HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5279-A Staff AnalysisJune '26, 1995
item No.: A
File No.: Z -5279-A
Owner: Mid -South Appliance
Address: 1020 West 14th
DesCri tion: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 269,
Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: I-2
variance Requested: From the area regulations of
Section 36-320 to permit an
addition with a reduced front yard
setback.
Justification: 1. The space requirements exceed
the available lot area. If
this variance is not allowed,
the owner will be forced to
relocate to another part of
town.
2. The adjoining property at 1102
West 14th Street (Global Mfg.)
has been granted front yard and
sideyard variances of a similar
nature.
3. The existing building and site
are in violation of numerous _
Safety, Building Code, and -
Landscaping Ordinances. If
this addition is approved, the
entire facility and site will
be brought up to code.
4. The proposed landscaping (none
existing) will significantly
improve the appearance of the
neighborhood.
5. The City Board of Adjustment
approved a similar request for
this in 1989.
Present gse_of Property: Parts warehouse
Proposed Use of Property: Parts warehouse
June •26, 1995
Item No.: A (Cont.
Staff Report
A. Encrineerinq _Issues:
11. The Master Street Plan requires a 80 foot right-of-way
for Chester Street at the intersection with West 14th.
2. At the intersection, Chester will need to be widened to
one-half of a 5-1ane section.
3. The eastern driveway on West 14th needs to be relocated
because it does not conform to the ordinance standards.
4. Provide stormwater detention analysis.
B. Staff Analysis:
The proposal for 1020 West 14th, the northwest corner of
Chester and West 14th, involves making an addition to the
existing building, and the request is to reduce the front
yard setback. (For this site, West 14th is the front yard
side because of the orientation of the structure.) In the
I-2 district, the front yard setback is 50 feet. With this
variance request, the owner would like to reduce the
required setback to 50 feet. The existing footprint
contains 11,000 square feet and the proposed addition would
add another 9,400 square feet.
Because of the building's placement on the property and the
somewhat irregular lot configuration, the options available
for adding the needed space are somewhat limited. The
existing structure is built on the north property line and
the loading/parking area is to the west of the building. To
gain the needed square footage, the proposed construction
appears to be the only feasible way of adding the area.
Through this project, landscaping and other improvements
will be made to upgrade the property.
Along this portion of West 14th, a majority of the existing
buildings do not conform to the setback standards and
several of them are within several feet of the West 14th
property line. If this variance is granted, the setback for
1020 West 14th will match the setback for the building
directly to the west. Therefore, allowing a significant
reduction in the front yard setback will not introduce a new
element into the neighborhood. The variance is reasonable
and staff supports the request.
(A similar variance was approved in 1989, however, no
building permit was obtained within 2 years from the date of
approval. The bylaws state:
2
June 26, 1995
Item No.• A n .
...all permits necessary for the initiation
of work shall be obtained within 2 years from
the date of approval, unless an extension of
time is granted by the Board. Otherwise, the
Board approval of the application shall be
considered void.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 27, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff advised the Board that the applicant had requested a
deferral to the April 24, 1995 Board meeting to allow time to
address the issue raised by the City Engineer's Office.
A motion was made to defer the item to the April 24, 1995 Board
meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to address the
issues raised by the City Engineer's Office. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had been unable to
resolve those issues raised by the City Engineer's Office and
that there were still ongoing discussions of those issues. As
such, the applicant was requesting a deferral to the May 22, 1995
Board meeting.
A motion was made to defer the
meeting to allow the applicant
Engineer's Office. The motion
8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
item to the May 22, 1995 Board
time to work with the City
was approved with a vote -of
(MAY 22, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the issues raised by the City
Engineer's Office had been resolved, however the applicant had
not mailed the notices for the Board meeting. The applicant was
requesting a deferral to the next Board meeting.
A motion was made to defer the item to the June 26 1995 Board
meeting to allow the applicant time to mail the notices. The
motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
June -26, 1995
Item o.: A Cont.
BOARD of AD TM -ENT: (JUNE 26, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested that
this item be withdrawn.
A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved
with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
4