boa_07 31 2000LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
JULY 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 June 26, 2000 meeting were
approved as mailed by unanimous vote.
III. Members Present: Gary Langlais, Chairman
William Ruck, Vice Chairman
Norm Floyd
Fred Gray
Scott Richburg
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Debbie Weldon
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
JULY 31, 2000
2.00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEM
A.
Z-6855
5500
Pinnacle Valley Road
B.
Z -6689-C
300
East Markham
C.
Z-6870
1123
Kavanaugh Blvd.
II. NEW ITEMS
1.
Z -4463-C
8100 West Markham Street
2.
Z -5889-A
7715 Geyer Springs Road
3.
Z-6873
#3 Shannon Drive
4.
Z-6874
815 Thomas Street
5.
Z-6875
1705 Fair Park Blvd.
6.
Z-6877
112 Normandy Road
7.
Z-6878
12th and University, NE corner
8.
Z-6879
1424 Point West Drive
9.
Z-6880
1310 Cantrell Road
10.
Z-6881
8306 Reymere Drive
11.
Z-6882
5918 "C" Street
12.
Z-6887
18 Honey Bear Court
0
0
0
—
3NId
a31Ztla3
1
11Otl81H1
`
Jd�y
tj
r,
�' gpV1p
NtlWa30
-
�
-
._— Q::-
o
NIVW
AV
HOaV
N°1/yp
S3H0
83H380 4
ONIN IN
—
0
MO6000M
3NId
_
3NId
aV 0
NO1lIWV 11095
A8 6IV3
(V
y/
AlISa3hINn
ro
TF A ISa3A1Nn
J
s`)Nlad 83A30
3H9nH
o
Iddlss IN
5
'P6
�
O
_
m 1001H0
Q
a10Aa3S3a
MONM NHOf
3
y2
`2
PE
3NN13H
—
aao33lN9vHs S
slaays
WVHWd A3N008
m
4—,
hJ NV
�
00
SilWll A110
�w 3001a ArvIA
pROt
o
./-QpEty'�PH
—
Q
o
o
�
v
NtlAlll05
laVM31S
/YS`db`V
�
0
5 VPS
S11Wil A11o�22�
CIO
31VONa33
0
f
Juls 31, 2000
Item No.: A
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z-6855
Daniel Clayton
5500 Pinnacle Valley Road
Lot "A", Berg Subdivision
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 and the building line
provisions of Section 31-12 to
permit a reduced front yard
setback.
Justification: The house is existing. The survey
used to construct the house
incorrectly indicated the building
line measured from the previous
right-of-way and did not account
for right-of-way dedication.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
A one-story, brick and frame, single family residence has
recently been constructed on the R-2 zoned property located
at 5500 Pinnacle Valley Road. The home was built with a
front yard setback of 15± feet and has been built across a
35 foot platted building line. The Code requires a 25 foot
front yard setback in the R-2 district. Variances are
requested to accommodate the existing residence.
Jul_ 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.
The hardship presented for the variances is obvious in that
the only other option is to remove a portion of the
residence. This .75 acre lot was platted in 1998 when an
11.76 acre tract was subdivided into 2 lots. Pinnacle
Valley Road is classified by the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial street and a 20 foot right-of-way dedication
was required to bring the right-of-way to 45 feet from the
centerline. Section 31-256(2) requires residential lots
fronting on a minor arterial street to have a building line
of not less than 35 feet from the right-of-way line. The
preliminary plat and the final plat for this lot were
approved with the appropriate right-of-way and building
line. Subsequently, a building permit was applied for to
construct a single family residence on the lot. The survey
submitted for the building permit was prepared by a
different firm than that one which prepared the plat.
Unbeknownst to all parties, the survey submitted for the
building permit measured all setbacks and the 35 foot
building line from the old right-of-way and did not take
into account the additional 20 feet of right-of-way
dedication. All clearances, permits and inspections were
made based on the erroneous survey. The error was not
discovered until after the house was constructed and an as -
built survey was prepared. Fortunately, only a relatively
small portion of the house is built across the platted
building line. The home's garage is located behind the
building line and is side -loaded, so that vehicles do not
back directly out of the structure into the right-of-way.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, and
building line variances subject to a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the building line as approved by
the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 22, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had not completed the
Pa
Ju. , 31, 2000
Item No.: A (Cont.)
required notices and had requested that the item be deferred to
the June 26, 2000 meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
June 26, 2000 meeting. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
deferral to the July 31, 2000 meeting due to ongoing discussions
between the builder, engineer and property owner.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to a one -lot replat reflecting
the change in the Building Line.
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
31, 2000
Item No.: B
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-C
Melissa Tanner/Vesta's
300 East Markham
Part of Block 35, Original City
GB
A variance is requested from the
sign provisions of Section 36-
353(a) to permit a sign which does
not conform to the River Market
Design Overlay District Guidelines.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Retail
Retail
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
This issue is before the Board as the result of action by
the Code Enforcement staff. Vesta's is a retail business
located in the recently remodeled building at 300 East
Markham Street. The site is located in the River Market
District. Vesta's occupies the corner of the building with
frontage on East Markham and Cumberland Streets. Vesta's
has been placing a small, easel -mounted sign within the
portico (recessed entry) of the business. The River Market
District Design Overlay regulations specifically address
allowable signage. The Overlay regulates the number,
location and appearance of signs within the District. The
easel sign does not conform to district standards. Signage
is specifically limited to walls and awnings within the
District. Free standing signage is not permitted.
Jul. 31, 2000
Item No.: B (Cont.
The sign is approximately 2' X 3' in size and is placed upon
an easel. The applicant states the sign will only be placed
out during business hours and will be placed in the portico
so that it does not obstruct the sidewalk. The sign will be
used to show that the store is open, to advertise River
Market events and to advertise store specials.
The River Market Design Review Committee voted to allow the
sign subject to three conditions:
1. The sign is not to be placed in the right-of-way.
2. The sign is to only be placed outside during normal
working hours.
3. The sign is not to advertise prices of items.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance to allow
the sign. Although the sign is within the portico (recessed
entry) of the building, it is still a temporary sign.
Temporary signs are not permitted in the City without a
special event permit. Staff is concerned that the precedent
which could be set by allowing this sign could lead to a
proliferation of similar signs in the area. On December 27,
1999, this applicant appeared before the Board with an
application for multiple sign variances for sign size,
lettering size, illumination and to have a total of 5 signs.
Each business is limited to no more than 3 signs in the
River Market District. The Board approved some, but not
all, of the variances requested. The Board did approve the
request to have 5 signs. This proposed easel sign would
bring that total to 6 signs, 3 more than permitted in the
District. Vesta's now has as much, if not more, signage
than other businesses in the District.
The Purpose and Intent section of the River Market District
Design Overlay states, in part:
"Buildings, signs, street furnishings and
landscaping should all be designed to
complement and encourage pedestrian use during
the day and at night. Careful planning is
necessary to ensure the proper placement of
such items to avoid visual clutter.
Visual clutter is not a major problem in the
district at present, but good planning
anticipates and prepares for future problems,
2
July 31, 2000
Item No.: B (Cont.)
especially in consideration of positive
economic development. Guidelines and
strategies must be in place to protect the
district from the negative impact of poorly
planned or incompatible projects.
Incompatible development has the potential to
destroy the attributes which will attract
people to the district."
It is staff's opinion that the proposed sign violates the
purpose and intent of the River Market District.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested
deferral of the item due to a death in her family. The required
notices had not been completed.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 2000)
Gary Langlais abstained on this item.
The applicant, Melissa Tanner, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation
of denial. It was noted that the River Market Design Review
Committee had submitted a letter of support on Ms. Tanner's
behalf. In that letter, the committee had suggested three
conditions to be attached to approval of the sign.
Ms. Tanner addressed the Board in support of her variance. She
stated that although she had 5 signs, they were smaller than
other signs in the district. Ms. Tanner stated that the easel
sign was also used to advertise convention center and River
Market activities.
Fred Gray expressed concern about the number of signs already
approved for "Vestals" and asked Ms. Tanner if she would consider
"swapping -out" one of her previously approved signs for this
3
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: B (Cont.)
easel sign. Ms. Tanner responded that she would prefer not to
lose one of her existing signs.
Scott Richburg asked about several other temporary signs he had
seen in the River Market area. Ronyha O'Neal, of the Code
Enforcement Staff, responded that those signs would be
investigated by the staff.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Tanner stated that
the sign was of no real financial benefit to her business but
that it added to the atmosphere of the River Market.
There was a brief discussion of the possibility of redoing the
existing "Vestals" signs and of removing the word "Vestals" from
the easel sign.
A motion was made to allow the easel sign without the word
"Vestals" and subject to compliance with the 3 conditions
proposed by the River Market Design Review Committee. The vote
was 2 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais). The
item was automatically deferred to the August 28, 2000 meeting.
4
2-667C, -r-
�esta s
Friday, May 19, 2000
City of Little Rock, Department of Planning and Development
723 WestMarkham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Requestfor Zoning Variance (Sign)
This application is for a variance to place a sign within the portico of the entrance of Vesta -s Gifts
at 300 East Markham in The River Market District.
The proposed sign is approximately 2 feet by 3 feet and is placed upon an easel.
The sign will only be placed during business hours.
The entrance portico was specifically designed to accommodate such a sign without obstructing
the sidewalk.
The sign will be used to 1)show that the store is open; 2)advertise River Market events; and
3)advertise store specials.
Although the River Market District has been open for several years, it is only recently that
retailers have opened stores in the area. This sign is essential to advertise that the store is now open and
no longer a warehouse.
I believe that such portable signs that are not obstructing the sidewalk, are of modest size, and not
electrical or automated are within the spirit and decor of this area.
Sincerely,
Melissa Tanner, Owner
Melssa 9anner, Owner 300 East Markham River -market Littce Rock, -qA 72201
( Z-GC,6gi-C_
River Greg Hart, Chairman
Market Larry Jacimore, Member
Design Frank Porbeck, Member
Review Don Renshaw, Member
Committee 'Christie Godwin, Member
Planning andDevelopment • 723 W. Markham • Little Rock • Arkansas • 72201.501-371-4790 • fax 371-6863
June 12, 2000
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 met and discussed the temporary sign for
`Vesta's' at 300 East Markham. The DRC feels that it would be appropriate to allow Ms. Tanner to
place a temporary sign in her vestibule to advertise events in the River Market District and to
advertise any specials in her store. The DRC did place three conditions on their recommendation: the
sign is not to be placed in the right of way, the sign is only to be placed outside during normal
working hours, and the sign is not to advertise prices of items (ie. "shirts $9.99" not allowed, but
"shirts on sale" would be allowed.
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
0
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: C
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6870
Kathryn Karr
1123 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Parts of Lots 11 and 12, Block 8,
Midland Hills
R-3
Variances are requested from
the accessory structure area and
separation provisions of Section
36-156 and the area regulations of
Section 36-255.
The reduced size of this lot
creates the need for the variances.
The buildable area is limited by
the slope of the property.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-3 zoned lot located at 1123 Kavanaugh Blvd. is
occupied by a two-story, frame, single-family residence.
The applicant proposes to construct a bathroom addition onto
the west side of the house, resulting in a reduced side yard
setback of 3 feet. The Code requires a side yard setback of
5 feet for this lot. The applicant also proposes to
construct a 12' X 20', freestanding carport structure in
front of the house. This carport will have a front yard
setback of 18 feet and will be separated from the residence
by 2 feet. The Code requires a front yard setback of 60
JulJ 31, 2000
Item No.: C (Cont.)
feet for accessory structures and requires that they be
separated from the principle structure by at least 6 feet.
There are circumstance unique to this property that justify
some relief from the literal provisions of the code. The
property itself is small, with side lot lengths of 60 feet
and 98 feet. The property slopes down rather severely from
both Kavanaugh Blvd. and Charles Street, leaving a level
building pad only in the area immediately in front of the
house.
The minor variance requested for the bathroom addition
should have no impact on adjacent properties. The proposed
setback ranges from 3 feet to 4.5 feet for the 8' X 9'
bathroom addition. The distance between the applicant's
home and the home on the adjacent lot increases from the
front of the lots to the rear. At the point where the
bathroom addition is proposed, there is 20± feet between the
two homes.
Staff does have concerns about the proposed location for the
carport structure. This lot and the adjacent property have
abutting driveways. The applicant proposes to place the
carport over her portion of the driveway. The house on the
adjacent property sits much closer to the street; within
10'-12' of the sidewalk. The front door on this adjacent
home faces the side property line, not the front. The
effect is that the applicant's proposed carport would be in
front of the neighbor's front door. Staff believes a better
alternative would be to turn the carport 900 so that it
would be parallel, not perpendicular, to the applicant's
home and to pull it away from the side property line. By
making those adjustments and keeping the carport closer to
the front of the applicant's home, the impact on the
neighboring property could be reduced.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance to allow the proposed bathroom addition.
Staff does not recommend approval of the setback and
separation variances to allow the carport in the location
proposed by the applicant.
2
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: C (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had notified only 4
persons, those whose property directly abutted her own or were
located across the street. After a brief discussion, the Board
determined that the applicant had failed to provide proper notice
as stipulated by the Board's Bylaws.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the
July 31, 2000 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to
complete the required notices. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has amended the request by turning the proposed
carport 900 so that it is parallel to not perpendicular to her
home and has moved the structure away from the west property
line. Staff now recommends approval of the variance requests
subject to the carport structure remaining open and unenclosed on
all sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the required notices had been
completed. Staff recommended approval of the amended application
subject to the carport structure remaining open and unenclosed on
all sides.
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
July 31, 2000
Item No.: 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Z -4463-C
Coulson Properties Limited
Partnership
8100 West Markham Street
Long Legal
C-3
A variance is requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-301
to permit construction of a
building with a reduced rear yard
setback.
Justification: 1) A proposed CLR drainage project
and drainage easement will require
removal of the existing canopy
and prohibits replacement in an
acceptable central location.
2) Open drainage ditch prohibits
providing parking along in the
eastern area of the site as
alternative location to front area.
3) Site depth prohibits placing
parking in front area and adequate
building depth without encroachment
into rear yard area.
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
Vacant commercial building, to be
removed.
New, one-story, 4,800 square feet
commercial building
1. Right-of-way shown conforms with "MSP".
2. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage requested.
f
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.)
3. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and
the "MSP".
4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031. Driveway location shown has been approved by
Public Works.
5. Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual" is required.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property located at 8100 West Markham is
currently occupied by a one-story, block building and a
detached canopy. The property was formerly the site of a
convenience store with gas pumps. The applicant proposes to
remove the existing structures and construct a new, 4,800
square foot, one-story building. The site will be
completely redeveloped, with new driveway, parking and
landscaping. The proposed new building is to have a rear
yard setback of 15 feet. The code requires a rear yard
setback of 25 feet in the C-3 district. No other variances
are requested from the Board of Adjustment.
Staff is supportive of the proposal. The property is
relatively shallow for a commercial lot (1341) and is
impacted by the presence of a large drainage easement that
bisects the site. This large drainage easement, which
consists of both an open ditch and an underground culvert,
limits the buildable area of the site. Parking may be
constructed over that portion of the easement containing the
underground culvert. Pushing the building slightly to the
rear of the lot allows adequate room for parking to be
placed in front of the structure. The R-5 zoned property to
the rear of the site is occupied by an apartment complex. A
6.5 foot tall wood fence separates the two properties. A
large parking lot is located on that portion of the
apartment property closest to the proposed new commercial
building. Allowing the reduced rear yard setback should
have no effect on the abutting property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
2
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waiver as may be granted by the Director of
Public Works or the Board of Directors.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
Robert Brown was present -representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
3
July 31, 2000
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:
With Building Permit:
Z -5889-A
Gary Johnson
7715 Geyer Springs Road
Long Legal
C-4, with conditions
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-302
and the buffer requirements of
Section 36-522.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Retail audio store
Same, with addition of truck
accessory sales
1. Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP", (90 feet
or 45 feet from centerline for Geyer Springs Road right-
of-way) .
2. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and
the "MSP".
3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5. Remove closed driveway on Geyer Springs Road frontage.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-4 zoned property at 7715 Geyer Springs Road is
occupied by a one-story commercial building and a detached
canopy. The building is home to "Almost Everything", a
{
July 31, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
retail car audio store. The applicant wishes to add a truck
accessory line of merchandise and proposes to expand the
building to accommodate the increased inventory. The
proposal is to construct additions onto both the north and
south ends of the building, maintaining the structure's
existing 4± foot rear yard setback. The additions will
result in street -side yard setbacks of 1.5 feet on the north
and south. The code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet
and street side yard setbacks of 45 feet in the C-4
district. The code also requires street and rear yard
buffers of 6 feet for this site.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Allowing
the reduced setback on the north will result in the building
being located 20± feet from the curb of Young Road. A large
grassy area is located between the street and the property
line. The property abuts the I-30 exit ramp on the south.
The proposed addition on this side of the building will
result in a setback of 20± feet from the ramp with a grassy
strip also being located between the pavement and the south
property line. The property adjacent to the east is
occupied by a single family residence. The residence's
carport is located on the end of the house closest to the
commercial site. The existing commercial building now has a
setback of 4± feet on the east. Allowing the proposed
additions to maintain the existing reduced setback should
have no greater impact on the abutting residential property
and may actually create a better buffer from the noise and
traffic on Geyer Springs Road. Staff believes there should
be no openings in the rear of the new additions, allowing
the building to further function as a screen. There is also
a 6 foot tall, wood privacy fence along the property line
between the two properties.
At the time this site was rezoned to C-4 in 1994, the Board
of Directors attached several conditions to the zoning.
This proposal will not affect those conditions which will
continue to remain in effect. A copy of the Board's action
is attached.
This level of building expansion will likely require an
upgrade in landscaping. The applicant must provide required
landscaping or seek a variance from the City Beautiful
Commission.
2
I
Jui, 31, 2000
Item No.: 2 (Cont.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
buffer variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variance or waivers as may be granted by the Director of
Public Works or the Board of Directors.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance including
any variance or waivers as may be granted by the City
Beautiful Commission.
3. There are to be no openings (doors or windows) in the
east wall of the new additions adjacent to the
residential property.
4. All activity is to take place within the enclosed
building. There is to be no installation of auto -truck
parts and accessories outside of the building.
S. Continued compliance with the conditions attached to the
rezoning of the property as stipulated in Ordinance No.
16,824 is required.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 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.
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
To Whom It. May Concern:
We, Don and Linda. Anderson, have a business in Little Rock at.
7715 Geyer Springs Rd. The property is owned by Gary Johnson
whom we lease said property from. We have a. retail car audio store
located there. We have 4 other locations. At all of our locations,
we have car audio and truck accessories. We wish to add our truck
accessory line to the Little Rock location, therefore generating more
revenue for Little Rock and the State of .Arkansas. Mr. Johnson has
agreed to sell the property to us, but as it stands now, the building is
too small to accomodate our truck accessories and would therefore
not be any help or profitable to us. We would like to add onto each
end of the building, therefore making it large enough to carry our
full line of merchandise. The sale of the property depends on this.
If we cannot expand the building, we cannot buy the property.
Please consider this recominendation. It will benefit everyone. I
appreciate your help and consideration in this matter.
Regards:
Linda Anderson
ALMOST EVERYTHING
7715 Geyer Springs Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72209
SOI -5E? -9 '00
ORDINANCE NO. 16,824
AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS AS C-4 WITH CONDITIONS,
AMENDING SECTION 36 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS,
SECTION 1. That the zone classification of the following
property be and is hereby changed as indicated:
Z-588 - Described as part of the SW 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of Section 31, T -1-N, R -12-W, City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point which is the intersection of
the East right-of-way of Geyer Springs Road and
the South right -of' -way of Young Road, and is 18.7
feet South and 30.0 feet East of the NW corner of
the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4, Section 31, T -1-N, R -12-
W; thence S87011'47"E along the South right-of-way
of Young Road, 181.0 feet to a found concrete
filled 2" pipe on the North right-of-way of
Interstate 30; thence N870171W, 114.4 feet along
said North right-of-way; thence N41051'W, 94.38
feet to the intersection of the East right-of-way
of Geyer Springs Road, thence NO°E along said East
right-of-way, 64.0 feet to the Point of Beginning,
containing 0.49 acres more or less from R-2 Single
Family to C-4 Open Display. (7715 Geyer Springs).
SECTION 2. That the map referred in Section 36 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock and designated district
map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects
necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in
Section 1 hereof. The conditions are attached to the ordinance
as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. That the ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED: Decer.Lber 28, 1994
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Rob ie Hancock Mayor J n Dailey
{rn
GEY1=R SPRINGS ROAD
-----------
RIGHT -OF -MY
• a Ci
Ul
/ o l cl
m
f' �Mpx �
I
I• a 'I
/ I
�rn
. MIXING
I
ro-i
uno
1 �
EXISTING WOOD FENCE
o mo
>, >
Ord. #16,8241
r
--.I
EXHIBIT
A
W
to ixj
(r
n
C)
�t'�'inxt`+n�
l ^ r
cn
xaa0
t�N
x
4
'
U�
I
-�PO
o�
0
oa
>vi
tr
'�
�•
�
z
x
d
ra
o mo
>, >
Ord. #16,8241
r
--.I
EXHIBIT
A
(r
n
I
r
V7
l ^ r
t�N
4
I
ata
n
oa
tr
--.I
��
V7
C)
t�N
ata
oa
0
Jui s 31, 2000
Item No.: 3
File No.: Z-6873
Owner: B. D. and June Starkey
Address: #3 Shannon Drive
Description: Lot 2 and North ',� of Lot 3,
Paschel Heights
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from
the accessory structure area
and separation requirements of
Section 36-156.
Justification: The applicant desires to have
additional covered parking beyond
the existing one -car carport. The
structure cannot be moved back to
the required setback because of a
swimming pool.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at #3 Shannon Drive is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family
residence. The residence has a small, single -car carport.
The applicant proposes to construct a detached, two -car
garage south of the house. The garage will have a front
yard setback of 30 feet and will be separated from the house
by 2-3 feet. The code requires accessory structures to have
a front yard setback of at least 60 feet and a separation
from the principal structure of 6 feet.
Jug, 31, 2000
Item No.: 3 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
proposed garage is to be built in line with the front wall
of the home and will be constructed in an architectural
style that complements the house. The structure cannot be
pushed further into the rear yard because of the presence of
a swimming pool and deck. The structure will be located
nearly 50 feet from the edge of the street. A row of 5±
feet tall hedges is located along the south and street
perimeters of the property, lessening the visual impact of
the garage. If the garage structure were built as an
addition to the house rather than as a freestanding
structure, it would conform to or exceed all required
setbacks. Architectural constraints make it more desirable
to build the garage as a freestanding structure. Although
the garage is separated by only 2-3 feet from the house, the
separation is measured from an unenclosed patio, not the
main, enclosed body of the house. The reduced separation
should not be an issue of concern as long as the patio
remains unenclosed, allowing for ease of passage between the
structures.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
separation variances subject to the patio on the south side
of the house not being enclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to the patio on the south side of the house not being enclosed.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
1
July 31, 2000
Item No.: 4
File No.: Z-6874
Owner: Arkansas Painting and Specialties, Inc.
Address: 815 Thomas Street
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: I-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section 36-321
to permit construction of a new
building with reduced setbacks.
Justification:
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Commercial painting contractor
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial painting contractor
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
1. Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP", 60 feet
(30 feet from centerline on Thomas Street).
2. Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP",
(industrial improvement to Thomas).
3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4. Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual" is required.
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
B. Staff Analysis:
Arkansas Painting and Specialties/McCormick Painting and
Sandblasting is located on the I-3 zoned property at
815 Thomas Street. The site contains several buildings
in which this industrial painting company conducts its
f
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
business. The applicant proposes to construct a new, 24,100
square foot building on the site. The new building is to
replace two older buildings which are to be removed and one
building which was demolished by the January 1999 tornado.
The total square footage of the buildings to be removed or
which have been destroyed is 15,500 square feet. The
proposed new building is to have a rear yard setback of 5
feet and side yard setbacks on both the north and south of 5
feet. The code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet and
side yard setbacks of 30 feet in the I-3 district.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The
property is located in the older, East Little Rock
Industrial area and is surrounded by intense, I-3 Industrial
uses. The removal of the older buildings, which can only be
described as dilapidated, and the construction of a new
building in their place should improve the site. The
property abuts the Union Pacific Railroad's 100 foot right-
of-way on the east. Allowing the reduced rear yard setback
should have no effect on the railroad property. The nearest
buildings to the east are located beyond Bond Street, east
of the railroad right-of-way. Allowing the reduced side
yard setbacks on the north and south should not affect the
abutting properties. These properties are occupied by
industrial companies. The AFCO Steel property to the north
contains large industrial buildings which are built very
close to all property lines. The Phelp's Industries
property to the south contains similar industrial buildings.
This older, industrial area was developed at a time when no
setbacks were required in the "K" Heavy Industrial district.
The applicant also proposes to construct an addition onto
the existing building located nearest Thomas Street. This
addition will have a side yard setback of 14.5 feet,
maintaining the existing side yard setback. The property
directly southwest of the addition is vacant. Allowing this
addition to have a reduced side yard should have no effect
on that abutting property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side and rear
yard setback variances subject to the compliance with the
following conditions:
2
Ju31, 2000
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variances or waivers as may be granted by the Director
of Public Works or the Board of Directors.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance
including any variance or waiver as may be granted by
the City Beautiful Commission.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 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.
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
KEMP, DUCKETT, SPRADLEY & GUPPY
ATTORNEYS AT LACY
SUITE 1300
111 CENTER STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
HAL JOSEPH KEMP, P.A TELEPHONE
JAMES M. DUCKETT (501) 372-7243
J. MARK SPRADLEY TELEGOPIER
STEPHEN L. CURRY June 13, 2000 (501) 372-5553
Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator
Little Rock Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Application for Zoning Variance; Arkansas
Painting & Specialties, Inc.
Dear Mr. Carney:
Submitted herewith on behalf of Arkansas Painting and Specialties, Inc., the
property owner -Applicant, is an application for a non-residential zoning variance, six
copies of the required survey and our check for $155.00 for the filing fee. Please accept
the enclosures to commence the application process.
The Applicant owns the lands described in the application and shown on the
survey as Tracts 1, 2 and 3. The Applicant uses all three tracts in its business of
commercial and specialty painting. The Applicant does not manufacture paint or paint
products, and no change in land use is requested. It is in the area of Tract 3 where the
variance is requested.
The Applicant's lands, and those surrounding it, are zoned 13. 13 zoning requires
a rear setback line of twenty-five (25) feet and side setback lines of thirty'(30) feet. It is
those area setbacks for which the variance is requested.
The Applicant proposes to raze the two old, dilapidated buildings, shown faintly
on the survey, and construct a new building on essentially the same and expanded site.
The new building will also cover the area where a third old building stood that was
mostly destroyed by the last tornado. The two buildings to be razed contain
approximately 9,000 square feet and the demolished building contained approximately
6,500 square feet. The proposed building will contain 24,100 square feet.
The Applicant proposes to build the building shown as the "proposed building" on
the survey with a five (5) foot setback from its property boundaries on the north, east and
south. A set back from the west is not an issue because the Applicant owns the lands to
the west. The Applicant's northern boundary is a common boundary with AkO Steel
who has already constructed large buildings along its common boundary with the
9
Applicant closer than five (5) feet to the boundary line and that property owner should
have no objection. The Applicant's eastern boundary is a common boundary with the
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the variance should present no adverse impacts
to the railroad's use of its right-of-way. The Applicant's southern boundary is a common
boundary with Phelp's Industries, Inc.'s northern boundary and the variance does not
appear to present any adverse impact to the Phelps Industries, Inc. property or the use of
it. As part of the Applicant's due diligence in this matter its representative met with Mr.
John J. Phelps of Phelps Industries, Inc. and reviewed the survey, the Applicant's plans
for the proposed building and specifically the setbacks required under 13 zoning and the
variance being requested by the Applicant. Mr. Phelps said the Applicant may state to
the Board that Phelps Industries, Inc. has no objection to the variance and further stated,
in effect, that he believed the new structure would help clean up and improve the area.
The entire area of Applicant's lands, whether under roof or as surface storage, is
used consistent with 13 zoning. Construction of the proposed building as shown on the
survey will not change the land use but will be a substantial improvement for an area
dominated by older, and in many cases, dilapidated buildings.
The granting of the variance produces no adverse impact to adjoining landowners
or the area as a whole. To the contrary, it will allow construction of the type that will
help clean up and improve the area as well as renew the support and desirability of the
area for the quality of industrial uses intended for the area.
Your favorable support of the variance is respectfully requested.
Yours truly,
Kemp, Duckett, Spradley, Curry & Arnold
1741
U
By J. Mark Spradley for Applicant
Arkansas Painting and Specialties, Inc.
Enclosures
Jms/lhs
A.AJL= 6caroeylwer.doc
Jul 31, 2000
Item No.: 5
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6875
Richard Powell
1705 Fair Park Blvd.
Lot 10, Block 15, Cherry and Cox
R-3
A variance is requested from
the accessory structure area
regulations of Section 36-156 to
permit rebuilding an accessory
structure with a reduced side yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
1. For informational purposes, alley right-of-way is less
than standard of 20 feet minimum and street right-of-way
is less than Master Street Plan of 60 feet.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property located at 1705 Fair Park Blvd. is
occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family
residence and a detached, frame accessory building. The
accessory building has deteriorated to the point that it is
beyond repair and the applicant proposes to remove the
structure and build a new one back in the exact same place.
The structure now has a side yard setback of 1.2 feet. The
applicant proposes to build the new structure on the
existing foundation, maintaining the 1.2 foot side yard.
The code requires accessory structures to have a side yard
JU_L 31, 2000
Item No.: 5 (Cont.)
setback of no less than 3 feet. All other required setbacks
are exceeded.
Staff is supportive of the variance request. The existing
structure has been in place for approximately 50 years with
no evidence of any impact on the adjacent property. There
are no structures on the adjacent lot in close proximity to
this structure. The accessory structure is only 20.5 feet
deep on the side adjacent to the property line. Staff does
not believe this minor variance will affect adjacent
properties. Staff believes it is appropriate to require
guttering and to limit the size of the eave/overhang on the
north side of the structure.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback
variance subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The eave/overhang on the north side of the accessory
structure is to be limited to no more than 6 inches.
2. Guttering is to be installed on the north side of the
accessory structure to prevent water run-off onto the
adjacent property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
Gary Langlais abstained on this item. The applicant was present.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and
1 abstaining (Langlais).
Pa
DANA CARNEY 16 JUNE 00
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVE.LOPEMENT
723 WEST MARKHAM
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
MR. CARNEY,
MY DETACHED, WOOD -FRAME GARAGE HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT THAT, ON THE
RECOMMEDATION OF THREE BUILDING CONTRACTORS, I AM FORCED TO TEAR IT DOWN AND
REBUILD RATHER THAN REPAIRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE- WHICH I WOULD MUCH RATHER
DO. I PROPOSE TO REBUILD THE GARAGE ON ITS PRESENT LOCATION AND BACK TO ITS ORI-
GINAL CONFIGURATION USING THE SAME MATERIALS. A NEW GARAGE WILL CERTAINLY
ENHANCE MY PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL.
MY PROBLEM IS THIS -THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE IS 1.2 FEET (REFER TO ATTACHED
SURVEY) FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND REBUILDING IN THE SAME LOCATION WOULD
VIOLATE CITY ORDINANCES. I AM THEREFORE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REBUILD ON THE ORI-
GINAL 50 ODD YEAR OLD SITE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. THE L -SHAPED GARAGE REST ON ITS ORIGINAL FOUNDATION SYSTEM WITH ABOVE
GRADE BRICK VENEER FOUNDATION WALLS. THE BRICK MATCH THE BRICK ON MY HOUSE
AND MOVING THIS FOUNDATION WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. THE EXISTING FOUNDATION
IS IN GENERALLY GOOD SHAPE AND READY TO RECIEVE THE NEW BUILDING.
2. TO THE SOUTH OF THE BUILDING NEXT TO THE WALLS ARE TWO LARGE DECORATIVE
SHRUBS IN THEIR ORIGINAL PLANTERS SURROUNDED BY CONCRETE CURBS THAT RETURN TO
AND ABUT THE GARAGE. CONTINUING SOUTH NEXT TO THESE PLANTERS IS A PATIO OF 2'-6"
X 2'-6" X 3" THICK CONCRETE TILES GROUTED IN PLACE AND ORIGINAL TO THE LOT. I WOULD
CERTAINLY LIKE TO PRESERVE IN TACT THESE DESIREABLE FEATURES.
3. AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY THE GARAGE'S TWO LARGE SWING ENTRY DOORS ARE
ALIGNED WITH THE LONG, NARROW DRIVE WAY. MOVING THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH WOULD
DISTURB THIS ALIGNMENT AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE A CAR INTO
THE GARAGE.
t
MY GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE LOOK AND INTEGRITY OF MY PROPERTY. IT HAS SERVED ME
WELL THE TWELVE YEARS I HAVE LIVED HERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING
WITH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE.
SINCERELY,
RICHARD W. OWELL
Ju.,I 31, 2000
Item No.: 6
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6877
John and Kim Lewis
112 Normandy Road
Lots 75, 76 and 77 and NE '-� of
Lot 78, Normandy
owl
A variance is requested from
the accessory structure area
regulations of Section 36-156 to
permit construction of an accessory
building with a reduced front yard
setback.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
1. For informational purposes, right-of-way on Normandy is
less than Master Street Plan required 50 -foot right-of-
way.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 112 Normandy Road is
occupied by a single family home that is currently in the
process of being substantially remodeled. As part of the
project, the applicant proposes to construct a two-story
accessory structure adjacent to the home. The structure
will contain a ground level carport and upper-level game
room. The structure will have the appearance of being part
of the principal structure but will actually be separated
from the home by a 6 foot wide breezeway. Since there is no
"structural tie" connecting the two structures, the
l
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
carport/game room is classified as an accessory structure.
The applicant proposes to line the accessory structure with
the front wall of the house, providing a 40 foot front yard
setback. The code requires accessory structures to have a
front yard setback of at least 60 feet.
Staff supports the requested variance. As proposed by the
applicant, the carport/game room will indeed appear to be
part of the house. If the structure were attached to the
house by a heated and cooled connection rather than a
breezeway, it would become part of the principal structure.
As such, it would meet all required setbacks. From all
appearances, the house/garage will be one structure. Staff
does not believe that allowing the reduced front yard
setback will negatively impact neighboring properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard
setback as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
Sheri Trammell was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Board that 9 of
the 11 signatures submitted by Ms. Trammell as her proof of
notice were obtained on July 27, 2000, 4 days prior to the
meeting, not 10 days as required by the Board's Bylaws.
Ms. Trammell stated that the required sign was placed on the
property in a timely manner. She stated that she had a hard time
catching people at home during the day and that she had to work
the evening of the 27th to get the signatures. Mr. Trammell
stated that she always left a business card in the door of each
home.
Gary Langlais asked if there had been any statements or telephone
calls of opposition. Ms. Trammell and staff both responded that
there had been no opposition voiced.
A motion was made to waive the Bylaw's and to accept the notices.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent.
A motion was made to approve the requested variance. The motion
was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
HARDIN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC.
KEITH H. HARDIN
2024 ARKANSAS VALLEY DR., STE. 402 ♦ LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212
Phone 501-312-8778 ♦ Fax 501-312-8780 1 Home Phone (501) 920-7788 MOBILE ♦ Email SHERITB@AOL.COM
June 20, 2000
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
701 W. MARKHAM ST.
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72213
DEAR SIRS OR MADAME,
THIS IS A LETTER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING THAT IS CONSIDERED A
DETACHED STRUCTURE, ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
BUILDING CODES.
OUR INTENTION IS TO ADD A THREE CAR CARPORT TO THE REMODELED HOME LOCATED AT
112 NORMANDY IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, PULASKI CO. THE CARPORT WILL BE ATTACHED
TO THE HOME WITH A & BREEZEWAY AND HAVE A GAME ROOM LOCATED OVER THE TOP OF
THE CARPORT. THE CARPORT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 53' FROM THE STREET AT IT'S
CLOSEST CORNER. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS A DETACHED STRUCTURE, IT WILL
LOOK AS THOUGH IT IS ATTACHED TO THE HOME, AS A GARAGE WOULD, BUT IT WILL BE
OPEN ON THE FRONT AND THE EAST SIDE OF THE CARPORT.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS VARIANCE, IN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY AND
GIVE THIS HOME AND IT'S NEIGHBORS THE TYPE OF HOME THAT THEY WILL BE PROUD TO
LIVE WITH.
SINCERELY,
SHERI A. TRAMMELL
ASSISTANT TO KEITH H. HARDIN
HARDIN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC.
{
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 7
File No.: Z-6878
Owner: ARVEST Central Bank
Address: 12th and University, NE corner
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: C-3
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from
the wall sign provisions of Section
36-557 to permit placement of a
wall sign without direct street
frontage.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: We are
requesting a variance for (1) 8' X
22'6" single faced wall sign to be
fabricated of .063 aluminum sheet
metal with copy and colors as per
art. The East elevation has no
immediate street frontage, although
when the sign is placed on the far
left hand corner of the facia
becomes very visible for traffic.
Environmental codes has given
permission for signs on the
remaining 3 facias.
Present Use of Property: Office Building
Proposed Use of Property: Office Building
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues related to this sign variance.
B. Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned property located at the northeast corner of
West 12th and University is occupied by the University Tower
Building, a multi -story office building. At the top of the
Jui 1 31, 2000
Item No.: 7 (Cont.
building is the elevator/mechanical penthouse. ARVEST
Central Bank proposes to place its sign on all 4 sides of
the penthouse. Two sides face directly to streets (12th and
University Avenue). The north side and the east side have
no direct street frontage. The code requires wall signs to
have direct street frontage.
Staff supports the variance request. This area on top of
the building was historically used for signage purposes. At
one time, a continuous message sign wrapped around the
structure. That ceased when the City Code was adopted
prohibiting such signs. The north sign will be visible from
University Avenue and I-630. The east sign, which faces a
cemetery, will be visible from westbound traffic on West
12th Street. The area of the signs is well below the
allowable area of 10% permitted for wall signs. Due to the
design of the fagade of the building, there will likely
never be wall signs on the structure equaling 10% of the
wall area.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the wall sign variance as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
Gary Langlais abstained on this
There were no objectors present.
recommendation of approval.
(JULY 31, 2000)
item. The applicant was present.
Staff presented the item and a
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote
of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Langlais).
E
Jui
Jugs 31, 2000
Item No.: 8 (Cont.
I
be enclosed with a 4 foot tall fence with no variance
required. The fence will be 21 feet from the curb of the
street. The area to be fenced is at the rear of the lot.
As such, the fence should not affect traffic in the street
or at the intersection.
The house adjacent to the west faces Westglen Drive. The
garage portion of the adjacent home is on the side nearest
the applicant's property. There are no windows on the east
side of that adjacent home. Allowing the applicant to
construct the fence should not affect sight -lines or
visibility for the adjacent property.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height
variance subject to the fence being constructed in "good -
neighbor" fashion, with the finished side facing outward.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 31, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject
to the fence being constructed in "good neighbor" fashion, with
the finished side facing outward.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
2
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
Date: June 29, 2000
Subject: Application for Zoning Variance
Dear Directors;,
This document is to serve as the cover letter for the residential zoning variance I have applied for.
I have ask for a zoning variance to build a 6' wood fence coming out 16' from the center side of my house
and back 34' to the property line. The fence will attach to a 6' wood fence already along the property line
that runs parallel to my house. I understand that because I live on a corner lot to build a fence on my side
yard I am required to submit an application for zoning variance.
My reasons for the fence are as follows: When I first moved into my house we were the last corner
before dead end streets. The traffic is so much heavier now because of the additional subdivisions in the
last thirteen years. I have a 2 %z year old grand baby that likes to play out side. She is so quick it's almost
impossible to keep up with her. About 18' feet out from the side of my house the yard drops off drastically
which is difficult for her and me to maneuver. We would also like to get a kiddy pool to play in and we
need the privacy a fence will provide. Also, the fence would provide the privacy I need to work in my
little garden.
I appreciate your consideration for this variance.
Sincerely,
Earlena Seward
1424 Point West Drive
Little Rock, Ar 72211
Juis 31, 2000
Item No.: 9
File No.: Z-6880
Owner: Dillard Store Services, Inc.
Address: 1310 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: 0-3 and C-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Sections
36-281 and 36-301 and the parking
requirements of Section 36-502.
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in the attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Data computer center
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
With Building Permit:
1. Right-of-way dedication is required per the "MSP" 55 feet
from centerline.
2. Proposed design of streets conforming to "MSP" widens to
33 feet from centerline.
3. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and
the "MSP" 5 feet buffer.
4.Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the
"Drainage Manual" will be required.
5. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec.
31-403.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-
of-way.
ight-
of-way.
8. Board of Directors will consider request for right-of-way
waiver on July 18, 2000. Dependent upon that request,
comments may vary. Presently, Public Works recommends
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
denial of right-of-way requests, so comments are based
upon Board of Directors denial of waiver.
B. Staff Analysis:
Dillards proposes to build a 30,000 square foot Data
Computer Center on the vacant 0-3 and C-3 zoned property
located at 1310 Cantrell Road, the site of the old Mo-Pac
Hospital. The applicant proposes to construct 50 parking
spaces on the site. The code requires 72 on-site parking
spaces for an office building of this size. The proposed
building will result in a reduced rear yard and may result
in a reduced front yard as will be explained later. The 0-3
district has a rear yard requirement of 15 feet. C-3
requires a rear yard of 25 feet. Both districts require a
front yard of 25 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested parking and setback
variances. Although the building is classified as an office
building, it will primarily contain computers and data
processing equipment with a maximum of 18 people per shift
working in the building. Even with an overlap at shift
change, the proposed 50 parking spaces will exceed the
needed number. An area of "future parking" is indicated
which would bring the number of on-site parking spaces to
approximately 70, if it were ever determined that they were
needed.
As currently shown, the building, including a future
expansion area, has a front yard setback of 35 feet and a
rear yard setback of 5-15 feet at two points. The
difficulty comes from the right-of-way requirement for
Cantrell Road. The street currently has a right-of-way of
60 feet, 30 feet from centerline. The Master Street Plan
requires a right-of-way of 110 feet, 55 feet from
centerline. If it is determined that the full right-of-way
dedication requirement is needed, the building will be
pushed slightly more to the rear of the lot resulting in a
front yard setback of 15 feet, as measured from the new
right-of-way line, and a rear yard setback of 0 feet. The
Board of Directors is scheduled to address the right-of-way
issue at its July 18, 2000 meeting. If a total waiver is
granted, the site plan will remain as is. If the waiver is
denied or if the dedication requirement is modified, the
building will be moved back towards the river. In either
case, staff supports the requested front and rear yard
setback variances. The property backs up to the Arkansas
2
Jul., 31, 2000
Item No.: 9 (Cont.)
River. Allowing a reduced setback adjacent to the river
will have no effect on other properties. The reduced
setback would only be for two "corner" intrusions, not the
entire width of the building. If the waiver request is
denied or modified and the applicant has to widen the
street, the building will still be located 35± feet from the
road at its nearest point. Allowing the reduced front yard
should have no impact on adjacent properties or on traffic
in the street.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking and
setback variances subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any
variances or waivers as may be granted by the Director
of Public Works or the Board of Directors.
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances including any variances or waivers as may be
granted by the City Beautiful Commission.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 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. Staff informed the Board that the Board
of Directors had approved a reduction in the required right-of-
way for Cantrell Road. The required right-of-way was reduced
from 55 feet from centerline to 45 feet from centerline. Staff
informed the Board that the building was now proposed to have a
front yard setback of 25 feet with a 5 foot overhang. Phase I
was now proposed to have a rear yard setback of 15 feet and a
rear yard setback of
5 feet was now proposed for the future expansion.
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
June 22, 2000
Hand Deliver
Board of Adjustments
Dept. of Planning and Development
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Attn: Dana Carney
RE: Proposed Dillard's Data Computer Center
1310 Cantrell Road
Ladies and/or Gentlemen:
We are in the process of designing a new Data Computer Center for the Dillard's
Department Store on the old Mo-Pac Hospital site on Cantrell Road east of the Dillard
Executive Office Building. The Packett House occupies the lot immediately west of
this site, the Arkansas River is along the north property line, and the Union Pacific
Railroad to the east as indicated on the attached survey.
Attached for your review are six copies of the existing site survey, dated 2-2-2000, and
proposed site plan, sheet SP -1, dated 6-22-2000. The site has a very unusual lot
configuration; it is a narrow sliver of land 270 feet deep on the west end and 109 feet
on the east end x 600' long (not counting the required setbacks). These dimensions
are based on the 60' R.O.W. for Cantrell Road which existed when Dillard's purchased
the property.
Also attached is a letter from Joe Story, Vice -President - Construction, stating that the
use of the facility will only require a maximum of 18 people on any shift. The code
requires this facility to have 72 parking spaces. Our site plan, SP -1, indicates a
parking space count of fifty-eight (58) spaces which includes 3 ADA spaces.
The property has two different zones - 03 & C3 - and each has different setback
requirements. Referring to the site plan, sheet SP -1, the front yard setback is the
same twenty-five (25) feet and the side yards are both ten (10) feet. The rear yards,
however, are different - the 03 is fifteen (15) feet and the C3 is twenty-five (25) feet.
The proposed building footprint and the future expansion extend past the setback
lines.
While working with the City to develop the site plan, we were informed that the R.O.W.
requirements on Cantrell Road have been increased from 60' to 110'. This would
•
Architecture + A Professional Corporation Washington Plaza Suite 400 300 Washington Street Monroe, Louisiana 7'2:' -
Fax 318-325-9405 318-387-2:SO:
Board of Adjustments
Page 2
June 22, 2000
mean the loss of an additional 25' of property. This loss would make the property
virtually useless for the purpose to which Dillard's intends it to be used. We have
made a request to the Board of Directors that the expansion of the right-of-way be
waived since this loss will create a hardship to the property. We are currently working
with the Civil Engineering Section of the Department of Public Works.
On behalf of Dillard's Department Stores, we are requesting the following variances:
1. A reduction in the required parking, per Section 36-502 of the Little Rock Code
of Ordinance, from seventy-two (72) parking spaces to Fifty (50).
2-A. Reduce the rear yard setbacks from fifteen and twenty-five feet to zero (0)
setback since the rear yard faces the river.
2-B Reduce front yard setbacks, per Sections 36-281 & 36-301 of the Little Rock
Code of Ordinances, from twenty-five to fifteen (15) feet since the city is
requesting additional right-of-way.
Your consideration and consent for these variance requests would be appreciated by
Dillard's Department Stores.
Should there be any questions or comments, please advise.
With kindest regards,
LarP. nt, AIA, P.E.
Larry
cf
cc: Clyde Webb
Glenn Golson w/enc.
File
i
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 10
File No.: Z-6881
Owner: Roy Snook
Address: 8306 Reymere Drive
Description: Lot 169, Sheridan Park
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the
fence height restrictions of
Section 36-516 to permit
construction of an 8 foot tall
fence.
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Easements shall not be fenced due to utility and drainage
use. Recommend removal from easements.
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property located at 8306 Reymere Drive is
occupied by a split-level, brick and frame, single family
residence. The rear yard of the property is enclosed by a 4
foot tall chain link fence. The applicant proposes to
replace the fence on the west side of the property with an 8
foot tall, wood, privacy fence. The fence is to extend from
the building line in the front to the existing chain link
fence along the rear property line. Because of a drainage
ditch along a portion of the west property line, the fence
will not be located on that line but will be angled away
from the property line. Because of that angle, only a
portion of the fence is within the side yard setback where
the code limits the fence height to 6 feet.
Jui, 31, 2000
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the majority of the variance request.
Due to the angle of the fence and its distance from the
property line, allowing the 8 foot tall fence should not
have an impact on the adjacent property with one exception.
The house is not lined up parallel with the front building
line, resulting in a portion of the proposed privacy fence
extending beyond the front wall of the house, into the front
yard area. Staff believes that portion of the fence should
be limited to 6 feet in height, the height permitted by the
code for fences erected behind the setback or building lines
adjacent to streets.
The Public Works staff has raised concerns about the fence
extending into the 10 foot easement along the rear property
line and has recommended that the existing fence in that
area be removed. Staff believes it is appropriate to
approve the fence height variance subject to the applicant
working with Public Works staff and receiving Public Works
approval prior to construction of the portion of the fence
within the rear 10 foot easement.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the fence height variance
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. The fence is to be constructed in "good neighbor"
fashion, with the finished side facing outward.
2. That portion of the fence located from the front wall
of the house to the front 25 foot building line is to
be limited to 6 feet in height.
3. Public Works approval must be received and made a part
of this file prior to construction of that portion of
the fence which extends into the rear 10 foot easement.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 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.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
2
r'
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 10 (Cont.)
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
Date: June 21, 2000
Dept. of Planning and Development
Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Sir or Madam:
We purchased our 8306 reymere home in May of this year. We are improving the home significantly
interior and exterior. The exterior improvements we have made to date are: we have painted the entire
homes exterior, including the doors and shutters, improved the landscaping, and power washed the concrete
drive and walks. We are currently improving the Deck (releveling and refinishing) and continue to
improve the landscaping.
We plan to build a fence on the West side of the home. The fence will be a standard wood privacy fence
using treated materials and quality construction. The fence will conform to set backs and all requirements
with the exception of the height.
We are requesting that you allow us to use an 8' high fence versus the regular 6' height. We are requesting
this for the primary reasons of:
1. Visible from the back of the home is a creek which the city has done some work which is
structurally sound, but the concrete sculpted walls next to the 3' drainage pipe not real visually
appetizing, should we say. The additional fence height will help hide this from visibility.
2. We currently have an architect working with us on more improvements to the front of the
home. The lot slops to the point that the home stands 1 story on the East side and 2 stories on
the West. A six foot fence looks very small in scale to the home both currently and even
more so when we increase the size of the front porch (which will be within city code). We are
raping the 4x4 poles to make them 6x6, this helps bring the scale up but the additional height
would help much more.
3. The existing fence has been ruined by the overflowing water from the creek that runs on the
west of the home and even after the cities work the water still over flows the banks and
pushes on the fence. The more substantial fence should prevent continued damage.
Review Criteria:
a. The home is 1930 s/f. the lot is approximately 13,000 s/f. the front set bank line is 25'.
b. One drive 42' long and 20' wide.
c. The only point of entry is the drive.
d. The only street adjacent in Reymere Drive.
e. The home has all public utilities.
f. No fire hydrants exist on the property.
g. The home has city water.
h. The west property line is 171', the frontage to Reymere is 74', the East property line is 160' and the
North property line is 80'.
i. No existing right of ways exist.
j. Landscaping, will be improved but not changed in any material way.
k. No handicap parting required, residential.
We thank you for your consideration. We feel all of the improvements we are making to the home will add
to the neighborhood. We are and will be investing significant money into the home and having all of the
details of the homes appearance done right is the only way our homes value will equal to our investment.
S4nok
Teresa W. Snook
{
Juid 31, 2000
Item No.: 11
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6882
Annette Wahlgreen
5918 "C" Street
Part of Lot 16, Howard Adams and
R. D. Plunketts Subdivision
R-3
A variance is requested from
the location of off-street parking
provisions of Section 36-507 to
permit development of an office
parking lot on residentially zoned
property.
The applicant's justification is
presented in the attached letters.
Residential
Parking lot to serve adjacent
medical offices
1.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e)
will be required with a building permit.
2. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required with a building permit.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to develop a parking lot on the
R-3 zoned property located at 5918 "C" Street. The parking
lot is to serve the medical offices located on the 0-3 zoned
properties west of the site. The parking is needed to
replace an existing parking lot located across "C" Street
directly south of the site. The area of the existing
parking lot is to be incorporated into a new 25,060 square
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 11 (Cont.)
foot retail development planned for the property east of
University Avenue, between "B" and "C" Streets.
The proposed 39 space parking lot takes access via a single
driveway onto "C" Street. The property consists of 2 lots,
one of which currently contains a single family home.
Staff's support for this issue is contingent upon the
proposed retail development actually being built. Unless
the existing parking lot south of "C" Street is displaced by
the new development, there is no need for this proposed new
parking lot. If the retail development is constructed, the
character of this end of "C" Street changes so that the
proposed new parking lot will be compatible with development
and uses in the area. The proposed 25,060 square foot
retail store is to be located directly south of this site.
Areas set aside for perimeter landscaping on the proposed
parking lot exceed ordinance requirements. No areas of
interior landscaping are shown. As many as 5 parking spaces
may be lost to provide the required interior landscaping
area. Appropriate screening will be required along the
north and east perimeters. The applicant has not proposed
any lighting for the parking lot.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow
for development of the R-3 zoned property at 5918 "C" Street
as a parking lot to serve the adjacent 110-3" zoned medical
offices subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. No permits are to be issued for development of the
parking lot until such time as a building permit has been
issued for the proposed retail development located on the
south side of "C" Street.
2. Compliance with Public Works Comments
3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
4. There is to be no lighting of the parking lot.
2
Jui
IRWIN&SAVIERS
COMPANY
A Real Estate Brokerage, Deielopment &Investment Firm
June 26, 2000
Dana Carney
Dept of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR
RE: Application for development of a parking lot
located at 5918 "C" Street adjacent to an
existing parking lot.
Dear Dana:
The purpose of the application for development of the above described parking lot
represents a portion of the recently approved PCD immediately south of this proposed
lot and will result in a relocation of an existing lot on the south side of "C" street.
This new lot will serve a series of medical buildings immediately west and will be
incorporated into an existing lot that is a part of this complex.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments regarding this application.
Very truly yours,
IRWIN & SAVIERS COMPANY
/a
Ronald E. Tabor
Cc: Jim Irwin
David Lewis
Little Rock: 1701 Centerview, Suite 201 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 • 501-225-5700 • FAX 501-227-0280
Northwest Arkansas: 1526 Plaza Place, Suite 1 • Springdale, Arkansas 72764 • 501-872-1000 • FAX 501-756-8861
Texas: 730 North Post Oak, Suite 400 • Houston, Texas 77024 • 713-812-6543 - FAX 713-812-6542
RUM
MCGETRICK & MCGETRICK, INC.
PLANNING - ENGINEERING - LAND DEVELOPMENT
June 26, 2000
Mr. Dana Carney
Zoning Administrator
Department of Neighborhoods & Planning
721 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Off -Site Parking for Lot 16 Howard Adam & R. D. Plunkett's
Dear Mr. Carney,
We would like to request a variance for off-site parking for the Doctor's Office Building
located at the NE corner of University Ave. & "C" St.. This parking will be on R-2 Zoned
property adjacent to the Doctors Office Building.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
MCGETRICK & MCGETRICK, INC.
Patrick M. McGetnck, P.E.
PMM: rm
319 East Markham Street, Suite 202 - Little Rock, AR 72201 - (501) 223-9900 - FAX (501) 223-9293
Jul., 31, 2000
Item No.: 12
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No Comments.
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6887
Ruth Ann McMillan and
James McMillan, M.D.
18 Honey Bear Court
Lot 54, Longlea X
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-254 and the building line
provisions of Section 31-12.
The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned property located at #18 Honey Bear Court is
occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single family
residence. The house has a small, covered stoop on the
front. The applicants propose to replace the stoop with a
new, covered porch to extend the full width of the house.
One corner of the new porch will extend to within 5 feet of
the side property line. The code requires an 8 foot side
yard setback for this lot. The porch will be built entirely
behind the front 25 foot building line but it may be
necessary to extend 3-4 steps down from the porch, across
the building line. The steps will be uncovered.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. As was
previously mentioned, only a corner of the new porch extends
Jul, 31, 2000
Item No.: 12 (Cont.)
into the side yard setback. This minor, corner intrusion
should have no effect on the adjacent property. A driveway
on the adjacent property is located adjacent to the property
line, providing adequate separation between structures.
The building line variance for the steps is also minor and
should have no effect on neighboring properties or on
traffic in the street. The property is located at the end
of a cul-de-sac and the steps would be located 30+ feet from
the curb of the street.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line for the steps. The applicant
should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
building line variances subject to the compliance with the
following conditions:
1.A one lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line for the steps.
2. The porch is to remain unenclosed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 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.
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.
iq
James A.McMillan, M.D.
18 Honey Bear Court
Little Rock, AR 72223-5200
Home Phone 501-868-7351
Construction Proposal.
June 25, 2000
The owners propose to build an attached, single -story porch along the front of the house with steps
leading to the existing walkway. The porch will extend seven (7) feet from the present structure and will
be approximately thirty-eight (38) feet in length.
The lot is wedge-shaped, and the southwest comer of the porch will extend to about five (5) feet from
the property line or about six and one-half (6 1/2) feet from the neighboring driveway.
The front steps of the porch may encroach about one (1) foot on the building setback line though not
requiring a change to the existing walkway. The front of the competed porch with steps will still be
thirty-two (32) feet from the curb.
/,,�James A. McMillan, M.D.
Ruth Ann McMillan
F "`
a
0
�.3
7 ❑ < U) g
^7 0 Lli
cr-
w z LL Q
m > = Y
L'LL
Q Q<0 J Q' or-
MIR
0
U
w
w
Q
sl
eQ
9
z
z
w
U)
m
0
w
z
C
w
i
I
July 31, 2000
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Date: �% rA It IC '
�2
irmaAY
c eta
i