Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5027-B Staff AnalysisAUGUST 15, 1988 Item No. 7 FileNo. Z -5027-B ............ __.....................,......................_...._................. Owner: City of Little Rock/Sam Strauss Description: Long Legal Zoned: R_e,au e s t : STAFF ANALYSIS: "C-3" General Commercial Rehearing for a denial for a front yard setback On June 20, 1988 the applicant came before the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance for a front yard setback in order to construct an addition to an existing building. At the time the request came before the Board, the property was zoned "1-2" Light Industrial with a front yard setback requirement of 50 feet. The applicant was proposing a front yard setback of 3 feet which would be in keeping with the building alignment to the existing structure. In order for the addition to occur as the applicant had proposed, construction would have to be done over an existing concrete culvert. The Engineering issues associated with this request and one of the major reasons for the denial was the maintenance problems and danger that possibly could occur when a concrete culvert of this size is obstructed and rendered nonaccessible. Another issue regarding the request was the City Attorney's concern regarding an agreement the applicant submitted indicating any damage incurred from the building will be the responsibility of the shopping center. The City Attorney present stated that before any agreement which relinquished liability or imposes liability to the City of Little Rock must first be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. The agreement had not been reviewed at the time the request came before the Board. The applicant now feels that new evidence exists regarding the initial request and is requesting that another public hearing be held in order for the evidence to be presented with'proper notice given to the surrounding property owners. AUGUST 15, 1988 Item No. 7 Continued ... - - - c.....-....--_- )............. ....... W.�__ BOARD OF .ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988) Mr. Elvin Shuffield represented the applicant. Staff stated that the applicant was requesting a thirty day deferral fo"r the rehearing. Mr. Shuffield stated that the reason for the deferral was because his client was trying to meet with the representatives of the Kroger Company to see if the addition could be placed in the front. If that can not be accomplished, then before the next meeting he plans to meet with Engineering and the City Attorney's office to see what alternatives could be worked out regarding the building over the concrete culvert. A motion was then made to defer this item until the September 19, 1988 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open position. September 19, 1988 Item No_..,._ A. File No. Z -5027-B Owner: Descri,ption: Zoned: .Request.: STAFF ANALYS.I.S: City of Little Rock/Sam Strauss Long Legal "C-3" General Commercial Rehearing for a denial for a front yard setback On June 20, 1988 the applicant came before the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance for a front yard setback in order to construct an addition to an existing building. At the time the request came before the Board, the property was zoned "1-2" Light Industrial with a front yard setback requirement of 50 feet. The applicant was proposing a front yard setback of 3 feet which would be in keeping with the building alignment to the existing structure. In order for the addition to occur as the applicant had proposed, construction would have to be done over an existing concrete culvert. The Engineering issues associated with this request and one of the major reasons for the denial was the maintenance problems and danger that possibly could occur when a concrete culvert of this size is obstructed and rendered nonaccessible. Another issue regarding the request was the City Attorney's concern regarding an agreement the applicant submitted indicating any damage incurred from the building will be the responsibility of the shopping center. The City Attorney present stated that before any agreement which relinquished liability or imposes liability to the City of Little Rock must first be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. The agreement had not been reviewed at the time the request came before the Board. The applicant now feels that new evidence exists regarding the initial request and is requesting that another public hearing be held in order for the evidence to be presented with proper notice given to the surrounding property owners. September 19, 1988 Item No...A (Continued) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (August 15, 1988) Mr. Elvin Shuffield represented the applicant. Staff stated that the applicant was requesting a thirty day deferral for the rehearing. Mr. Shuffield stated that the reason for the deferral was because his client was trying to meet with the representatives of the Kroger Company to see if the addition could be placed in the front. If that can not be accomplished, then before the next meeting he plans to meet with Engineering and the City Attorney's office to see what alternatives could be worked out regarding the building over the concrete culvert. A motion was then made to defer this item until the September 19, 1988 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 open position. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) Staff informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting this item to be withdrawn. A motion was made to do so at the request of the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. OTHER MATTERS OF CONCERN Item No. I File No: Q Z.q - Owner: i y o+ LR / ��.�vv1 rOJl l S S Address: Request: vt C3i h-i� , J &X, Cil. dk1✓u I -a C ry Z-)Oj s,Ce/rL.'o—� . STAFF ANALYSIS: On June 20, 1988 the applicant came before the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance for a front yard setback in order to construct an addition to an existing building. At the time the request came before the Board, the property was zoned "1-2" Light Industrial with a front yard setback requirement of SO feet. The applicant was proposing a front yard setback of. 3 feet which would be in keeping with.the building alignment to the existing structure. In order for the addition to occur as the applicant had proposed, construction would have to be done over an existing concrete'CLIlvert. The Engineering issues associated with this request and one of the major reasons for the den'ial was the maintenance problems and danger that possibly could occur when a concrete culvert of this size is obstructed and rendered nonaccessible. Another issue regarding the request was the City Attorney's concern regarding an agreement the applicant submitted indicating any damage incurred from the building will be the responsibility of the shopping center. The City Attorney present stated that before any agreement which relinquished liability or imposes liability to the City of Little Rock must first be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. The agreement had not been reviewed at the time the request came before the Board. The applicant now feels that new evidence exists regarding the initial request and is requesting that another public hearing be held in order for the evidence to be presented with proper notice given to the surrounding property owners. }. f l