boa_05 16 1983LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 16, 1983
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The Minutes of the previous meeting were approved
as mailed out.
III. Members Present: Ellis Walton, Chairman
Marcelline Giroir
Richard Yada
Steve Smith
B.L. Murphree
Joe Norcross
George Wells
Herbert Rideout
Tom McGowan
May 16, 1983
Item No. 1 - Z-3995
Owner: Ed Willis, et al.
By: Robert Slay
Address: 1024 N. University Avenue
rear of lot
Description: Lots A and B, Replat of Block 10
Pleasant Hills Addition
Zoned: "MF-6" Multifamily
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 8-101.H.2 to permit
an accessory parking lot for office use.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Accessory Parking to Serve Adjacent
Clinic
STAFF REPORT:
There were no adverse comments received from the reviewing
agencies. The staff has visited the site and walked the
terrain in order to gain a feel for the proposal. Our
observations are:
1. The "MF-6" tract is well covered by timber and natural
ground cover.
2. A large drainage ditch runs north to south along the
west boundary at the toe of a steep slope.
3. The parking lot proposed will cause some excavation of
the right-of-way area of Garfield Street and a small
portion of the "MF-6' site.
4. The Garfield Street right-of-way has not been
abandoned.
5. The proposed drive along the south side of the building
will require the removal of an existing attractively
landscaped side yard.
6. The "MF-6" site remains a buildable lot for three
apartment units.
Mav 16, 1983
Item No. 1 - Continued
7. The variance for parking in the front yard of the
"MF-6' tract is required in association with this
variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff feels the proposed use is appropriate to the
circumstances and recommends approval of the proposal
subject to the following:
1. All possible steps be taken to assure the least
possible excavation beyond the parking lot boundary.
This is to assure retention of the natural screening
effect to the west and south.
2. No disruption of the existing drainage ditch with the
City Engineer to review the on -site drainage and
discharge points.
3. Completion of the street right-of-way abandonment prior
to any excavation or site work.
4. In removing the landscaped area along the south side of
the building, any required landscaping by prior permits
must be accounted for in this plan.
5. A landscaping plan for the new area is to be submitted.
6. A six-foot opaque wood fence to be erected along the
south side of the east entry drive and continue along
the west boundary of the parking area to the north
property line.
7. No further building permits or excavation on the
balance of the "MF-6" without review by the Board of
Adjustment.
BOARD ACTION: (April 18, 1983)
The applicant was present, and there were several objectors.
The applicant discussed the fencing requirement and stated
that he did not object to placing a fence there but wanted
some clarification relative to the fence and basically
agreed to work with the City relative to the requirements
put forth in the recommendation.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 1 - Continued
Dr. David Hall, who stated that he was on the staff of the
Surgery Center and served as spokesman for a group, read a
petition which addressed the general opposition to the
request. Their particular concern seemed to be the future
use of the remainder of the property as well as the
bulldozing of trees and general related problems regarding
lighting and other things. Their essential contention was
that the Surgery Center did not need the additional parking
and, therefore, should not have asked to use this property
for it. Dr. Hall also presented some photographs of the
area and some adjacent developments wherein some of the
problems that were mentioned regarding this application had,
in fact, come to realization on other other developments
under other circumstances. He was particularly concerned
that there had been a number of alleged broken promises in
earlier developments where people had said they would do
certain things and then had not followed through in the
manner which had been expected.
Dante Jacuzzi who owns the property on which the Surgery
Center sets and is also the purchaser for this property
discussed briefly with the Board the alternatives for
placing the parking other places, dealing with trying to
lease extra parking from adjacent developments. He stated
that the Surgery Center needed the parking for its doctors
and other staff personnel saying that they preferred to be
able to enter the building from the rear while not having tc
go through the patient waiting room. There were others in
opposition who spoke, Mrs. R. Michael Dougherty, Carl Glenn,
Ray Alexander and Gayle Windsor. After a lengthy
discussion, the Board moved to defer the matter to the
May 16 Board meeting for the purpose of allowing the
applicant and the neighboring property owners to attempt to
resolve some of the issues which were brought forth in the
meeting. The motion to defer was passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 1 vacancy.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were 13 objectors. The
applicant stated that they had met with owners and had
agreed to reduce the light intensity of the lights
surrounding the building and had gone on site and outlined
the actual location of the parking lot in question and
marked the trees which were to be saved when the parking lot
is developed. There was a lengthy discussion as to what the
future use of the remainder of the property would be, and
the applicant stated there was no contemplated use. He was
asked by the Board if he would provide a Bill of Assurance
indicating no future use of the property, and he said that
May 16, 1983
Item No. 1 - Continued
he would not because of the consideration of future sales of
the property and so forth, and that he did not feel
comfortable with putting a long-term binder on future
generations. He did state that he would provide a letter
making the same statements.
The opposition lead by Dr. David Hall restated comments that
had been made at the meeting in April about other objections
to the development of the site. In addition, Ray Alexander
and Carl Glenn also spoke in opposition. There was a
lengthy discussion of the project which carried for nearly
an hour. Finally, the Board made a motion to approve the
location of the parking lot in accordance with the site plan
presented with the conditions outlined in the staff
recommendation numbering seven plus two other conditions,
the first being that 40 feet along the west and south
boundaries of the property be rezoned "OS" Open Space and
that the applicant pursue zoning of the remainder of the
property to "0-3" General Office and secondly, that the
lights presently located on the west side and the southwest
corner of the building be removed from the building and
placed on standards at the western edge of the parking lot
and pointed back toward the building. This motion was
seconded, but before it was voted on, the Board amended the
first of the additions to the conditions to do away with the
40-foot requirement and to replace it with a statement that
the applicant would be required to zone the balance of the
property not used for the parking lot to "OS." This
amendment was accepted by the original Board member making
the motion, and the motion voted upon did include the seven
staff recommended conditions as well as the change in the
lights from the building to the western edge of the parking
lot and to require the owner to rezone the property not used
for the parking lot to "OS" Open Space. This motion passed
- 5 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Marcelline
Giroir abstained).
May 16, 1983
Item No. 2 - Z-3997
Owner: Larry Jacimore
Address: 6908 Kingwood Road
Description: Lot 235, Kingwood Place Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-101.2.D to permit
a 3-foot side yard and a 9-foot rear
yard for an attached garage and storage
addition.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
There were no adverse comments from reviewing agencies. A
staff visit to the site revealed the following:
1. The existing structure apparently contained a garage at
some point and has been closed in.
2. Substantial clear area exists beside the existing
structure inside the setbacks to accommodate an
addition for garage purposes.
3. The lot is not shallower than the neighborhood average.
Its grade from the street toward the rear is more the
issue.
4. Adjacent structures are rather close on lots to the
rear.
5. The Ordinance allows only 30 percent coverage of a rear
yard by accessory structure. In this instance, we see
34 percent by the principle building.
6. Where most intrusion into a side yard or rear yard
represents a small percentage of the width or depth,
this proposal represents 50 percent of the width of the
lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the request as filed.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 2 - Continued
BOARD ACTION: (April 18, 1983)
The applicant was not present. He had written a letter and
asked that it be deferred in light of the staff
recommendation and stated that he would try to work out some
details in the meantime. The Board moved to defer the item
to the May 16 meeting, and the motion passed - 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy.
STAFF COMMENT
The applicant says that he has not had an opportunity to
revise his plan and requests an additional one month
deferral.
BOARD ACTION:
The Board moved to defer this item to the June 20 Board of
Adjustment meeting. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 3 - Z-3999-A
Owner: Harper -Sisson, Partnership #1
By: Carroll Sisson
Address: 1410 Pulaski Street
Description: Lot 10, Block 322, Original City
Zoned: "R-4" Two Family
Variance
Requested: Permission under Section 8-101.H to
use this lot for accessory parking to
a commercial use.
Present Use of
Property: Abandoned House
Proposed Use of
Property: Accessory Parking Lot
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant originally asked the Planning Commission to
recommend rezoning this property to "C-3" General
Commercial. His intended immediate use was for a parking
lot, but he requested zoning so that future expansion of his
business might be possible. Several neighbors appeared at
the Planning Commission meeting to object to the rezoning so
the Planning Commission suggested that this application be
forwarded to the Board of Adjustment for the purpose of
simply considering the parking lot issue.
The applicant intends to expand his existing parking area
onto this site without creating any new curb cuts into
Pulaski Street. He does plan to fence the parking lot for
security reasons and requests that opaque fencing not be
required for those same security reasons. Because of its
size (7,000 square feet), the parking area will be required
to have landscaping in accordance with the City's Landscape
Ordinance.
The house on the property has fallen into disrepair and was
condemned by the City of Little Rock. The applicant has
purchased this property without the assurance that he can
use it for his purpose.
Staff recommends that the parking lot be approved in
compliance with the landscaping requirements.
May 16, 1983
Item N0- - Continued
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present,
Board asked the applicant
house on the site as far E
the house would
ander be
reno,
to be reoccupied.l ble wh(
someone WUL
discussion,
filed, and
a avai a
the Board mov'
and there were no objectors. The
what was proposed for the existing
Ls disposal of it. He stated that
torn down or movedto
orsnot
ite
rated depending upon
this
) wanted the house. After
After er to as
�d to approve the app
the motion passed - 9 ayes0 noes.
,
May 16, 1983
Item No. 4 -- Z-2241-A
Owner: Francesco Sergio
By: Dick Savage
Address: 1400 Block of South University
(West Side)
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-103.3D to permit
a 15' rear yard setback for a new
building.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Restaurant and Retail Sales
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant is proposing to construct a building
(400 x 431) on this property. The original design met the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regarding setbacks.
However, conversations with Public Works led to a decision
to attempt to relocate the building closer to the rear
property line so that parking could be double loaded in the
front rather than scattered around the site.
Engineering and the applicant have agreed upon the
construction of a deceleration lane on University Avenue
along the entire eastern boundary of the property. The
right-of-way is in place for the construction of this lane.
Further, to better facilitate on -site traffic flow, the
applicant moved the curb cuts from the center of the
property to the north and south ends of the property.
Engineering prefers to move the building another 3' to the
west so that more room is available for bumper overhang on
the University Avenue boundary. The applicant is showing
18' stalls with the curb acting as wheelstops in a 2'
overhang area.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 4 - Continued
The hardship associated with the application is the fact
that the University Avenue widening project took several
feet off the lot depth both on this property and on others
north and south of here leaving a usable depth of 125'. The
property to the west is vacant, but platted for single
family use. Fencing will be required along the west
boundary of the property.
Staff thinks the developer should rethink his approach to
this site, reduce the size of the building's length, gather
most of the parking to the far north and south ends of the
property, reduce the parking in front of the structure and
provide both landscaping and a sidewalk along the
University Avenue frontage. Staff recommends deferral until
a new site plan can be prepared.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
There was a lengthy discussion of the alternatives relative
to siting of the building including the original design
which met all of the zoning setbacks, the second design
submitted by the applicant, which was the site plan for
which the variance was sought, and staff's alternative which
called for a reduction in building size and alteration of
the physical dimensions of the building to make it deeper
back to front and narrower side to side. The applicant
stated that he would not be willing to change to the
development proposal shown by staff because his client was
in a time bind, that working drawings had been completed for
the building shown and the economics of the change. He
stated that the economics had to do with the fact that
considerable expense had gone into the development of the
plans for the building. Further, that the loss of floor
space would tend to make the project infeasible and finally,
that the difference in shape of the building would alter the
use potential of the structure.
After a somewhat lengthy discussion, the Board moved to
approve the application as submitted. The motion passed -
7 ayes and 2 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 5 - Z-4013
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
Bob Trammell
By: Jane G. Wood
1003-1007 Cumberland Street
The South 10 feet of Lot 2 and the
North 48 feet of Lot 3, Block 45
Original City
"HR" High Density Residential
Permission under Section 43-35 of the
Code of Ordinances to use a small
portion of this residence for a
professional office as a conditional
use.
Triplex
Triplex with an office in one residence
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant in her letter of request has stated that she
intends to purchase this structure and reside in one unit,
renting out the other two. Within her residence, she
intends to use one room containing about 200 square feet to
house her phototypesetting business which is presently
located in the Donaghey Building. She states that most of
her jobs are delivered to the client rather than picked up
at the office. The property,has a large rear yard with
access from the alley which can provide parking. However,
the present residents use the driveway access from
Cumberland Street and the applicant intends to continue this
practice. Renovation of the property is anticipated.
Staff feels that the request is well within the intentions
of the ordinance and recommends approval of the conditional
use as requested.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 6 -- Z-4014
Owner:
Address:
Robert A. and Hannah K. Peck
By: Harrigan Wortsmith
Approximately 12415 Cantrell Road,
Just East of Independent Air
Conditioning Company
Description: Lot A, Piedmont Subdivision
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variances
Requested: 1. Permission under Section 8-101.H
to construct accessory parking for
a nonconforming commercial use.
2. Waiver of Section 5-101C allowing
expansion of a nonconforming use
onto additional land.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
Property: Accessory parking for commercial use
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant proposes to use this property to expand his
existing parking lot. The parking lot in question is to
support a nonconforming land use which would require "C-4"
zoning under the present Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Ordinance prohibits the expansion of nonconforming uses with
the intention of eventually having nonconforming uses
disappear and staff views this request as an attempt to
prolong the existence of a land use which is intended to be
phased out through attrition. Approval of this request
would work at cross purpose with other sections of the
ordinance.
Staff recommends denial.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The
applicant stated that the building had been in place for
seven years with the business that is presently located
there. He stated that under the present situation it was
May 16, 1983
Item No. 6 - Continued
dangerous for customers and/or employees to enter and exit
the property because of the small maneuvering space on -site
and the entryway to Cantrell Road. He also stated that when
the dumpster truck comes to pick up the trash, it is
required to pull alongside the building, pick up the
dumpster and when leaving must back out into Cantrell Road
with help from his employees to stop traffic. After some
discussion, the Board moved to approve the application as
filed. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 7 - Z-4018
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
Sylvia Green
By: Bobby Fultz
1108 Hanger Street
Lot 10, Block 5, Hanger's Addition
"R-4" Two Family
Relief from Section 7-101.4D to permit
5' side yards on both sides for a
single family residence.
Vacant
Single family residence
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Typically in the ordinance with respect to residential
property, side yard setbacks are required at the rate of 10
percent of the lot width. However, the "R-4" district
requires a flat 8' for side yards. The thought guiding this
requirement was that it is desirable to provide slightly
more setback for duplex dwellings.
In this instance, however, since it is a single family
house, staff recommends that the conventional 10 percent
rule be applied. Staff recommends approval of the variance
requested.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 8 - Z-4017
Owner: Country Club Station Realty Company
By: L. Dixon Flake
Address: 5010 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Description: Lots 6, E, F and 7, Shadow Lawn Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-103.3D to permit
a 15' front yard setback and relief from
Section 8-101 to permit reduction in
parking from 14 to 11 spaces.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant (Used as a parking area)
Proposed Use of
Property: New one story building (commercial)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This property has been used for parking serving several
neighborhood businesses. It is presently striped for that
use. The proposal would construct a new one story
commercial building on the site. The applicant proposes to
locate the building within 15' of the front property line
which will line the building up with the building to the
north. The intention also is to provide three angle parking
spaces in the right-of-way in front of the new building to
match the parking already in place to the north.
Some of the adjacent tenants have expressed concern about
the loss of several parking spaces to this development.
However, none has shown that this parking is tied to any
other land use in the area by lease agreement or other
document. The property which will be developed in this
project is composed of four separate and distinct lots which
normally would be treated as vacant property. Staff is
concerned about the angle parking shown and feels that it
should be eliminated for safety sake.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 8 - Continued
The proposed square footage of the building would require 14
parking spaces and the applicant can provide only 11 spaces.
Staff feels that this commercial area is more of a sidewalk
shopping community than a conventional shopping area and
parking is not as important here as in other locations.
Staff recommends approval of both variances.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Lynn Wassell and Sam
Anderson. There was a discussion of the parking issue, and
because the Board did not find any justification for keeping
the parking, the Board moved to approve the application as
filed. The motion passed - 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention
(George Wells abstained).
May 16, 1983
Item No. 9 - Z-4021
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
Southland Corporation
By: John Holtzman
3301 Fair Park Blvd.
Long Legal
"C-3" General Commercial
Relief from Section 7-103.3D to permit
a rear yard setback of 15' for an
addition.
Restaurant
Same
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant is proposing to construct an 11 x 31' addition
to provide food storage space for the present restaurant
business. The location of the new space is critical because
of the existing kitchen location and access potentials. The
existing building sets well back from the street with all
parking being in front. There is a service drive in the
rear for deliveries. It is some distance to any adjacent
structures to the east and no conflicts are expected.
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 10 - Z-4024
Owner: Charlie C. Jackson
John C. Rogers, Agent
Address: 1819 North Fillmore and
5623 "R" Street
Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 12
Mountain Park Addition, less and
except the east 40 feet of Lot 12
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: Relief from Section 7-103.3D to permit
a 5.8' east yard setback and a 6'
north yard setback for two additions.
Present Use of
Property: Office
Proposed Use of
Property: Same
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The building to which the applicant plans expansion is a
converted residence. While the lot was platted with the
front yard on Fillmore Street, the present arrangement of
the structure uses "R" Street as the front. The addition to
the "front" is a porch over the entry. If the lot were
vacant and the applicant planned to construct a new building
on the site, two 25' yards would be required - one each on
the two street frontages - and the rear yard (opposite the
Fillmore Street side) could then be reduced to a minimum of
15'.
A few -months ago, the Board of Adjustment approved a
variance which allowed the construction of a new building on
the east 40' of Lot 12 which will be located on the west
property line of that site. The applicants' combined
developments would result in a total building separation of
5. 8' .
There has been no demonstration of hardship and staff
believes that the proposed variances will only serve to
exacerbate an already undesirable situation. Staff
recommends that both variances be denied.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 10 - Continued
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The
applicant stated that the new carport proposed would extend
the existing concrete slab approximately six feet to the
east. He stated that this would allow them to provide three
additional parking spaces on the site. He stated that the
building in question had no present apparent entry, and that
the proposed addition would provide a recognizable entry and
enhance the look of the property. After some discussion,
the Board moved to deny the application. The motion passed
- 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 11 - Z-4025
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
Jim Strickland
22 Westmont Circle
Lot 270, Meadowcliff Addition
"R-2" Single Family
Relief from Section 5-101.F to permit
an accessory building within the
required 60' setback and to within 2'
of the principle structure
Single Family Residence
Same
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The accessory building in question has been located in its
present position for the past five years or more. This case
results from a belated enforcement action arising out of a
neighborhood squabble over the fence in Mr. Strickland's
front yard.
If one presumes the Stricklands' right to have an accessory
building, there is a showing of hardship with this request.
The rear yard of this house slopes severely downward away
from the residence. There is no other suitable location for
this building.
The fence which brought the building to the City's attention
does appear to violate the Subdivision's Bill of Assurance
which prohibits fences in front of the platted building
line. However, staff's on -site review noted several other
similar fences scattered throughout the neighborhood.
Further, the City does not take jurisdiction in the
enforcement of Bills of Assurance.
Owing to the length of time this building has been in place
on the Stricklands' property and the fact that the lot does
slope in such a way as to prohibit movement of the structure
to the rear yard, staff recommends that the Board of
Adjustment approve the variances requested and remove the
City from any further enforcement action.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 11 - Continued
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were nine objectors.
There was considerable discussion of the case. The
applicant stated that in a survey of their neighborhood they
had found 23 fences in the front yard as well as 17
buildings that appear to be in violation of the Bill of
Assurance. He stated that the building on -site had been
delivered to the site and located in its present position
because of the slope of the ground as well as the desire of
saving the trees.
Sally Berryman, Don Nance, J.B. Benton, Ralph Funderburg and
E.M. Russell all spoke in opposition to the requested
variance. After a lengthy discussion, the Board moved to
deny the application. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 12 - Z-4026
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
Present Use of
Property:
Proposed Use of
Property:
H. Austin Grimes
By: Jim Harney
None Assigned
Lot 2R, Cornelia Thomas Subdivision
"R-2" Single Family
Relief from Section 7-101.2D to permit
an 8' "rear" yard for a new house.
Vacant (under construction)
Single Family Residence
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Access to this building site is through a platted access
easement. Though no actual street frontage is established
for the lot, the "front" is considered to be the north and
it has a platted 25' building line. The applicant plans to
locate the home to the rear of the lot because of
topographic considerations. Less land preparation and
disruption will be required if the proposed site is used.
A couple of years ago, the Board of Adjustment dealt with a
wall which runs along the southern boundary line of this
property and is a part of the lot immediately to the south.
The wall is 9' high and provides excellent separation
between the existing residence and this proposed home. If
the garage were detached, it would be permitted to be within
3' of both the rear and side property lines. The home
itself and the bulk of the structure will be located about
27' from the rear of the site.
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
After a brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion passed - 9 ayes, 0 noes.
May 16, 1983
Item No. 13 - Z-4020
Applicant: Warren Baldwin
Request: Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance
to determine if a residential/counseling
home for recovering alcoholics can be
located within a residential district.
STAFF COMMENTS
The attached letter from Warren Baldwin, President of the 24
Hour Club Inc., describes the program in question.
The club feels that its clients can receive better quality
care and counseling in a residential setting. Under the
ordinance, it appears that this type of use would fall into
the category of "establishment for care of alcoholic,
narcotic or psychiatric patients" which is defined as: an
establishment offering residence for outpatient treatment to
alcoholic, narcotic and psychiatric patients.
The applicant wishes to present his case for another
category of use.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
applicant described in detail the operation of the 24-hour
club and described what had been intended for the
residential property in question. He stated that the
original property that they had been planning to purchase
had been sold to another party and was not the subject of
this request. He stated that at the present time they did
not have a location picked out, but that in order to help
them in their search for such a property, it would be
necessary for them to establish firmly in their mind what
kind of use category they would have to fit in, and which
zoning would be required. There was a lengthy discussion of
the situation and, finally, the Board directed the staff to
work on a definition of a group home or halfway house type
use and to consider putting it into a conditional use
classification. Staff agreed to provide preliminary
information to the Board on June 20.
May 16, 1983
Other Business
Vic Fleming, attorney for the Lester Hurst estate, presented
a request to the Board that it reconsider the approval of
the setback variance for Stubby's Barbecue located at
7924 Cantrell Road because it was his client's contention
that proper notice to neighboring owners had not been given.
He stated that there was a misunderstanding that the
executor of the Lester Hurst estate had objected to the form
of notice given and that the bylaws of the Board did
indicate that different type notice should have been given.
After hearing the discussion, the Board moved to direct
staff to notify the applicant that a rehearing was being
called for June 20 and that his approval was being put on
hold during the intervening time. The staff was to write a
letter to the applicant outlining this position. The
rehearing for the item was scheduled for June 20, 1983.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
at 5:45 p.m.
Date
2
Secr ar