Loading...
boa_01 21 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD January 21, 1986 2:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 6 in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III.Members Present: B.L. Murphree George Wells Ellis Walton Ronald Woods Joe Norcross Herbert Rideout Members Absent: Thomas McGowan (2 Open Positions) City Attorney: None Present January 21, 1986 Item No. A - Z-3508-A Owner: Robert M. Goff Address: 317 South Shackleford Description: Lot 1, Robert M. Goff Subdivision Zoned: "C -2" Shopping Center District Variance Requested: From the height provisions of Section 7- 103.2/D to permit new construction with a height of 255 feet plus or minus. Justification: There are several conditions that limit the buildable area on this site. The site's unusual configuration and its location in an interstate exit require a 45-foot setback from the property line on three sides. Along the remaining north property line there are steep, wooded slopes and a natural rock outcropping to remain. With the buildable area reduced, the maximum building footprint design is reduced. Overall dimensions are approximately 175-feet square to provide adequate parking for office and retail in this reduced area. The project design locates the office over the parking deck and retail under on the ground level. This utilizes one elevator core for access to the main lobby and all parking and office levels. The stacking of these functions necessitates the height variance on this "C-2" Tract. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Office, commercial and parking January 21, 1986 Item No. A - Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None have been reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a new building with a height of approximately 255 feet, a total of 16 floors. The property is zoned "C-2" which permits a height of 45 feet with no allowances for increasing the height if the setbacks are increased proportionately. The proposed height is 466 percent greater than what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary site plan shows one structure that will incorporate the parking deck and office tower together. The parking will be available on the first six levels and then there will be office space on nine floors with a penthouse. The projected space allocation calls for 120,000 square feet of office, 8,800 square feet, of retail to be located on the ground level and a total of 472 spaces, 410 in the deck and 62 around the building. The site is located on South Shackleford in close proximity to the I-430/I-630 interchange and directly south of the new Holiday Inn that is under construction on Shackleford. This area has become one of Little Rock's most desirable for new development, with a mix of office and retail. Currently, the majority of new buildings are two to three stories, with the tallest one having six or seven floors. The applicant has indicated site configuration, limited size, location and the need for providing parking as justification for the variance. Also, the applicant has stated that a 45-foot building line on three sides substantially reduces the amount of buildable area. After carefully reviewing the proposal, staff's position is that a true hardship does not exist to justify a height variance of this size and does not support the request. The site is fairly small and staff is concerned that the proposal is over building the site and could possibly add to the problems that already exist in the area such as traffic. The site does not lend itself to a structure of this size or such intensive use. Another concern is that the proposed project is incompatible with previous actions that have taken place in the area. Staff is also concerned that in addition to the variance request the proposal creates a land use issue, and staff feels that the office tower is an inappropriate land use for the location. January 21, 1986 Item No. A - Continued (Because of the "C -2" zoning site plan review by the Planning Commission is required for any development proposed for the property.) C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the height variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12- 16 -85) Staff informed the Board of Adjustment that the required notification of property owners had not been accomplished. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 21, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1- 21 -86) Staff informed the Board of Adjustment that the applicant had requested the item be withdrawn from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the variance request from the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. January 21, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-1762-A Owner: Doyle W. & Josephine R. Rogers Address: 6420 Asher Avenue Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance From the rear yard provisions of Requested: Section 7-103.3/D.3 to permit a new addition with 21.5 foot setback. Justification: The average rear yard will more than 26 feet. The rear property is skewed 1° 20' to square with the right property line (common wall with Kroger). Ground level near the rear property line lies 16 to 37 feet above floor level making vehicular access from the rear impossible. The existing building and site are ameniable to a rear yard expansion. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to expand the existing building by 25,275 square feet for a total floor area of 77,900 square feet. The proposed addition will have a 21.5 foot rear yard at the northeast corner, an encroachment of 3.5 feet. In the "C-3" district, the zoning ordinance requires a 25 foot setback for the rear yard. Because the north property line is somewhat skewed, the rear yard at the northwest corner will be approximately 30 feet so the average setback will be around 26 feet. There is a dramatic increase in elevation along the rear of the site so the addition will not have any impact on the property to the north which has a nonresidential use on it. Staff feels that adequate justification for the variance has been provided and supports the requests. January 21, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: A representative of the applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. January 21, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-1910-A Owner: Budgetel Inn Address: 1010 Breckenridge Description: Lot B-2, Breckenridge Village Business Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance From the satellite dish location Requested: provisions of Section 5-101.F /2.D to permit location of dish between the building and street right-of-way. Justification: 1. The satellite antenna has to be aimed to the southwest, therefore, due to the location of the building and its relationship to an extreme embankment to the southwest, this location was selected as the most feasible. 2. To locate the antenna on the east side of the building would have created a unsightly, massive, unservicable satellite structure due to the height needed to look over the building itself. On the west side of the buidling there is an embankment reaching almost as high or higher than the building itself. On the north end of the property there is a problem with a large concrete drainage ditch and the embankment. 3. The location that was selected at the southeast corner, was arrived at by a formula of height of the embankment in relationship to the look angle of the antenna times the distance from the bank and the height of the structure to keep it serviceable and safe. Present Use of Property: Motel under construction January 21, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued Proposed use of Property: Motel STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit a satellite dish between the building, a motel, and the street right-of-way. The zoning ordinance states that "Satellite receiving dishes in all office and commerical districts whether portable or permanently sighted, shall not be located on any lot between the principle structure or street right -of -way line unless such location is approved by the Board of Adjustment." The proposed location appears to be the best suited for the use because a satellite dish has to be directed to the southwest. Any placement along the Breckenridge side of the motel would require a variance because of the zoning ordinance restrictions. The west side of the building is unfeasible, because of the interstate which is at a higher elevation up a steep embankment. Because of the embankment, the satellite structure would have to be very tall to receive signals. This is also true on the east side because of the height of the building. Staff feels that the proposed location is the least offensive and supports the request because the site does place some constraints on locating the dish in an area that would not require a variance. Staff does recommend that the top elevation of the dish be kept as low as possible and, if feasible, to use mesh type structure for the receiving dish. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the variance be granted with the condition that the satellite dish structure not be utilized for any type of signage. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Steve Schmudlach, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Schmudlach addressed the Board and said the site had few viable options for locating a satellite dish. There was some discussion about other locations including the roof. Mr. Schmudlach indicated that the roof could not January 21, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued handle the satellite in a bad storm or during strong winds. After some additional comments a motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that the satellite dish structure not be utilized for any type of signage. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 2 open positions. January 21, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-2468-A Owner: Bruce Thalheimer Address: 4523 Hoffman Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance From the side yard provisions of Requested: Section 7-104.2/E.2 to permit an addition with a 13 foot setback. Justification: To maintain existing building line. Present Use of Property: Warehouse Proposed Use of Property: Warehouse with some expansion STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to add approximately 2900 square feet to the rear of the existing structure. The new construction will maintain the existing building line and by doing this, the setback will be reduced to 12.9 feet at the nearest point to the west property line. This will create encroachment of approximately 2.1 feet because the "I -2" district requires a 15 foot side yard. The existing side yard does not meet current ordinance requirements because the building was constructed under the old zoning ordinance which did not require setbacks in industrial districts. Staff believes that this creates a legitimate hardship and supports the variance request. The reduced side yard will not have any impacts on other properties in the immediate vicinity. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of variance as filed. January 21, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Carole Minor, was present. There were no objectors. Mike Batie of the City Engineering staff addressed the Board about a drainage way that bisects the property to the south of the proposed addition. Mr. Batie said that a drainage easement and a properly sized pipe were needed. Ms. Minor discussed the proposal and the drainage issue. Mr. Batie asked that the easement and necessary pipe be made conditions of the approval. Ms. Minor indicated that she saw no problems with that. A motion was made to grant the setback variance subject to a drainage easement being provided and engineering approval of a properly sized pipe. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. January 21, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-2988 -A Owner: Rogers & Ellon Cockrill Address: 2305 North Spruce Description: Lot 17 and 18, Block 9 Country Club Heights Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance From the side yard provisions of Requested: Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit new construction with a 0 foot setback. Justification: 1. The two -story brick and frame house presently has a gravel driveway on the right side of the house on the south border of Lot 18. On the left side of the house on the north border of Lot 17, there is a brick fence enclosing a brick courtyard and fountain. 2. The only location for a garage that is attached to the house is on the existing gravel driveway which has a curb cut through which is located on the south border of Lot 18. To allow for double parking inside said garage, the south exterior wall of the garage would have to be constructed on the south boundary line of Lot 18. The side yard setback variance would be necessary. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to allow a new garage with a 0 foot setback for the side yard on the south side. January 21, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued In this situation with "R-2" zoning, the ordinance requires an 8 foot side yard. The owner has used the location of a existing driveway and the need for double parking inside the garage as justification for the variance. Staff's position is that a true hardship does not exist and that the reasons provided to not justify a 0 foot setback variance. Another concern of staff is that the reduced side yard could have an impact on the property to the south. Staff feels that there is an alternate location available for the garage and could probably meet the required setbacks. A new garage could be placed so as to match the existing front building line which has a 39 foot setback. This approach would reduce the length of the garage by 4 feet, but it appears that the width could be increased and still meet the necessary side yard setback. In 1976 the Board of Adjustment approved a rear yard variance for this property, a different owner, which extended the residence to the east and attached it to an accessory building. That action created the current reduced setbacks for the rear and side yards. The Board placed a condition on the approval that the accessory building be removed within one year from the date of the Board of Adjustments action. The accessory structure had been used for a garage at one point. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner, Rogers Cockrill, was present. There were two other persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the issue. Mr. Cockrill discussed the staff's analysis and recommended location. He said that the proposed location was the only viable one and that the structural configuration of the residence did create a hardship. Mr. Cockrill said that his family needed the double garage and that future plans called for the area above the garage to be used for living quarters. There was a long discussion about various aspects of the request and Mr. Cockrill made several additional comments including that the new construction would be an improvement and that a true hardship did exist. A Mr. Sloan, the neighbor to the south, then spoke. He said that he had no objection to the variance and that the garage would upgrade the property. Lynn Coates, a resident to the east, then addressed the Board. She made a number of comments and expressed some concerns over the portion of the structure at the southeast corner. January 21, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued Ms. Coates specifically asked that the building not be increased to two stories. A motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that the one story portion of the residence at the southeast corner not be expanded by adding a second floor. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. January 21, 1986 There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the mee ing was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date