Loading...
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