HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6230 Staff AnalysisDecember 2-3, 1§96
No.. 3
File No.:
Owner.
Address•
Description:
Zoned•
variance RecTuested :
Justification:
Present ❑se of Propert :
Proposed Use of Propel:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Z-6230
Gene and Idella McCoy, AdCraft
1122 West 3rd Street
The West 75 feet of the south 40 feet
of Lot 5 and the West 75 feet of Lot
6, Block 294, Original City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
C-4
variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section 36-302
to permit construction of a storage
building with reduced side and rear
yard setbacks.
The applicant is proposing to
replace an older, 8 foot by 20 foot
metal storage building with a new
one of the same size. There is no
room anywhere else on the site to
place the building.
Ad Craft; advertising, graphic
arts, screen printing
Same
A dedication of right-of-way will be required for a 20, foot
radial area at the intersection. Property frontage needs to
have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA
standards with any planned construction. Improve corner
curb radius to 31.5 foot radius with construction (existing
corner curb radius is 10 feet).
B. Staff Analysis:
The owners of the property located at 1122 West 3rd Street
propose to remove an older, 8 foot by 20 foot, metal storage
building and replace it with a new storage building of the
same size. The existing building has a 0 foot setback from
the north, side property line and a setback of 9.5 feet from
December 23, 1596
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
the east, rear property line. The proposed new building
will have a 1.5 foot setback from the north, side property
line and a setback of 0 feet from the east, rear yard
property line. The C-4 district requires a side yard
setback of 15 feet and a rear yard setback of 25 feet for
this lot.
The storage building is tucked into a small alcove formed by
the applicant's building and the buildings on the adjacent,
north and east, properties. The property is located in a
portion of the downtown office district which is zoned C-4.
The zoning pattern has been in place since the 1930's and
is, as a whole, not reflective of the uses in much of the
area. The C-4 district has substantial setbacks designed to
accommodate suburban development of open display types of
uses.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable and is
supportive of the requested setback variances. However, the
proposed storage building will have to comply with all
applicable building and fire codes. Since the structure
will be located so close to the abutting property lines, it
will have to meet appropriate fire ratings as established by
the Building Codes division.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side and rear
yard setback variances subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments
2. Compliance with all applicable Building and Fire Codes.
Approval of this variance does not endorse a variance
of any other code requirements.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 1996)
The applicant, Gene McCoy, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval, with conditions. Staff informed the Board that the
applicant had not followed proper procedure in notifying property
owners within 200 feet. He had not obtained a certified list of
property owners from an abstract company but had mailed the
notices based on his own research.
Mr. McCoy stated that he had mailed notices to everyone within
200 feet with the exception of the owners of several properties
that are used as parking lots. He noted that notices had been
sent to the properties most affected by the variance; those
adjacent to the north and east.
2
December 23, 1996
Item No.: 3(Cont.)
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to waive the bylaws
and to accept the notification as performed by Mr. McCoy. The
motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and
1 open position.
In response to a question from Mark Alderfer, Mr. McCoy stated
that the new building would be constructed of aluminum, the same
as the existing building. Mr. McCoy also stated that he was
aware of the requirement to comply with all applicable building
codes.
Mark Alderfer asked Mr. McCoy if he was aware of the Public Works
Comments and noted that there were some substantial requirements
in those comments. Mr. McCoy responded that he was aware of
those requirements and that the contractor for the project would
take care of them.
A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the staff
recommendation. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position and 1 abstaining (Brooks).
3