boa_09 16 1985LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 16, 1985
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 6 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: B.L. Murphree
Joe Norcross
Ellis Walton
Richard Yada
Steve Smith
Thomas McGowan
Members Absent: George Wells
Ronald Woods
Herbert Rideout
City Attorney: Pat Benton
September 16, 1985
Item No. 1 - Z-4529
Owner: James and Linda Landers
Address: #16 Glenridge Road
Description: Lot 60, Robinwood Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the rear yard provisions of Section
43/7-102 to permit construction of an
addition with a 10-foot setback
Justification: With the position of our house on our
lot, we can find no other way to have
this addition, keep our current views,
and keep our exciting style of
architectural without encroaching upon
this rear yard setback.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Same with addition
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Engineering Issues
None reported.
2. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit an addition to the rear of the
residence with a setback of 10 feet. The ordinance
requires a 25 -foot rear yard so the encroachment will
be 15 feet. The new construction is to be a bedroom,
so it appears that the proposed location for the
addition is the only viable one because of the use.
Also, the residence's position on the lot and the
property's topography create justification for the
requested variance. The garage is approximately 38
feet from the front property line which is the closest
point, and the living area of the structure is set back
77 feet + from the front property line. A hardship
does exist because of the preceding factors, and staff
supports the requested variance. There will be no
impact on the property to the north because it is
heavily wooded and permanent open space.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 1 - Continued
3. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard variance as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner was represented by James Williams, an architect.
There were no objectors present. A motion was made to
approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 2 - Z-4533
Owner: Roy A. Schuster
Address: 4410 S. University
Description: Tract A, Rock Creek Industrial Subd.
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
variance
Requested: From the rear and side yard setback
provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.2 and .3
to permit building addition with 10-foot
setbacks.
Justification: To match new addition to walls of
existing building and to allow maximum
use of the property.
Present Use of
Property: Warehouse
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
A 20-foot access easement is needed along the west
property line in order to access Rock Creek.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct 24,000 square feet of
additional warehousing space at the rear of the
existing building. The new construction will maintain
the building line on the north side of the existing
warehouse, which was probably constructed when no
setbacks were necessary in an industrial district.
Both variances, rear and side yards, are for 10 feet.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 15-foot side yard and
25-foot rear yard in the "I-2" District. The land to
the west and north is vacant, so the new addition will
have no impact on those properties. Staff's position
is that a true hardship does not exist, but because the
property's location and the building's position on the
site, the requested variances are justified. There is
one issue staff would like to raise and that is the new
"unloading" dock. Our concern is its size and whether
it is large enough to accommodate long based vehicles.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 2 - Continued
It appears that the area for the necessary turning
movements is somewhat restrictive. Adequate parking
will be provided, but staff recommends that the
proposed parking lot on the east side be converted to
90° spaces.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to the east parking
area being modified to 90° stalls and providing a
20-foot access easement on the west side as recommended
by Engineering.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer. There
were no objectors. Mr. Davis spoke and said that the owner
agreed with the 90° spaces for the east parking area, but
indicated that the 20-foot easement requirement created some
problems. Mike Batie of the City's Engineering Office then
addressed the access easement issue. He said that the 20
feet was needed to ensure adequate access for heavy
equipment, but said that 15 feet could be a minimum. There
were some additional comments made by Mr. Davis, and he
stated that the owner could live with the 15-foot easement.
A motion was then made to grant the variance subject to the
east parking area having 90° stalls and that a 15-foot
easement be provided on the west side of the property. The
motion was approved. The vote: 5 ayes, 1 noe and 3
absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 3 - Z-4533-A
Owner: Roy A. Schuster
Address: 4410 S. University
Description: Tract A, Rock Creek Industrial Subd.
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of
Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit
construction below the 100-year flood
elevation.
Justification: To match floor elevation of existing
building and would eliminate the
necessity for a 50-inch high ramp.
Such a ramp would create a hazard.
Present Use of
Property: Warehouse
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
The existing structure is located within the 100-year
floodplain of Rock Creek. The 100-year flood elevation
is 259.6 feet MSL. The required floor elevation is
2 feet higher at 261.6 feet MSL.
If the Board of Adjustment finds that hardship exists
for the applicant, the Engineering staff requests that
all electrical, mechanical and plumbing be either
waterproofed to 261.6 feet MSL or physically located
above 261.6 feet MSL.
B. Staff Analysis
(The Planning staff defers this item to the Engineering
Division for response.)
C. Staff Recommendation
As recommended by the Engineering staff.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 3 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Sam Davis, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Davis addressed the variance issue briefly.
Mike Batie, City Engineering, discussed the question of a
true hardship and the existing floor elevation. He said
that if a true hardship existed, that he had no problems
supporting the request. He also pointed out that the site
was a critical location but the variance approval would have
no effect on adjoining properties. Mr. Davis made some
additional comments and said a hardship did exist because of
the existing floor elevation. A motion was then made to
grant the variance with the condition that all electrical,
mechanical and plumbing be either waterproofed to 261.6 feet
MSL or physically located above 261.6 feet MSL. The motion
was approved by a vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 4 - Z-4535
Owner: Ray Baxley
Address: 4716 Baseline Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the mobile home provisions of
Section 3-101 /C.1.D to permit a mobile
home for security purposes.
Justification: Need additional security.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT
A. Enqineerinq Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is to allow
a mobile home for security purposes. The property is
occupied by a commercial operation with some
mini-storage units, and the owner has experienced some
break-ins. The owner has provided reasonable
justification for the variance, and staff supports the
request. This type of variance request has become
fairly common over the last year. Staff does recommend
that the mobile home be located closer to the
commercial activity on the property than what is being
proposed by the applicant. This should provide for
better security, and remove it from the single family
area to the north.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to
the mobile home being located as close as possible to
the front of property (Baseline Road).
September 16, 1985
Item No. 4 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner, Ray Baxley, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Baxley said that he had problems with the
staff's recommendation because of the creek and the sewer
being along the rear of the property. There was a long
discussion about the site and possible locations for the
mobile home. Mr. Baxley pointed out that there was a fence
around the property, but he was still experiencing a problem
with break ins. There were additional comments made about
the various issues. The first motion that was made was
withdrawn. A second motion was made to grant the variance
with a condition that the mobile home be placed within 50
feet of the mini storage units. The motion was approved
with a vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 5 - Z-4536
Owner: J.M. Products
Address: 3115 Peyton Street
Description: Lot 22, Block 2, Remmel's Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: From the side yard provisions of
Section 7-104.2/E.2 to permit addition
with a 1-foot setback.
Justification:
1. The proposed construction site's lot configuration is
of an unusual rectangular shape. Because of this, a
setback as required by the Little Rock Code would
result in a loss of approximately 33 percent of
available construction space.
2. There exists a nonfunctional 10-foot right-of-way that
leads to nowhere on that side of the warehouse where we
are requesting the variance. This right-of-way appears
to have been cut off at one end years ago. It extends
only 120 feet east of Peyton Street and ends at a
3-foot high concrete slab which abuts against our
existing building.
Present Use of
Property: Warehouse
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT
A.
Engineering Issues
No adverse comments.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a 2400 square foot
addition to an existing warehouse with a 1-foot
setback. The property is adjacent to a 10-foot alley
that is not in use and can provide additional
separation between this building and the properties to
the north. The site is located south of Asher in an
September 16, 1985
Item No. 5 - Continued
area that has been developed for years. Many of the
existing buildings were constructed under the old
Zoning Ordinance which had no setback requirement for
the industrial district. Because of this situation and
the 10 -foot alley, the 1-foot setback is justified.
Also, the lot is somewhat irregular in shape so it
appears that any addition would require a variance.
Staff feels that the 1-foot setback is not the primary
issue but is concerned with the parking and loading
requirements. The proposed parking area is located
west of the addition, and with the new construction
needs to have approximately 10 spaces. Without a
specific parking layout, it is difficult to determine
whether this is possible and also if loading can be
accommodated and be functional. It could be possible
that the addition is encroaching into the area that is
needed for parking.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff is withholding a recommendation on the setback
variance until additional information is provided for
the parking and loading area.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
(Item numbers 5 and 6 were discussed together.)
The applicant, Michael Joshua, was present. There was one
interested property in attendance. Mr. Joshua discussed the
request and indicated that additional parking spaces had
been secured on two lots across Peyton Street. Kenny Scott
of the Enforcement Office made some comments and said that
the parking area would have to be paved. Mr. Joshua again
discussed the various issues including the parking concerns.
There was a long discussion about whether these additional
spaces would be secured through an agreement or a long-term
lease. Linda Longstreeth, a property owner in the area,
then addressed the Board. She said that she owned the
property to the east of the lot on Asher and she was
objecting to the zero-foot setback because of blocking her
visibility. At this point, staff suggested that the lot
located on Asher be used for parking, and that in the
future, lots on the west side of Peyton be utilized as an
additional building location. Ms. Longstreeth indicated
that she did not object to the lot on Asher being used for
parking. There were some other comments made about the
Asher Avenue lot. A motion was made to approve the variance
request for Z-4536, 3115 Peyton, with the condition that the
required parking be provided on the Asher Avenue lot. The
variance was granted. The vote: 6 ayes, 0 noes and
3 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 6 - Z-4537
Owner: J.M. Products
Address: 4211 Asher Avenue
Description: Lots 17 and 18, Block 2, Remmel's
Addition
Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: 1. From the setback provision of
Section 7-104.2/E to permit a new
building.
2. From the parking provisions of
Section 8-101 /B.4.B to permit 0
parking spaces.
Justification: In order to best utilize the available
space. Also, the new building is
warehouse space only, so no additional
parking is needed.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Warehouse
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
No adverse comments.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a 5800 square foot building on
a 50-foot lot, so setback variances are needed on three
sides. A front yard setback variance is not necessary,
because the proposed building will maintain the
existing building line established by the other
structures on the block. In addition to the setback
variance, a parking variance is also being requested
for 0 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requirement is
approximately 7 spaces. This property is owned by the
same owners of the lot at 3115 Peyton (Item No. 5) and
the building on Asher is proposed to be used for
additional warehousing. Staff's initial reaction is
that the proposal is overbuilding the lot and is
concerned with the lack of parking or loading area.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 6 - Continued
As the building is proposed, there would be minimum
setbacks on the west and south sides with a 0-foot
setback on the east. To the east, the separation from
the adjacent building would be adequate, but to the
west, the existing building is on the property line, so
the distance would be approximately 3 feet between
structures. This could present a problem with the Fire
Code, but staff has not received any comments from the
Fire Department as of this writing. The rear yard
setback is only 4 feet, but there is a 10-foot alley
that separates this lot from the property to the south.
As with the preceding case, Z-4536, staff is not
prepared to take a position because of several
uncertainties associated with the project, such as
parking. Also, because of property and the site on
Peyton being owned by the same company, the two lots
will probably function together, and staff would like
to have a more detailed description of that
arrangement.
C. Staff Recommendation
Until additional information is provided, staff is not
prepared to make a recommendation.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
(See Z-4536, Item No. 5, for additional comments.)
A motion was made to withdraw the request from
consideration. The motion was approved by a vote of:
6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 7 - Z-4540
Owner: Markham Street Baptist Church
Address: Wedgewood Drive South of West Markham
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the parking provisions of Section
31-101 /C.l.F to permit parking on
property zoned "R-2."
Justification:
1. Due to recent growth, the church requires more parking
spaces than are now available.
2. The existing parking lot now being used across from
West Markham from the church is dangerous to the
members who must cross West Markham to reach the
church. During recent years, traffic has increased
considerably making the hazard greater.
3. The subject lot is vacant, and a landscaped parking
area would be an improvement of the use.
4. Lack of traffic on Wedgewood makes this lot the obvious
choice for a parking lot.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Church Parking
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
1. Access onto Wedgewood must be approved by the
Traffic Engineer.
2. Due to the existing drainage problem in the West
Markham and Wedgewood Road area, any creek
relocations or improvements to the creek on the
proposed site shall be approved by the Traffic
Engineer before construction is begun. Contact
and coordinate with the City Engineer.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 7 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit accessory church parking on
land zoned "R-2." The Zoning Ordinance states that
"any deteched parking facilities or satellite parking
shall be located on a lot which is zoned to allow the
principal use to which this parking will serve or they
must be approved by the Board of Adjustment.' The
church in question is located at the corner of West
Markham and Meadowbrook (BOA Z-1706) with very little
parking on the principal site. Currently, the primary
parking areas are across Meadowbrook and West Markham,
the "O-3" tract. Both of those locations are adjacent
to some nonresidential uses and have frontage on West
Markham. The site plan submitted for the parking area
proposes to create 83 spaces and does not utilize all
the land for parking initially.
Currently, in the northeast corner, there is a single
family residence that will remain and the southern
one -third is shown to be left undeveloped. The plan
also provides for landscaping and fencing. The land
under consideration is located in a block that is
occupied by single family residences with the exception
of this vacant tract. The remainder of the neighborhood
in the immediate vicinity is also single family and
appears to be stable. The primary issues associated
with this request are land use and the potential
impacts on the parking area of the neighborhood.
After carefully reviewing the proposal, staff cannot
support the request. Staff's position is that the
parking area would be a significant nonresidential
intrusion into a single family block and could
encourage future proposals for nonresidential uses
especially for properties fronting West Markham.
Currently, the nonresidential uses stop at Wedgewood,
and it should continue to be maintained as a line.
Staff agrees that having to cross West Markham can
create a dangerous situation, but that does not justify
the creation of a parking area this size and suggests
that other options be pursued.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommemds denial of the parking variance as
requested.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 7 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Rex Crane, was present. There were
approximately 15 objectors and 20 supporters in attendance.
Mr. Crane spoke and discussed the issue at length. He
indicated that the church was concerned with the
neighborhood and that was one reason for the parking lot so
cars would not have to park on the street. He pointed out
that the City had a plan to remedy the flooding, but it was
far down on the priority list. He went on to say that the
church had been located at the same site for 34 years prior
to any residential development in the area. Mr. Crane said
there were two primary reasons for the variance, crossing
Markham and the church has approximately 600 members. Mr.
Crane reported that the church currently had 80 spaces and
there were no other options. George Wimberly spoke in
support of the request and said the parking was needed.
Manuel Weeks said that the church's building program would
be denied should the variance for the parking area not be
granted. Mr. Weeks said that the church did not want to
adversely impact the neighborhood, but the lot on Wedgewood
was the only alternative available. John H. Golden, Jim
Knox and E.L. Alexander all spoke in opposition to the
request. They were concerned with the flooding problem and
effects on property values. Mr. Alexander presented some
photos and a petition requesting that the variance be
denied. Also, several possible options were suggested.
Mike Batie of the City's Engineering staff addressed the
flooding issue. He said it was a bad situation, but it
would be a long time before the necessary improvements were
made. He also said some detention on the parking lot would
be possible. Mr. Knox spoke again about the creek and
flooding. Mr. Crane said that the church also had problems
with the flooding and would be willing to try to help solve
the problem. James Farrell, an architect for the church,
said that the parking lot design could accommodate a
substantial portion of the runoff. A number of other
persons spoke in opposition to and in support of the
variance for the parking lot. One individual suggested that
the lot would not devalue property in the neighborhood.
Others indicated that not just the flooding potential was a
concern, but also use of the lot. There were additional
comments made about the various issues. A motion was then
made that the church be granted the right to build a parking
lot similar to the layout presented and appropriate
engineering consideration be given to runoff hopefully to
equal it or that the runoff be no greater than what is on
the site at this time. The motion was approved by a vote
of: 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 8 - Z-4542
Owner: Lisa Adams
Address: 2905 Ozark Street
Description: Lot 14, Block 1, Fairfax Terrace
Addition
Zoned: "R -3" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the front yard provisions of
Section 7-101.3 /D.1 to permit an
addition with a 13-foot front yard
setback.
Justification:
1. More room is needed, and the east wall is the only
feasible way to add the area and keep the internal
structure of the house practical.
2. The house is a small house on Ozark amid much larger
homes. This addition would help bring its size to the
neighborhood standard.
3. The west area is the only way to add without a variance
but is very impractical because of:
(a) The large separation (garage and breezeway)
between the main body of the house and the
available lot space.
(b) The only tree on the lot would have to be removed
detracting from the ambience of the neighborhood.
(c) All heating and cooling ducts, drains and water
connections and hot water heaters are located
under the house, 15 feet from the east wall. The
heating and cooling system cannot connect to any
west wall construction because there is concrete
work under the garage and breezeway.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 8 - Continued
(d) The west section of the lot is also
impracticable because of a 4 -foot fall from
the garage and slopes of 45° for the
remainder of the lot.
Present Use of
of Property: Single Family
Propose Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
-No adverse comments.
B. Staff Analvsis
The proposal is to construct the 12' x 28' addition, a
bedroom and bathroom, on the east side of the existing
residence. Because of the platting of the lot, the
east side of the property is the front yard, even
though the front door faces north, Ozark Street. The
front yard requirement for the "R-3" District is 25
feet, so the yard would be reduced to 13 feet if the
variance is granted. The owner has provided proper
justification for the variance, and the staff supports
the request. The east side is the only viable option
for creating additional floor space because of the
structural configuration of the residence and the
physical constraints on the west side. Other
residences along Woodrow have encroachments in the
required yard area, so this variance should not have
any impact on the immediate area.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval as variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Lisa Adams, was present. There were two
objectors also in attendance. Ms. Adams discussed her
request and said that the east side was the only option
because of a number of constraints. Mrs. Henry Steinkamp
objected to the variance and asked the Board to overrule the
staff's recommendation. She then read a letter from
David Williams, an attorney representing the property owner
September 16, 1985
Item No. 8 - Continued
to the south. The letter suggested that a variance would
have an adverse impact on property values in the
neighborhood. Ms. Adams spoke again and discussed various
issues. Orrin Redman indicated his opposition to the
variance because the extension would disrupt views and
effect the block. A motion was made to grant the variance
as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 9 - Z-4543
Owner: Jack W. and Claudia Hamilton
Address: 5301 Country Club
Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 19, Newton
Addition
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
5-101 /F.2.E to permit construction of
a new garage 2-foot from property
line.
Justification: To preserve the existence of a major
natural feature.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to grant a
variance to allow a new garage to be constructed 2 feet
from the west property line. The Zoning Ordinance
requirement for accessory buildings is that they shall
maintain at least a 3-foot setback from any side or
rear property line. The sketch reflects an old garage
which has been removed, and it was 2 feet from the west
line. The new garage will be slightly larger than the
previous one, but that should not change the situation.
Preserving an existing tree is reasonable justification
for the variance, and staff supports the request. To
the west on the adjacent lot, there is no structural
involvement close to the property so the variance if
granted would not create any adverse impacts on the
property to the west. Staff does recommend the garage
be a single story structure only.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 9 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance with the
condition that the garage be a one-story structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner, Jack Hamilton, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Hamilton spoke briefly and agreed to the
staff's recommendation. A motion was made to grant the
variance with the condition that the garage be a one story
structure only. The motion was approved by a vote of:
5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 10 - Z-4545
Owner: L.L. and Julie Marshall
Address: 1900 N. Spruce
Description: Lot 84, and South 26.0 feet of Lot 85,
Shaddowlawn Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the height and area provisions of
Section 5-101 /F.2.D to permit garage
exceeding 30 percent rear yard coverage.
Justification: To square up outside building line with
a storage closet.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The variance requested is to permit an accessory
structure to have a rear yard coverage in excess of 30
percent. The Zoning Ordinance states that accessory
buildings may not occupy more than 30 percent of the
required rear yard. The proposal is convert an
existing building back into a garage by adding onto the
east and south sides. This additional structural
invovlement creates the need for the variance. The
additions will enlarge both the garage and storage
area. The setbacks will remain the same even with the
new construction, and they are greater than what the
ordinance requires. The enlarged garage will not
impact adjacent properties, and there will be
sufficient rear yard area remaining.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 10 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner was represented by Scott Farrell, an architect.
There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the
variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 11 - Z-4546
Owner: Christ Episcopal Church
Address: 501 Scott
Description: Lots 1-6 and West 1/2 of alley adjacent
to Lots 1-4, Block 29, Original City
Zoned: "HDR" High Density Residential
Request: To issue a conditional use permit for
church expansion and to grant a 0-foot
front yard setback.
Justification:
The church is located in Little Rock's "HDR" High Density
Residential District where churches are a conditional use,
and a 15-foot front yard setback is required. The original
concept was to limit the project to renovation of the parish
hall at a cost of $750,000. Sufficient funds to accomplish
this were not raised. Therefore, it became necessary to
undertake a phased program with the initial phase to involve
the expenditure of $250,000. In the opinion of the
architects, phase renovation of the parish hall as
originally envisioned is impractical. The only option is to
initiate the renovation program with new construction. The
only place for this to occur is the Scott Street setback.
The initial investment has been limited to a ground level
addition and partial remodeling of the first floor of the
parish hall.
Present Use of
Property: Church
Proposed Use of
Property: Church with Expansion
STAFF REPORT
A. Enqineerinq Issues
No adverse comments.
B. Staff Analvsis
There are two issues associated with this item. The
first is to issue a conditional use permit for the
church's expansion and the second is to grant a setback
variance for the front yard. The church is located in
September 16, 1985
Item No. 11 - Continued
the Downtown area and zoned "HDR" High Density
Residential." In the "HDR" District, churches are
condtional uses, and because of the expansion a
conditional use permit is necessary. The church has
occupied the same location for over 140 years so it is
considered a nonconforming use which cannot be expanded
without the necessary approval. Because of the
location of the addition, the church is also needing a
0 -foot setback for the front yard. Satisfactory
justification has been provided for the necessary
variance, and construction to the property line in the
Downtown area is a common practice. The new addition
will not impact surrounding properties and will allow
the church to continue to be a viable part of the
Downtown community.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
and the front yard variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Nat Griffin, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Griffin discussed the request briefly. A
motion was made to approve the conditional use permit and
the variance for the front yard setback. The motion passed
by a vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 16, 1985
Item No. 12 - Z-4547
Owner: Jim Sloan
Address: 5119 Country Club
Description: Lot 6, Block 17, Newton's Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: 1. From the rear yard provisions of
Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit a new
carport with 5 -foot setback.
2. From the side yard provisions of
Section 7-102/D.2 to permit new
construction with 1-foot setbacks.
Justification: Lot Size
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a new garage /carport and
covered porch both with setback encroachments. The
carport is proposed to have a 5-foot rear yard setback
and a 1-foot side yard. The 1-foot setback is for a
storage 9 feet wide attached to the carport. The
carport itself would be 6 feet off the east property
line which meets the ordinance requirements. The owner
has used lot size as the hardship for requesting the
variance. This is a reasonable justification for the
rear yard setback. The storage area because of the
size should not create any problems even with the
1-foot setback. Also, the location of the storage area
appears to be the only reasonable option. Staff's
position on the covered porch is that the lot size is
not adequate justification for the variance and
recommends that the porch maintain the same building
September 16, 1985
Item No. 12 - Continued
line as the residence on the east side. This would
necessitate adding 6 feet to the west side of the porch
or reduce the porch by approximately 5 feet to match
the building lines. The location of the proposed porch
does not seem to have been created by a true hardship.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the rear and side yard
variances for the carport /garage, but not the requested
variance for the covered porch.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner, Jim Sloan, was present. There were no objectors.
Cinde Bauer, landscape architect for Mr. Sloan, discussed
the proposal. Mr. Sloan then explained the need for the
covered porch and the location requiring the variance.
There was a long discussion about the various issues. A
motion was then made to grant the rear and side yard
variances as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of:
5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
September 16, 1985
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Chairman
Secretary
Date