boa_09 15 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
September 15, 1986
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 of the meeting were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan
Jim Mitchell
Herbert Rideout
Joe Norcross
Richard Yada
John McDaniel
Members Absent: Ronald Pierce
George Wells
Ronald Woods
City Attorney: Steven Giles
September 15, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z-2647-A
Owner: Baird, Inc.
Address: 4500 block of West 12th Street
Description: Lots 1 through 6, Block 31
Cunningham Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-103.3/E.3 to permit a new building
with a 5' rear yard.
Justification: In order to properly layout the building
along with the required loading and
parking for the store, the owners are
requesting a variance of 10' from the
required 15' setback from the rear
property line. To place the building
15' from the rear line will eliminate
one complete row of frontal parking
which is then not adequate to meet the
code or the store requirements. The
topography of this land does not lend
itself to any other types of development
and the waiving of the setback
requirement will not create a nuisance
or hardship on any of the adjoining
properties.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No adverse comments have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit an encroachment into the
required rear yard. In the "C-3" district, the rear
yard can be reduced to 15' when providing a 25'
exterior side yard which is the case with this
proposal. The applicant is requesting that the yard
September 15, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
be reduced to 5' or an intrusion of 10' into the rear
setback. Along the north side of the property there is
a platted alley which is not in use and the residences
to the north have a rear yard relationship to the site
under consideration. Because of those spaces, there
will still be adequate separation between the
commercial building and the residential structures even
with the reduced setback. In the immediate area, there
are commercial buildings constructed with little or no
setback adjacent to an alley and it does not appear
that those locations have had an impact on the
neighborhood. The applicant has stated that to provide
the necessary parking and because of the topography,
the proposed site plan is the only design option
available to allow for a functional use of the land.
Staff feels that adequate justification has been
furnished and supports the request, but recommends that
a screening fence be built along the north property
line to offer the residents additional protection.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard variance
subject to a screening fence being constructed along
the north property line.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. C.J. Cropper.
Mr. Cropper made a brief comment on the proposal stating
that they could accept the staff recommendation. There were
no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Board
voted to approve the variance as recommended by the staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 2 - Z-4618
Owner: David S. Boswell
Address: 12 Younger Place
Description: Lot 12, Parkway Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the front yard provisions of
Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit a carport
with a reduced setback.
Justification: Only feasible location available.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no engineering issues.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board is to permit an encroachment
into the front yard for an open carport. In the "R-2"
District, 25' is required for the front yard setback.
The owner is proposing to place a 10' x 24' carport,
attached to the residence, over an existing driveway.
The location does appear to be the only reasonably one
available and a large tree should help screen it
somewhat. Staff is concerned about the length of the
proposed carport because the 24' seems to be a little
excessive. Also, a 10' setback from the street is not
very desirable and could create some problems. By
decreasing the length of the carport to 20' which is an
adequate size, the front yard would be increased to 14'
and staff feels more comfortable with that type of a
setback.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the setback variance for
an open carport with an east /west dimension of 20' and
not 24' as proposed.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 2 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present and made a brief comment
concerning the dimension of the carport and his
understanding of what the dimension should be. The staff
recommendation was explained. The applicant then determined
that he could live with the 20' as recommended by staff.
There were no objectors present. A motion was made for
approval of the variance with a 20' east /west dimension as
recommended by Planning staff. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 3 - Z-4723
Owner: 2611 Kavanaugh Partnership
Address: 2611 Kavanaugh
Description: The west 40' of Lots 1 and 2, Block 16
Pulaski Heights Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the off - street parking provisions
of Section 8-101/H to permit no
off-street parking.
Justification: (See attached letter).
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use of
Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering does not support the variance and suggests
that the existing parking problems should not be
increased by allowing more intense uses.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the board is to grant a parking
variance to allow no off-street parking. The lot in
question has one builidng on it with two leasable
spaces in it. The site is zoned "C-3" and the Zoning
Enforcement Office has determined that because of the
parking deficiencies, no uses requiring a parking ratio
greater than 1 space per 300 square feet will be issued
a privilege license. The site basically has a
nonconforming status and only those uses that require
parking for a retail establishment will be allowed.
This excludes certain uses such as eating places, and
that is why this request is being made. The owners of
the bulding have been able to only lease one side of
the structure, and the other space has remained vacant
because certain parties have been denied privilege
licenses by the City. This has occurred because those
proposed uses have been primarily eating places which
require 1 parking space per 100 square feet. In July,
1986, the owners of the property in question requested
September 15, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
that the Board of Adjustment review the parking
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance because of the
privilege license denials. At that time, it was noted
that the Zoning Ordinance is very specific in setting
out parking standards and makes no allowances for older
areas versus newly developed ones. Staff also outlined
the Board of Directors directive on controlling
occupancy changes which increase parking requirements
and it was pointed out because certain uses are
nonconforming as to parking, that a like kind of use
could occupy the space, but that an use, an eating
place, requiring a greater parking requirement could
not. The Board affirmed the staff policy direction and
recommended to the owners that a variance request could
be made to review the specific situation. Staff feels
that allowing a parking variance for no off - street
parking will have an impact on other properties in the
neighborhood and that the building status permits some
of the "C-3" uses so a hardship does not exist.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the parking variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Mr. Jim Moses was present representing the request.
Mr. Moses first offered that the total variance of parking
was a solution to maintaining the Hillcrest area as it is
currently composed without the additional land clearing and
removal of structures that would be required to introduce
significant parking spaces. He further stated that he had
been working with the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church
for purposes of drafting an agreement to utilize a portion
of their parking at the corner of Walnut Street and
Woodlawn. He presented an agreement to the Board with four
points of understanding that had been agreed to by the
Church on the 14th. He proceeded to describe the existing
structure and the uses in place. He identified the use
requesting the variance as Sheri's Natural Food Grocery and
Food Sales, this being a small restaurant operation. The
current tenant occupies approximately one half of the
available store space which is about 3400 square feet total
in both sides of the building. He indicated that this
business might at some point desire to expand into the other
half of the structure. A discussion then followed centered
on a means to develop a commitment from the Church whereby a
specific lease or arrangement could be developed for a
period of years. Th staff suggested that should an
agreement be structured, that a variance would be required
September 15, 1986
Item No. 3 - Continued
from the church in order to accommodate that agreement, even
if todays's variance is approved. Mr. Everett Brown the
operator of the Ice House and Cabaret Club, an adjacent
owner, presented comments relative to his position on the
existing business and the parking variance. He stated that
he did not oppose the usage of the premises, but did not
desire to see more parking demand without additional
parking. He felt that people utilizing this food service
would not desire to walk over a block from Woodlawn to this
location. A lengthy general discussion then followed at the
end of which Mr. Moses requested of the Board that the
variance be withdrawn in order that he might pursue further
the agreement with the church. A motion was then made to
accept Mr. Moses request. The motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes 0 noes and 3 absent.
Mr. Tony Bozynski July 3, 1986
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Privilege License Denial - 2611 Kavanaugh Building
Dear Tony:
The purpose of this letter is to describe a serious problem we have
encountered regarding the leasing of the above referenced building,
due to prospective tenants' inability to obtain a privilege license.
I would like to ask the Planning Staff and the Board of Adjustment to
consider our situation and help us remedy this problem, if possible.
Last August (1985), my partners and I purchased a 3,500 square foot,
one story building located at 2611 Kavanaugh, in the Hillcrest
neighborhood. In recent years, the building has housed several
retail users, including a bicycle shop, a camping supply store and a
record store. At the time we purchased the building, approximately
1,200 square feet were leased to a car stereo shop and the balance of
the space was vacant. Prior to the closing of the sale, I checked
and confirmed that this property was zoned C-3.
The sale included the building and the land on which the building is
located. I would estimate that this building is approximately 40
years old. To the east and sharing a common wall is the Cabaret
Restaurant and Bar. To the west is an alley that, because of the
steep terrain between Woodlawn and Kavanaugh, does not permit through
traffic. On the west side of the alley is the Hillcrest Laundry.
In the past two (2) months, three different prospective tenants have
seriously considered leasing the remaining 2,300 square feet in the
building with the idea of opening some type of food service facility
(ranging from a tea room /catering business serving one meal a day to
a hamburger restaurant serving lunch and dinner). In each instance,
the prospective tenant's use is allowed under "C -3" zoning, but when
they inquired about obtaining a privilege license, they were refused.
225 EAST MARKHAM
SUITE 400 HERITAGE EAST
LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 375-0378
• Architecture • Planning
• Development •
Mr. Tony Bozynski
July 3, 1986
Page Two
Jim Hatcock at the licensing office has now explained to me that
although a restaurant is permitted under "C-3" zoning and that in
fact the building is in a "C-3 zone, the license could not be granted
because we do not have adequate parking. We were told that a
restaurant there would further increase the level of non-compliance
regarding parking and that we would need parking in a ratio of 1 to
100 square feet or the license would not be issued. Such action on
the City's part has left us without a tenant in our building.
We are troubled by the concept of restricting use in an existing
urban neighborhood, through the privilege license process, rather
than the zoning process. Although we can apprecate this joint
scrutiny (privelege license and zoning use review) for new
construction, where the developer must provide parking regardless of
the use, the current position of the City works a hardship on the
older, more urban commercial districts, where suburban style
development cannot occur. In fact, we own no other land on which the
required parking could be located. Obviously, we cannot manufacture
additional land. The City's approach, in essence, restricts the use
if the building, even though the zoning allows for it. We are left
to suffer the consequences.
We have asked the Masonic Lodge at 2700 Kavanaugh (less than 150 feet
to the west of our property) for permission to use their lot, which
is normally occupied by them one time a month, in the evenings. They
have consented to our request, but are unwilling to reduce the verbal
commitment to writing. In addition, Kavanaugh is a primary bus
route, providing public vehicular access to our property and
requiring no parking for visitors once they arrive. We believe the
Masonic parking and the bus access will adequately handle parking for
the building.
It is our opinion that the several central city neighborhoods (e.g.,
HIllcrest, Heights) deserve special consideration when the zoning and
privilege licensing process is applied. Quality commercial
development and redevelopment along Kavanaugh will in the long term
help keep these neighborhoods healthy and vibrant. Neighborhood
restaurants, take out services and catering businesses are
commonplace in many cities and assist in making neighborhoods more
desirable, not less. Random clearing of property along Kavanaugh to
conform to city parking requirements could well become the norm for
future development. And, in our opinion, that is neither practical
nor desirable.
Mr. Tony Bozynski
July 3, 1986
Page Three
We ask that you reconsider the application of the privilege licensing
process as a means to further restrict allowed uses within zones in
the older parts of our city. And specifically, we ask that a
restaurant be allowed to occupy space in our building, provided it
meets all other city and health requirements.
Sincerely,
James A. Moses
JAM /mlb
September 15, 1986
Item No. 4 - Z-4724
Owner: Judith and J. Dale Dawson
Address: 5408 Centerwood
Description: Lot 93, Prospect Terrace Second
Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with
a reduced side yard.
Justification: Because of the existing structure and
design of the house and the space
required, the only reasonable method of
expanding the kitchen area is to build a
10' 8" addition on the west side of the
house adjacent to the existing kitchen.
Only with an addition of this size will
the owners be able to accommodate the
appliances, structural design and
sufficient eating area. The design and
appearance of the addition will
compliment the existing exterior of the
house and will not extend any higher or
closer to the property line than the
existing carport.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported.
B. Staff Analvsis
The proposal is to make an addition to the existing
kitchen and reduce the side yard to 1.51. For a 50'
lot in the "R -2" district, the required side yard
setback is 5'. The request is to permit a 10' x 13'
expansion to th kitchen located on the west side of the
residence. The addition, if approved, will maintain
September 15, 1986
Item No. 4 - Continued
the same setback the existing carport has located
directly north of the new construction. A significant
reduction of side yards for an open carport is
acceptable, but staff is concerned with a similar
setback for an extension of the living area. After
reviewing the proposal, staff recommends that the side
yard for the addition be increased to 3' which would be
an encroachment of 2'. This would be more desirable
and should not affect the appearance of the expansion.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance for a 3' side
yard and not 1.5' as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION;
The applicant was present and made a brief comment in which
he stated that he could accept the staff's recommendation
and make his project work. There were no objectors in
attendance. A motion was made for approval of the variance
as recommended by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of
6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 5 - Z-4725
Owner: B & B Oil Company
Address: 6920 Asher Avenue
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the setback provisions of Section
7-103.3/E.1 to permit a new canopy with
a reduced front yard.
Justification: To build back the new canopy no closer
to the front property line than the
existing canopy is at this time. The
new canopy will match other new
structures and will improve the overall
appearance of the property.
Present Use of
Property: Service Station
Proposed Use of
Property: Convenience Store with gas pumps
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to construct a new canopy with a
setback of approximately 81. In the "C-3" district,
the required front yard area is 25'. The proposal is
to remove the existing canopy and to replace it with a
larger one to accommodate four pump islands instead of
the two that currently exist. The new canopy will
maintain the same south line as the existing one which
has not created any problems for the area.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 5 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner was represented by Mr. Steve Lightle. Mr. Lightle
offered that he had no additional comments to make. There
were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made for
approval of the variance as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 6 - Z-4726
Owner: Mark W. Grobmyer
Address: 39 Beverly Place
Description: Lot 12, Beverly Place Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 and 3 to permit new
construction with reduced side and rear
yards.
Justification: Because the existing garage would be
converted into an additional bedroom, it
will become necessary to add an
unenclosed covered parking structure to
protect the vehicles. In connection
with this, the owner has proposed to
modify an existing addition on the side
of the house and expand it for room for
two automobiles. In this neighborhood,
the street is very narrow and winding.
With many children in the area, we deem
it dangerous to park vehicles in the
street particularly because of unusual
configurations of the street itself.
Because parking is therefore a problem,
we feel the best solution to accommodate
adequate parking and protect our
vehicles would be to build the proposed
carport structure. The carports design
will be consistent with the existing
structure and will in fact make it more
visually appealing than it is now.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Propsoed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to grant variances for a 0' side yard on
the north and for a 3.5' rear yard. The required
setbacks are 7' for the sideyard and 25' for the rear
yard. The proposal is to convert the existing garage
located in the rear yard into a bedroom and attach it
to a two -story addition by a one -story connection and
this creates the need for the rear yard variance.
Because the garage structure is in place and some rear
yard will remain, staff feels that the encroachment is
not a problem and supports the variance for the rear
yard. The side yard issue involves construction of a
carport with a 0' setback along the north property
line, if granted. Currently, on that side of the
structure is a sun -room with a setback of 12.5' that
will be removed to accommodate the new carport. At the
end of the carport, a storage area is proposed so it
will only be open on two sides. Staff feels that the
side yard variance has not been adequately justified
and cannot support the request. It appears that there
is adequate area, approximately 22.5 feet, between the
residence and the property line to explore other
options for a carport that will maintain a side yard.
(The dimension of 22.5' is assuming that the existing
sun -room will be removed for any type of carport). One
possible alternative is to provide a covered area that
will allow an end to end parking arrangement for the
vehicles and still keep a side yard setback. With the
amount of construction taking place in the rear,
minimum yard area should be provided wherever possible,
such as on the north side.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the side yard variance and
approval of the rear yard variance subject to the
existing garage being a one -story conversion only.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present and offered comments concerning
the staff recommendation and identified concerns of an
adjacent owner, Mr. Frank Whitbeck. He described his
circumstances and stated that he was working with the
neighbor to resolve questions concerning his plans,
especially those involving a swimming pool. The swimming
pool issue was described as a future separate issue. He
further stated that he could accept the staff recommendation
on the one -story restriction for the existing garage
September 15, 1986
Item No. 6 - Continued
conversion and restated his written request for removal of
the side yard variance at this time. He stated that he
would pursue that issue at a later date. Mr. Chris Barrier,
an attorney representing Mr. Frank Whitbeck offered concerns
about the proposed pool and its absence from this proposal.
He indicated that his client had concerns about lighting,
screening and exactly what is included in this request. He
further stated that the lot involved was rather small and
that variances and structural involvements needed special
attention. A general discussion then followed wherein the
staff and Board identified for the applicant that the
swimming pool would be considered a separate issue and no
variances were being extended at this time. A motion was
made to approve the application as modified with the
one -story conversion on the garage and with the elimination
of the side yard request. The motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 7 - Z-4727
Owner: M. Hamid Hussain
Address: 8902 Mayflower
Description: Lot 15, Block 3, Penbrook Subdivision
Zoned: "R -2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit expansion of an
existing carport with no setback.
Justification: To provide protection from the elements.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Propsoed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue is before the Board because of an
enforcement action. The owner constructed the
expansion prior to any review by the City and a
complaint was made. When the owner tried to obtain the
building permit, it was determined that a side yard
variance would have to be obtained first. The request
involves an existing covered area that was enlarged by
approximately 7' to provide better protection for
autos. The new construction was extended to the east
property line to match the existing structure which has
no setback for the side yard. It appears that the
initial covered area was constructed without any review
or approval by the City also. That type of situation
should justify the expansion of a questionable
structure and staff does not support the request.
Allowing a total encroachment into a side yard or a 0'
setback is undesirable and could have an impact on the
neighborhood. If a covered carport area is needed, the
rear yard is large enough to accommodate one with the
area between the residence and fence functioning as the
driveway. This arrangement could probably be
accomplished without any type of variance.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 7 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present and offered a brief comment that
he felt he could and would accept the staff recommendation
of denial. The Board briefly discussed the issue at which
time it was pointed out by staff that there was one letter
of opposition from an adjacent neighbor. A motion was then
made to deny the request. The motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 8 - Z-4732
Owner: H. Thurston and Mary O. Black
Address: #10 Armistead Road
Description: Lot 23, Edgehill Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2 /D.1 to permit an addition with
a reduced front yard.
Justification: 1. The existing physical location on
the corner of what has been
interpreted as two frontage streets
is requiring 25' setbacks on three
sides of the property where most
conditions would require only an 8
to 10' setback at this location on
the property.
2. The setback arrangement does not
now have a garage, covered carport
or any other form of protected
storage for automobiles or other
equipment. An addition of this
type is needed and warranted from a
security and convenience
standpoint, especially since most
if not all adjacent properties have
such conditions.
3. The applicant is intending to build
an attractive well designed
two -story garage addition that will
allow the property to meet
functional requirements not
presently available. This addition
moreover will provide an aesthetic
condition to the house and
neighborhood.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
September 15, 1986
Item No. 8 - Continued
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No adverse comments have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to permit a two -story addition to be
constructed with a reducced front yard setback. The
Zoning Ordinance states "in the case of a double
frontage lot or a corner lot, each line separating such
lot from the street shall be considered a front lot
line." Twenty -five feet (25') is the required front
yard setback in the "R-2" district, so with this
proposal the encroachment will be 10' if granted. The
15' setback is only at one point, and the yard area
increases from east to west to more than 30' on the
west side of the addition. Because of the shape of the
lot and having two front yards, a hardship does exist
and staff supports the request. Also, the proposed
location of the addition is the only viable option
available to accommodate the needs of the owner and
still be visually attractive.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owners architect was present representing the proposal.
There were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion
was followed by a motion to approve the variance as filed.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
Item No. 9 - Z-4736
Owner: City of Little Rock
Address: 718 West Markham
Description: Lots 7, 8 and the West 12' of Lot 9
Block 136, Original City of Little Rock
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display
Variance
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-103.4/D to permit a new building with
a reduced front and side yard.
Justification: The design of the new addition has a
considerable setback over the previous
structures on the lot. The Neva Talley
building at the corner of Markham and
State was constructed all the way to the
edge of the sidewalk. The two
structures have been demolished and the
addition will be more attractive and
provide a reasonable setback for office
building construction. The present
zoning was a conversion and not
consistent with the downtown business
building construction. The proposed
construction is the best use of the
property and a variance approval is
necessary for building expansion.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: City Offices
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineerinq Issues
Engineering reports that two handicapped ramps, one for
State and one for West Markham, are needed. The
proposed site plan only shows one at the intersection
and that is unacceptable.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a new building attached to
an existing structure to the east with a reduced front
September 15, 1986
Item No. 9 - Continued
yard and side yard on the west. The site in question
is zoned "C-4" which requires a 45' front yard and
because of being situated at a corner, the 45' setback
is also required for State Street because of being an
exterior side. The existing "C-4" zoning is the result
of the City converting from the old Zoning Ordinance to
the current one and making "C-4" the highway commercial
district. That type of a zoning classification is
inappropriate for the downtown area and the required
setbacks are uncharacteristic of the existing
development. For the property under consideration, the
11C -4" zoning creates a hardship because of the lot size
and staff supports the request. Even with the
encroachment, the new construction will be an
improvement over the previous building and will be an
attractive addition to the block. Staff does suggest
that other parking options be explored because of the
alley to the north being utilized for maneuvering in
and out of the spaces. This could create a potential
problem because the alley is heavily travelled,
expecially by Police vehicles. (The proposed site plan
shows a parking area coming off the alley directly
north of the building).
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the setback variances as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The application was represented by Mr. Wendell Jones who
stated he had no additional comments to make. There were no
objectors in attendance. After a brief dicusssion, a motion
was made to approve the variance as submitted. The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 15, 1986
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Secretary Chairman
Date