered
no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and
2 open positions.
W
� I
0
W
w
Fw—
O
F -
z
w
M
� V
a
o0
m
Q
'1J
f'-
C
i�
a
a
u �
a�
3 �
3
� V
z
CIC
O
Q
z
w
m
m
Q
a
Ll
Q
z
O
CWC
G
Z O W u
LLI
Q z — °z Q
LL
Lu >- y
g O Q ly-z v
� LL 0 Of
v�
s
m
C
i�
a
a
u �
a�
3 �
3
� V
z
CIC
O
Q
z
w
m
m
Q
a
Ll
Q
z
O
CWC
G
Z O W u
LLI
Q z — °z Q
LL
Lu >- y
g O Q ly-z v
� LL 0 Of
January 31, 2000
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Date
i
An"
Chairm