HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6514 Staff AnalysisJune 29, 1998
It
File No.: Z-6514
Owner: Noland Properties, Inc./
The Hathaway Group
Address: Rodney Parham and Freeway Drive
Description: Preliminary platted as Lots 2
and 3, Freeway Business Park
Zoned: c-3
Variance Reauested: A variance is requested from the
height restrictions of Section 36-
301 to permit construction of a
four-story, 70 foot tall office
building.
Justification: The property is adjacent to I-630
which is located approximately 50
feet above the grade of the
property. Therefore, the proposed
building would extend no more than
20 feet above the grade of I-630.
In addition, there are no
residences contiguous to the
proposed development. The southern
portion of Briarwood lies north of
I-630 while the western portion of
University Park is located over
1,335 feet to the east on the east
side of Hughes Street. Other land
usages in the immediate vicinity
are a mixture of office, retail,
and light industrial which would
not be impacted adversely by the
proposed -quiet office"
development.
Present Use of Propert : Vacant lots
Proposed Use of Property: Four-story, 57,000± square foot
office building
Staff Rem:
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577 (300 foot spacing required).
June 29, 1998
Item No.: 9 (Cont.
2. Grading permit will be required on this new development,
if more than one acre is disturbs.
3. Stormwater detention Ordinance applies to this property.
4. Obtain barricade/street cut permits for improvements
within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic
Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way.
5. Utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way shall
be per Article V of Sec. 30.
H. Staff Analysis:
Arkansas Urology Associates proposes to construct a four-
story, 57,000 square foot office building on the C-3 zoned
property located at Rodney Parham and Freeway Drive. The
medical building will contain the offices of Arkansas
Urology Associates and other medical practitioners. The
proposed building will have a total height of 70 feet. The
C-3 district has a height limit of 35 feet.
Staff believes this variance request to be reasonable. The
building is to be located in the approximate center of a 3+
acre commercial tract. Surrounding land uses are office,
retail, light industrial and I-630 which is located
approximately 50 feet above the grade of the property.
Although the site plan submitted by the applicant is
somewhat "conceptual" in nature, building setbacks from all
property lines have been submitted. The building will have
setbacks of 125 feet from Rodney Parham, 81 feet from I-630
and 133 and 165 feet from Freeway Drive which curves around
the site. These large setbacks, well in excess of those
required by the C-3 district, will help to mitigate the
visual impact of the 70 foot tall building. Additionally,
Section 36-156(a)(1)(a) states,
"In the thirty-five foot and forty-five foot
height districts, public or semipublic
buildings, hospitals, sanitariums or schools
may be erected to a height not exceeding
seventy-five (75) feet when each of its front,
side and rear yards are increased an additional
foot for each foot such buildings exceed
thirty-five (35) and forty-five (45) feet
respectively in height."
Although the proposed office building is not public or truly
semipublic, that same rationale can be used to support the
increased height. All proposed setbacks are more than 35
feet greater than the setbacks required for the site.
No variances are requested from any other provisions of the
code; buffers, landscaping, parking etc.
2
June 29, 1998
Item No.: 9 (Cont_
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all other applicable site development
codes and standards.
2. Compliance with Public works Comments
HOARD of ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 29, 1998)
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 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