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