boa_12 16 1985LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
December 16, 1985
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 7 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
Ronald Woods
Joe Norcross
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Members Absent: Ellis Walton
Steve Smith
City Attorney: Pat Benton
December 16, 1985
Item No. A - Z-4552-A
Owner: Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #17
By: Robert Newcomb
Address: 1702-1714 East Second
Description: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block B
Fletcher and Clark Addition
Zoned: "R-4" Two Family ( "C -3" rezoning
request has been filed)
Variance
Requested: 1. From the parking provisions of
Section 8-101.B of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit less than
required number of spaces.
2. From the front and rear yard
setback provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit a 4-foot
canopy in the front yard and a
4-foot building intrusion into
the rear yard (as a 25-foot
setback from the floodway of the
Arkansas River is required).
Justification: 1. The "C-3" rezoning if used for
business purposes only would not
require even 43 slots for this size
building. The building that is
being built calls for 72 parking
spaces based on the heated and
cooled square footage. The square
footage is going to be divided in
half with one portion being a
basketball court. It is doubtful
that even the 43 places will be a
regular use.
2. The front yard setback deals with a
4 -foot canopy that will be 40 feet
in length which will come within 10
feet of the building corner. This
will need a variance that does not
encroach the permanent structure too
close to the building line.
December 16, 1985
Item No. A - Continued
3. The rear yard setback requirement
that needs the variances on the
property line that faces the
Arkansas River. There will be an
encroachment of approximately 4 feet
too close to the back property line,
but there is no building nor
possibility of a building on that
side of the property and this
variance should not cause any
problems.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Construction of a police lodge
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Revise parking plan.
B. Staff Analvsis
The proposal is to construct a new lodge for the
Fraternal Order of Police on the eastern end of
East 2nd. In addition to the various variance
requests, a rezoning to "C-3" has been filed to permit
the use. There are two issues involved with this
application, and they are permitting a reduction in the
number of parking spaces and allowing setback
intrusions for the front and rear yards. Ordinance No.
14,534 also establishes a 25-foot setback from the
floodway of the Arkansas River in this situation. Both
yard encroachments are only four feet and the
structural involvement will be very minimal. In the
rear, only the very northwest corner of the building
will be located in the 25-foot area, and the front yard
setback involves a 4-foot canopy. The staff feels that
the setback variances will not cause any problems and
supports them. The primary issue involved with this
property is the parking variance. The proposed lodge
will have 7,200 square feet, and the Zoning Ordinance
requirement for parking is one space per 100 square
feet or 72 spaces for this particular building. The
Fraternal Order of Police is proposing 43 spaces or a
reduction of 29 from the ordinance standards. The FOP
December 16, 1985
Item No. A - Continued
has indicated that because of the design of the
structure, it will not be all in use at one time and
the 43 spaces will adequately meet their needs. A
significant portion of the building will be utilized
for a basketball court and that is all it will be used
for. In addition to the off-street spaces, there is
some on- street parking available, because there is no
other development in the immediate area. Under the
circumstances, staff feels that proper justification
exists for granting the parking variance and supports
the request.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of both the parking and
setback variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-18-85)
The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer
the item to the December 16, 1985, meeting. The motion was
approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-85)
The applicant was represented by Ken Baer, a member of the
Fraternal Order of Police. There were no objectors present.
A motion was made to grant the requested variances. The
motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 1 - 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
December 16, 1985
Item No. 1 - Continued
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analvsis
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.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 1 - 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.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 2 - Z-3520-A
Owner: Exxon Corporation
Address: 7600 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display
Variance
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-103.4/E.1 and .2 to permit a new
canopy with setbacks of 23 and 35 feet.
Justification: Exxon presently operates the subject
site with three islands. Two islands
are on Cantrell and one is on
Keightly. After reconstruction, all
three islands will be stacked, serving
Cantrell Road. The proposed layout
will improve traffic flow and safety
on the site by aligning all the
islands along the major street.
Presently, two pump islands are
within the 45-foot setback required
for construction. After completion
of construction, two islands and the
canopy will still be within the 45
foot setback.
Present Use
of Property: Service Station
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
Because of the odd shaped lot and
extreme corner angle, it is difficult
to get a layout which will serve the
customer and meet the setback
requirements. Under current City
Ordinance, a minimum setback of 45
feet is required. If a strict
interpretation of the subject ordinance
is in force, no modernization of this
site would be possible. As a result,
a variance is required for the placement
of the pump islands and canopy.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 2 - Continued
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request is to permit encroachments into the front
and side yards. The "C-4" District requires 45 feet
for both the front and side yards in this situation,
because of being a corner lot. The proposal is to
reduce the front yard to 23 feet and the side yard to
35 feet. The site is currently occupied by a service
station with one building and three pump islands of
which two are within the 45-foot setback. Exxon has
initiated a modernization program in the Little Rock
area and plans for this location call for the structure
to be relocated to the northeast and have all islands
under one large canopy. The proposed modification of
the site will be an improvement over the current
situation, especially for circulation. The new
orientation of the pump islands will improve traffic
flow, because they will primarily be serving Cantrell
Road. The property does have some unique
characteristics, site configuration and being on a
corner, which create justification for the reduced
setback. Without some type of variance it would be
almost impossible to upgrade the facility, and staff
supports the request. In addition to the new structure
and pump islands, increased landscaping will be
provided which will greatly enhance the site.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variances as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to grant the variances as requested. The
motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 3 - Z-3570-B
Owner: Lois R. Coulson
Address: 7400 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display
Variance
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-103.4/E to permit a new building
and expansion of existing canopy not
meeting setback requirements.
Justification: 1. Requirement for clearance between
structures causing car wash to be
moved back.
2. Dedication of right-of-way along
Cantrell Road.
Present Use
of Property: Service Station
Proposed Use
of Property: Same with car wash
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues (To be reported later)
B. Staff Analysis
The site is currently occupied by a service station
with one building and two small pump islands under a
canopy. The proposal is to enlarge the canopy and to
construct a self-service car wash on the northeast
corner of the property. The new construction, as
proposed, will encroach into the front, side and rear
yards. The site is zoned "C-4" and because of being
located on a corner, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 45
foot setback for the front and side yards with a 25
foot rear yard. The existing canopy has some setback
but does not meet the Ordinance requirements. The new
canopy will have a 0 foot setback if the variance is
granted because of the need to dedicate 10 feet of
additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road. Staff feels
that the right-of-way dedication does create a hardship
and supports necessary variance for the front yard
setback. The 45 foot requirement would almost preclude
the site being used without some type of variance.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 3 - Continued
The new construction for the site is a four bay car
wash to the northeast of the existing building. Staff
feels that a true hardship does not exist for the car
wash and cannot support the variance. The property has
limitations and the car wash just does not work as is
proposed. The issue of over building the site becomes
a real concern and also, because of the property's
location, the potential for traffic problems does
exist. The car wash could create two many adverse
impacts for the location.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the front yard variance
for the enlarged canopy, but denial of the necessary
variances for the car wash.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Mike Coulson, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Coulson discussed the variances for the
car wash and the justification for it. There were a number
of comments made about circulation and if the site could
accommodate the proposed car wash. At this point, staff
also informed the Board that the car wash would create
multiple structures on one lot which the Board of Adjustment
could approve. There was a long discussion about various
issues including the multiple buildings. Mr. Coulson
requested the Board of Adjustment to consider approving the
multiple structures in their action. A motion was made to
approve the variance for the canopy and two principle
buildings /uses on one site, but deny the requested variances
for the car wash. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0
noes, 2 absent.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 4 - Z -4583
Owner: Various Owners
Address: 1805 South Woodrow
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "I -3" Heavy Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the side yard provisions of
Section 7-104.3/D.2 to permit a new
addition with a 7.7 foot setback.
Justification: The lot is zoned "I-3" Heavy Industrial
which requires 30-foot side yards. The
property itself is only 75 feet in
width which allows only a 15-foot wide
structure that does not utilize the
property efficiently. The existing
buildings have been there for 30 years.
One building does not have a side yard
and another has a 7.7 foot side yard.
This building that has a 7.7 foot
side yard is the building we are
proposing to build the canopy on.
Present Use
of Property: Office and warehouse
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The proposal is to construct a new canopy between two
existing buildings with a 7.7 foot side yard. The
property is zoned "I-3" which requires a 30 foot side
yard setback. The canopy will be attached to the
building with a 7.7 foot side yard on the north side
and a 31 foot setback on the south. Another building
on the site is constructed with no setback on one side.
The existing buildings were constructed under the old
Zoning Ordinance which had no setback requirements for
the industrial districts.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 4 - Continued
With the 75-foot lot, it would be almost impossible to
construct any type of usable building meeting the
current setback requirements. Lot size and an "I-3"
setback requirement create a hardship for this
particular site and staff supports the request. By
matching the existing roofline and being only a canopy,
there will be no impact from the new construction on
other properties in the immediate area.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner was represented by Jack West. There were no
objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance as
requested. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0
noes, 2 absent.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 5 - Z-4588
Owner: Gary N. Speed
Address: 615 Asbury Road
Description: Lot 8, Block 3, Parkway Place
Zoned: "R-2"
Variance
Requested: From the rear yard provisions of
Section 7-103.2/D.3 to permit new
construction with a 17-foot setback.
Justification: 1. The trapezoidal shape of the lot
make it difficult to place a house
of this design on the lot without
violating either the rear yard,
side yard or front setback
requirements.
2. Only a corner of the house will
be less than 25 feet from the east
line. Due to the lot shape, other
portions of the house will be
consistent with the zoning
requirements.
3. A steep slope in the southwest
corner makes movement of the
garage to the south undesirable.
4. Although the rear yard will be
diminished, the house will have
over 15 feet of side yard on the
north and 24 feet of side yard on
south. Further, the driveway
portions of Lots 7 and 9 give
Lot 8 the apperance of even
greater side yards. Although
this proposed construction on Lot 8
will place the houses on Lots 8 and
7 more closely together,
concentration will be less than
if the houses were side by side
in a normal subdivision
configuration.
Present Use
of property: Vacant
December 16, 1985
Item No. 5 - Continued
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family Residence
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit new construction of a single
family residence to encroach into the rear yard by a
maximum of 8 feet. The "R-2" District requires a 25
foot rear yard so that at the nearest point the rear
yard will be reduced to 17 feet. The owner has
provided proper justification for their variance and
staff supports the request. Because of the lot shape,
meeting the rear yard setback would necessitate
crossing into the 25 foot front building line so a
waiver would be required for that. The lot does create
a hardship and the proposed setback will not impact the
abutting properties because there will still be
adequate separation.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of setback variance as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
December 16, 1985
Item No. 6 - Z-4580 - Interpretation Issue
Owner: Roy Burks' Family
Address: 126 White Oak Lane
Description: Lots 28 and 29, Wilton Heights Addn.
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Request: Interpretation requested relative to
determination of structural status.
That is, is the structure in question a
permanent building or a trailer of mix
thereof?
Justification: The owner uses the structure for certain
off -site retail sales operations. At
this time, he does not have an axle and
cannot qualify as a trailer for
licensing. However, a permanent
foundation is inappropriate.
Present Use of
Property: The structure serves as a playhouse for
the owners children on a vacant lot next
door to the lot to the homesite.
Proposed Use
of Property: Remain the same
STAFF REPORT:
This issue is before the Board of Adjustment because the
Zoning Ordinance does not address temporary buildings of
this nature. The question being can the owner have a
portable building for both a commercial and residential use.
Also, there is a neighbor who has complained about the
appearance of the unit. The existing building is situated
on a lot next to 126 White Oak Lane and both lots are owned
by Mr. Roy Burks and his family. The structure currently
serves two functions and that is why it is not permanent.
First, Mr. Burks uses it for his business, screen printing,
by transporting it to different functions such as the State
Fair. Secondly, when the unit is located on the lot, it
serves as a playhouse form Mr. Burks' children and is placed
on cement blocks. Currently, Mr. Burks transports the
building on a flatbed trailer, but in the future he plans to
put an axle under it. (See attached letter for additional
details.)
December 16, 1985
Item No. 6 - Continued
Staff feels that the unit is really no different from a
utility or small recreational trailer and creates no adverse
problems. The owner has placed the building as far as
possible from the street, but it is still very visible
because of material that was used to fabricate the unit.
Because of this, staff suggests that a fence be placed
around two sides, the west and south. This would still make
the structure readily accessible, and at the same time,
screen it from White Oak Lane.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-18-85)
The owner was not present. A motion was made to defer the
item to the December 16, 1985, meeting. The motion was
approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-85)
Roy Burks, the owner of 126 White Oak Lane was present.
There were three other persons in attendance who expressed
an interest in this issue. Matt Parker spoke and said that
the structure had no axle so it was not a trailer on its
own. He made additional comments about the staff report and
read a petition requesting the Board of Adjustment not to
grant the variance. Mr. Parker said that too many problems
had been caused by 126 White Oak Lane and that a number of
violations had been reported to the City. Nancy Newcomb
reinforced what Mr. Parker had said. Mr. Burks then
addressed the Board of Adjustment. He described the
structure and said it could be fitted with an axle and has a
removable tongue. He said the building was 8 x 10, 6 1/2
feet high and used by his children as a playhouse. There
was a long discussion about the various items. Both
Ms. Newcomb and Mr. Parker spoke again and discussed other
issues. A motion was offered which stated that the
structure did not qualify as a trailer by definition because
of having no permanent axle and not being licensed by the
State of Arkansas. The motion was approved by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
December 16, 1985
There being no further business before the Board of
Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Chairman
Secretary
Date