boa_07 20 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
JULY 20, 1987
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being six in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan
Ronald Woods
Joe Norcross
Jim Mitchell
Ronald Pierce
Rex Crane
Members Absent: George Wells
John McDaniel
Cynthia Alderman
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
July 20, 1987
Item No. A - Z-4848
Owner: Timothy and Margaret Farrell
Address: 5715 Hawthorne Road
Description: Lot 27, Forest Heights Place
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit a deck with a
reduced side yard setback.
Justification: (1) Because the structure solves the
problem of the excessive slope of
the property in a unique,
practical, and attractive way which
enhances the overall value of the
property.
(2) Because it has been in existence
for four years.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue is before the Board because of an
enforcement action. Recently, the Enforcement staff
received a complaint about a possible violation of a
setback provision for the "R-2" District. Upon
investigation, it was determined that a wood
structure/deck was built into the side yard and that it
needed to be removed or the necessary variance be
applied for. (The ordinance requirement for the side
yard setback is ten percent of the average width or six
feet for this lot. The house is constructed to the
setback line.) This request presents a somewhat unique
situation because the construction in question has been
in place for four years without any inquiries being
made until now. In 1982, a tornado passed through this
part of the City and heavily damaged many structures in
the neighborhood, including the one at 5715 Hawthorne.
July 20, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
At the time of rebuilding the house, the owners decided
that something needed to be done to provide access to a
back door because the lot slopes downward from the
Hawthorne side. To solve this problem, a wood
walkway/deck was constructed between the house and the
east property line connecting the front with a deck
which was built at the same time. All the necessary
permits for the major construction were obtained, but
the deck/walkway was not included in the original
permit application because it was an afterthought and
no inspection of the deck was done by the City. (This
was an oversight on the part of the various parties
involved.) The structure starts at grade in the front
and then is several feet above ground level at the rear
of the house. It is constructed right to the property
line, but there is separation betwen this lot and the
residence to the east because of the driveway. Also,
there is a masonry wall along the east property line
which appears to lessen the impact of the structure
being built to the line. The walkway/deck does address
a unique feature of the lot and appears to be the most
functional design solution for the property.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-15-87)
The Chairman reported that he had received a written request
for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the
July 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-20-87)
Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred to the
August meeting. A motion was made to defer the request
to the August 17, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by
a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 1 - Z-4862
Owner: Ronald G. and Beverly L. Kuerner
Address: 5124 Country Club Boulevard
Description: Lot 8, Block 17., Newton's Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D to permit additions with
reduced front and rear setbacks.
Justification: (1) To take away the box look and
improve the visual appearance for
ourselves and our neighbors.
(2) There is not a bedroom downstairs
and the changes will allow for one
with no stairs to climb.
(3) would like to build a garage
addition to the house to keep a
golf cart, improve clutter, and
protect things from the weather.
(4) A covered walkway is intended to
protect persons form inclement
weather.
(5) The proposal is not establishing
any new encroachment distance in
relation to the property line and
is merely extending the building
walls of the existing structure.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. En ineering Issues
None reported.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board is to grant setback
variances for several additions to the residence
located at 5124 Country Club Boulevard. The new
construction will involve a large addition to the rear
of the house, enlarging the garage and attaching it to
the residence with a covered walk, and enclosing an
existing porch on the Country Club Boulevard side. To
accomplish the proposed additions and remodeling,
variances for reduced front and rear yard setbacks are
necessary. By being situated on a corner, the lot has
two front yards with a required setback of 25'. Also,
the Ordinance requires a 25 foot rear yard because of
not providing the necessary 25 feet on the Newton
Street side and the structures are nonconforming so no
expansion can take glace without first obtaininq the
necessary variances. If the existing garage remained
detached then there would not be a rear yard issue, but
by connecting it to the residence it becomes part of
the principle structure. The proposed additions to the
garage and the house will maintain the existing
setbacks which have not impacted the adjoining
properties. Newton Street has a 60 -foot right-of-way
so there is ample setback, of approximately 251, from
the street itself to the house. A variance is also
needed for the Country Club side because of enclosing
the existing porch which has a 23 -foot setback. Staff
has no problems with the proposal and the requested
variances but does question the size of the covered
walk which is represented on the survey as being 12 X
16. These dimensions appear to be quite excessive for
a walk area and need to be explained and/or justified.
C. Staff recommendation
Staff recommends approval of all the necessary
variances as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Wassell Turner. There were
no objectors. Mr. Turner discussed the proposed walkway and
said that the size was being dictated by the need to
maneuver a golf cart in and out of the garage. He also
pointed out that the existing doors have an offset, and
there was a grade difference. Mr. Turner told the Board
July 20, 1987
Item No. 1 - Continued
that the owners have no intention of ever enclosing the
walkway. Kenny Scott of the City's enforcement staff asked
that a letter be attached to the building permit indicating
that the walk area will not be enclosed. A motion was made
to grant the setback variances subject to the owner
providing a letter stating that the walkway will not be
enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 2 - Z-4865
Owner: Riegler Health Service
Address: 923 Rock Street
Description: Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 59, Original
City of Little Rock
Zoned: "HDR" High Density Residential
Request: To grant a Conditional Use Permit for
a new medical office building and a
setback variance for the structure.
Justification: A reduced side yard setback is necessary
to provide the required front yard and
an area for parking on the north side.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Medical Office
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a new medical office
building at the northeast corner of East 10th and Rock
which is in the downtown area that is under the
jurisdiction of the Central Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance. This is a separate zoning document, adopted
as part of the Central Little Rock Urban Renewal
Project, that regulates land use for an area from
Broadway to I-30 and from the Arkansas River to just
south of I-630. The property under consideration is
zoned "HDR" which allows professional offices as
conditional uses, and Section 43-37 of the Central
Little Rock Zoning Ordinance gives the Board of
Adjustment the authority to grant the necessary
Conditional Use Permit .for the proposed use. Section
43-37 requires submission of a site plan and states:
In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the Board of
Adjustment shall impose requirements and conditions
including bulk and area requirements in addition
July 20, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued
to those expressly
the particular use
for the protection
public interest.
stipulated in this article for
as the Board may deem necessary
of adjacent properties in the
(The proposal must also be reviewed by the Little Rock
Historic District Commission.) The request involves
three 50-foot lots and the plan proposes an 8,100
square foot one story building with parking areas
located to the north and along the east side of the
structure, utilizing the alley for access. In addition
to the Conditional Use Permit issue, the owners are
also requesting a setback variance for the East 10th
Street side. The Ordinance requires a 10-foot setback
and the owners are proposing to reduce that to 5'.
(The corner lot provision does not apply to this
location because of the Central Little Rock Ordinance.)
The primary request involves a land use question and
the proposed plan's compatibility with the
neighborhood. The owners feel that the use will not
impact the neighborhood and that they are providing a
needed service for the area. (The office is currently
located at East 11th and Scott, but the practice has
outgrown the building.) The immediate vicinity is
primarily a mixed residential neighborhood with single
family and multifamily units. To the north, there are
some nonresidential uses along East 9th and one block
to the east is MacArthur Park. In this type of
neighborhood, a quite office is a reasonable use if the
design and plan take into account the character of the
area. The design must be sensitive to the historical
fabric of the vicinity and recognize the area as
primarily a residential neighborhood. Because of these
factors, the design of the structure will be critical
as well as the hours of operation. The building should
incorporate design features that reflect a residential
appearance and the office hours should not be the same
as those of a medical facility located in a shopping
center. Staff feels that the site plan is workable but
is concerned with the 5-foot setback on the south side.
A setback of 5 feet on a street side is not in keeping
with the neighborhood and should be increased to the
ordinance requirement of 10 feet. Finally, the owner
should contact the City's Traffic Engineer about
possible off-site improvements and to review the
parking layout. It appears that the parking area on
the north side of the building has some deficiencies.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 2 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that a Conditional Use Permit be
granted for the medical office subject to the Historic
District Commission's necessary approval and the
Traffic Engineer's review of the site plan.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Alan Beasely, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Beasely addressed the Board and presented a
modified site plan which showed a 10-foot setback on the
south side and a 20-foot yard area for Rock Street, the
front yard. He then requested a 5-foot variance for the
front setback because the Central Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance requires a 25-foot front setback. Mr. Beasely
said that he had discussed the proposal with representatives
of the Quapaw Quarter Association and the State Historic
Preservation Program, and they suggested the 10-foot setback
for East 10th which is the ordinance requirement. He
reported that the City's Traffic Engineer had no real
problems and described neighborhood. Glen Hanson,
administrator of the clinic, said that the medical office is
currently located at Scott and 11th and is open from 9 a.m.
to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Mr. Hanson also said
that the clinic takes appointments and accepts walk-ins. He
then indicated that Dr. Riegler was in the process of
increasing the staff and that they were the only physicians
in the general area. Mr. Beasely spoke again and discussed
the site plan which he said will save several large trees.
There was a long discussion about parking and the hours of
operation. A motion was then made to grant the conditional
use permit for the Riegler Medical Office Building as well
as a 20-foot setback on Rock Street and a 10-foot setback on
East 10th (the ordinance requirement) conditioned upon the
hours of operation being from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday
through Saturday and the owner's ability to work out a
satisfactory parking layout with the City's Traffic
Engineer. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, and 3 absent. (The applicant was reminded that the
project also required Historic District Commission review.)
July 20, 1987
Item No. 3 - Z-4866
Owner: Rose T. Ruffin
Address: 2408 Wolfe Street
Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 9 McCarthy's
Addition
Zoned: "R-5"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.7/D.3 to permit an addition with a
reduced rear yard setback.
Justification: The owner proposes to rehabilitate the
existing structure and operate a rooming,
lodging, and boarding facility as
defined by Subsection 2-101/B/4 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In order to ensure
passage between all living elements such
as dining, kitchen, and bathrooms, it
will be necessary to attach the main
structure to the existing two story
garage in the rear. As a result, the
rear yard will have a depth of four feet,
a violation of the 25 -foot rear yard
setback. Grant of the variance will not
adversely affect adjoining property
owners and will facilitate completion of
this much needed community improvement.
Present Use of
Property: Rooming and Boarding Facility
Proposed Use
of Property: Rooming and Boarding Facility
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None have been identified.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board is to grant a setback
variance for a rear yard area of 4 feet and not 25 feet
as required in the "R-5" district. This request is
being made to allow a large addition which will attach
July 20, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
the principle structure to the accessory building
located on the back property line. The addition is
being constructed to ensure passage between all the
various living elements for a rooming and boarding
facility, the proposed use. The Zoning Ordinance
definition of rooming, lodging, and boarding facility
is:
A building or establishment which provides for
more than four but fewer than sixteen persons and
may provide meal service. The building or
facility shall be so arranged as to permit passage
between all living elements such as dining,
kitchen, and bathroom. Detached units or private
access accommodations are not permitted.
As of this writing, the owner has not provided any
information about the contemplated number of residents,
but it appears with the addition that the property
could accommodate the maximum as defined by the
Ordinance. In addition to the Zoning Ordinance, there
are other requirements, Building Codes and State
Regulations for rooming and boarding facilities and
they are probably responsible for dictating the size of
the addition. The existing residence is a large two
story structure with substantial square footage but it
appears that some of it will be lost as living area
because of various codes for the proposed use. Another
Ordinance problem that the owner faces is caused by
trying to utilize the accessory structure as part of
the boarding facility and needing to provide passage
between all of the areas. This requires a large
addition to be constructed to create the necessary
structural connection between all the living elements.
Because of the location of the accessory building,
attaching it to the residence would require a variance
since the structure has a nonconforming setback and
encroaches into the alley. To accommodate all the
regulations that govern this type of use, the proposed
addition seems to be a reasonable option but staff
feels that certain issues need to be clarified before a
final recommendation can be offered. First of all, the
owner/applicant should specify the number of persons
that will reside at the location and describe the
addition in more detail, such as whether it is one or
two stories and its exact use. Also, additional
justification for the size of the new construction
needs to be made, and if it is due to building codes or
other regulations. Other issues that need to be
addressed are location of parking and identifying open
July 20, 1987
Item No. 3 - Continued
space areas which are critical for this type of use and
its liveablity. In the "R-5" district parking is
prohibited in the front yard area, so that must be
taken into account when designing the parking areas.
The site plan should also provide some landscaping
along the north property line to buffer the existing
single family use. The site involves two lots so
adequate land area is available and overbuilding is not
a concern, but to ensure that a separate development
does not occur on Lot 12, the property should be
replatted into one lot. The proposed new construction
with the necessary variance is not unreasonable, but
more information about the size needs to be provided
and a finalized site plan should be submitted for
review.
C. Staff Recommendation
Until certain issues identified in the analysis are
addressed, staff is not prepared to make a
recommendation at this time.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, B.J. McCoy, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. McCoy spoke and said that the proposed
construction involves a two-story 1300 square foot addition
that will connect the residence to an accessory structure in
the rear yard. He said this was necessary to meet the
Zoning Ordinance requirement and permit 16 persons subject
to approval by the state. Mr. McCoy indicated that the site
plan has not been completed, but it will provide 8 to 12
parking spaces and have some buffering along the north
property line. Mr. McCoy pointed out to the Board that the
owner is in a difficult position because all the necessary
approvals were needed before the plan could be finalized.
There were some additional comments, and Mr. McCoy said that
the boarding house will be a transitional type facility. A
motion was made to approve the rear yard setback variance.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 4 - Z-4867
Owner: Greater Second Baptist Church
Address: 2901 Pulaski Street
Description: The north 50 Feet of Lots 13 and 14
Block 16, Bowman's Addition
Zoned: "C-3"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-103.3/E to permit a building with
a reduced setback.
Justification: Only reasonable location available on
the lot.
Present Use of
Property: Parking
Proposed Use
of Property: Parking and Bus Storage
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to grant a variance to allow a reduced
setback for an accessory type structure, a storage shed
for a church bus. A portion of the lot is zoned "C-3"
where the building is proposed, and for a corner lot
the setback requirements are 25 feet for the two street
sides and for the rear yard with a 15 -foot setback for
the side yard on the south. In the "C-3" District the
same setbacks apply to both principal and accessory
structures. The property is currently paved and used
for church parking, so the proposed structure will
change the use of the site. Decreasing the setbacks
for this type of building and use should not have an
impact on other properties in the neighborhood and
staff supports the proposal. West 29th Street is not a
through street and primarily provides access to the
parking areas for the church which is located to the
northwest of the site under consideration. To the
west, there is a large building with residential and
nonresidential uses and it has a reasonable rear yard
July 20, 1987
Item No. 4 - Continued
area, so a reduced setback for this lot will not create
any problems.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for
a bus garage/storage structure only.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-20-87)
Staff informed the Board that the item needed to be deferred
because of several deficiencies in the file. A motion was
made to defer the request to the August 17, 1987, meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and
3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 5 - Z-4868
Owner:A.W. Bradley
Address: 723 Cumberland
Description: The west 1/2 of Lots 4, 5, and 6,
Block 42, Originial City of Little Rock
Zoned: "HDR" High Density Residential
Request: To grant a Conditional Use Permit for
an office and church related educational
space
Justification: (None required)
Present Use of
Property: Office
Proposed Use
of Property: Church Office and Related Educational
Space
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal before the Board is to grant a Conditional
Use Permit for the northeast corner of East 8th and
Cumberland which is in the area covered by the Central
Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. (This Ordinance
authorizes the Board of Adjustment to review and
approve Conditional Use Permits within the Central
Little Rock Zoning area.) The property is zoned High
Density Residential and occupied by a two story
building which has been used for office space and
classrooms. The proposal involves a change to church
related uses such as offices and educational space for
Second Baptist Church which is located across
Cumberland Street. The land use in the immediate
vicinity includes surface parking, residential units
for the elderly, office, and several churches. The
area is very mixed and the approval of the proposed
Conditional Use Permit will not have any impact on the
existing development pattern and is compatible with
the area. The proposed use modification is very minor
and could possibly be considered continuation of the
July 20, 1987
Item No. 5 - Continued
existing nonconformity, but to avoid any potential
problems in the future staff recommended that a
Conditional Use Permit be applied for.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use
Permit for the Church related uses proposed for 723
Cumberland.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Lyndell Lay, was present. There was one
interested person in attendance. Mr. Lay said that Second
Baptist Church will purchase the property, and the use will
almost remain the same. Calvin Brown of the Little Housing
Authority spoke and discussed some parking concerns.
Mr. Lay said that there were 18 spaces on the lot, and the
church has other parking available in the area. He felt
that the proposed use should not compound the parking
situation. There was some discussion about parking and
other issues. A motion was made to grant a conditional use
permit for 723 Cumberland. The motion was approved by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 6 - Z-4869
Owner: Virgil Hudson
Address: 1720 South Tyler
Description: Lot 6, Block 15, Cherry and Cox
Addition
Zoned: "R-3"
Variances
Requested: From the area exception provisions of
Section 5-102.2.0 to permit a new garage
to be located less than 60 feet from a
front property line and to occupy more
than 30 percent of the required rear
yard area.
Justification:Size of the lot and being located on a
corner.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been identified as of this writing.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to construct a detached garage and
accessory structure in the rear yard. For accessory
buildings, the Ordinance requires a 60 -foot setback
from a front property line and the structure cannot
occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear yard
area. The property in question is a corner lot so the
60 -foot setback is required from both South Tyler and
West 18th Street. The lot is only 50 feet wide and to
meet the setback requirement for an accessory building
is impossible and a hardship does exist. Because of
being located on a corner and the lot width, any new
construction in the rear yard would require some type
of variance. Staff feels that the owner has selected
the best option available because of beinq compatible
with the neighborhood, and also leaves a usable open
area between the structures. The proposed garage also
July 20, 1987
Item No. 6 - Continued
exceeds the permitted rear yard coverage by
approximately 30 percent, but that is not an
unreasonable variance because of the placement of the
garage. One concern that staff does have is potential
runoff from the garage and impacting other properties.
To avoid any problems, the owner should make every
effort to ensure that all water from the structure
falls or drains directly onto his property.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the necessary variances
for the garage structure.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Randy Rodewald was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Rodewald said that the runoff will be
directed to the alley and then to West 18th. A motion was
made to approve the necessary variances as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No.7 - Z-4871
Owner: Douglas W. and Roxanne J. Becker
Address: #9 Bradford Court
Description: Lot 100, Lindenwood Addition
Zoned: "R-2"
Variances
Requested: (1) From the area provisions of
Section 7-102/D.2 to permit a
new garage with a reduced side
yard area.
(2) From the floodplain restrictions
of Paragraph A of Paragraph 4 of
Section B of Article 5 of
Ordinance No. 14,534 of the City
of Little Rock, Arkansas to permit
construction of an attached garage
and bedroom.
Justification: (1) Unusual configuration of the
property.
(2) The lot is located within the
100 year flood zone, Zone A, and
the City's Engineering staff has
recommended that the garage be
built alongside the house so as
to keep it as far out of the
floodway as possible. The same is
true for the proposed bedroom.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The floodplain issue and removing any new construction
as far away from the floodway as possible.
B. Staff Analysis
There are two issues associated with this request that
July 20, 1987
Item No. 7 - Continued
the Board must act on. A setback variance is needed
for the proposed garage and a variance from the
floodplain restrictions is required for the new
construction which includes the garage and a bedroom
area. The property is not a conventional lot and
because of this staff has determined that a maximum
side yard of 8 feet is required. The proposal is to
reduce the yard area to 5 feet at the front of the
garage and because of the shape of the lot, the setback
will be approximately 12 feet at the rear. Only a
small portion of the garage is involved with the
request and the variance will not have any effect on
the adjacent lot. Because of the lot being located in
a flood zone, the City's Engineering staff has asked
the owner to construct both additions as close to the
front of the property as possible to minimize any
impacts on the floodway. Staff feels that a true
hardship does exist because of the engineering request
and the shape of the lot. The floodplain variance is
very minor and should not cause any problems.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the setback and floodplain
variances as requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Doug Becker, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Becker said that Mike Batie of the City
Engineering staff had requested that the garage be
constructed toward the front of the lot and that created the
need for the setback variance. A motion was made to grant
the setback and floodplain variances as filed. The motion
was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 8 - Z-4870
Owner: Vick L. Pannell
Address: 2700 Flakewood Street
Description: Lot 143, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: "R- 2"
Variances
Requested: From the area provisions of Section
7-101.2/D.2 to permit a carport and
deck with a reduced side yard setback.
Justification: The structure is situated on a pie
shaped corner lot and exceeds minimum
distance from adjoining residents.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue is before the Board as the result of an
enforcement action because of a neighbor's concern over
the distance from the property line. Both the carport
and deck are in place, constructed without the benefit
of a building permit, and upon inspection it was
determined that encroachments into the required side
yard existed. In the "R-2" District, the side yard
setback is 10 percent of the average width of the lot
not to exceed 8 feet. With this particular lot, the
setback has been estimated to be 7 to 8 feet. The
carport has a setback of approximately 2 feet at the
nearest point to the property line. At the front of
the structure, the setback increases to 13 feet. With
the deck, there is an encroachment of 2 feet for only a
very small portion, the steps. The lot is situated at
the intersection of two streets but is not a
conventional corner lot because it abuts a street on
only one side. Because of this configuration, the lot
July 20, 1987
Item No. 8 - Continued
to the west faces Dalewood and has an adequate yard
area. It appears that over the years the west side of
the residence has always been used for auto parking
because of a driveway constructed along the property
line, so the owner has selected the most logical
location for the carport. Also, the west side has the
greatest amount of land area available to accommodate
any new construction on the lot. With both additions,
the carport and deck, the intrusions are minor and
should not impact the adjoining properties.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. There
was a brief discussion. A motion was made to approve the
variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 9 - Z-4872
Owner: Coleman Dairy, Inc.
Address: 5801 Asher Avenue
Description: Part of the SW 1/4, Section 18,
T-1-N, R-12-W, containing 8.50
acres ±
Zoned: "I-2"
Variances
Requested: From the height provisions of Section
7-104.2/D to permit two storage tanks
with a height of 70 feet.
Justification: Expansion of the milk storage capacities
is necessary due to the growth of the
business.
Present Use of
Property: Industrial
Proposed Use
of Property: Industrial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
No issues have been reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request is to grant a height variance to permit the
construction of two storage tank/silos for milk. In
the "I-2" District the height restriction is 45 feet
and the proposal is to exceed this by 25 feet. The
property is situated on Asher Avenue and is the
location of a large milk producing operation. The site
is heavily developed with buildings and other storage
facilities so the proposed tank should not introduce a
new visual element to the area. To the west there is a
vacant drive-in theatre with a large screen and the
remainder of the land use along this segment of Asher
is very mixed. Because of the development pattern
found in the immediate vicinity, the height variance
should not have an impact on other properties. The
tank/silos will be placed next to some existing storage
containers so the use of the immediate area will remain
the same.
July 20, 1987
Item No. 9 - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the height variance as
requested.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The owner, Coleman Dairy, Inc., was represented by Jim
Summerlin. There were no objectors. A motion was made to
approve the height variance as filed. The motion passed by
a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
July 20, 1987
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date