boa_06 15 1970LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
JUNE- 15,.1970
MEMBERS PRESENT
L. Dickson Flake, Chairman
Wm. F inle•y Williams, Vice Chairman
S: Spencer Compton
Darrell Dover
Dave Frundfest, Jr.
MEMBERS ABSINT
None
STAFF PRESENT
Don R. Venhaus
John L. Taylor
Richard Wood
Dorothy Riffel
OTHERS PRESENT
Paul Johnson, Asst. City Attorney
J. Huddle6t0n, Gazette Reporter
2:00 P.M.
There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 2s00 P.M.
A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the last meeting as mailed, which was
seconded and passed.
Action was taken as followps
Tract•No. 1 - Z-2367
Applicant: Humble Oil & Refining Company
Location: 500 Block Ferry Street (east side)
Aeseription: Lots 1, 2, 39 49 Stevenson's Addition
Lots 13 and 14, and a portion of Lot 3 lying
west of Interstate #30
Ciaasification: "F"-Commercial District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of
Section 43-15 of that ordinance to permit construction
of a sign in excess of permitted height (78@)
Mr. Robert ChoWning, attorney, was present representing the applicant.
The Chairman read the Staff°s recommendation as follows- "The Staff recommends denial
of the requested Variance to permit height of 78 feet height of sign, and recommends
instead approval of,60 feet total height. The signs in the surrounding area,generally
are from.45 feet to 64 feet.in height, The terrain lying.south and north is such that a
sign of lesser height than 78 feet should be visible for a considerable distance in
each direction. (A sketch ,showing signs in the area is attached.)"
The little Rock Housh4g Authority interposes no objection to the requested Variance.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
J!M a 151.1970 '
After hearing the Staff's recommendation, Mr. Chowning stated that his client
had no objection to the requirement of 60 foot height instead of the requested
W 78 foot sign height.
fit..
A motion for !Uroval of the application for Variance was made subject to a 60 foot
height limitation. The motion was seconded and passed.
Cr Tract No. 2 - Z-2366
[ Applicant: John B. May
C Location: 1323 Main Street
£1 Description: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 79 8, 9, 10, Block 14,
Original City of Little Rock
Classification: "I" Light Industrial District and "E"-Apartment Dist.
Variance: Requests Variances:
(1) from the Height Provisions of Sec. 43-13
and 43-16 of that ordinance to permit construction
of apartment building in excess of permitted
height (144 feet exclusive of 10 foot elevator
tower)
(2) from the Lot Area Per Family Provisions of
Sec. 43-13 and 43-16 of that ordinance to permit
less than required lot area per unit (389 sq ft.+)
The Staff's recommendations were read as follows: The Staff recommends denial of the
Variance of 389 'square feet of lot area per family and recommends instead approval
of 500 square feet per family as required in our new Code. If the desired lot area
requirement is met, recommend approval action be withheld until the alley is actually
closed. It is recommended that one of the driveways on Scott Street side of the
property be closed. The Little Rock Housing Authority advised that they have no
objections to the requested Variances."
Mr. Edward Brueggeman, architect for the project, was present and stated that they are
asking for the waiver of lot cover in order to obtain the number of units necessary
to make this project financially feasible on a rather expensive piece of ground. He
contended that the general area bounded on the north by the 8th Street Expressway
i (which will cut out a 200' strip through that, area), the Quapaw Area directly to the
{� east which will probably always have individual houses because of the nature of the
< area; in the extreme eastern portion is the City Park, and considering Broadway as
W the extreme western boundary of the area is the Mt. Holly Cemeteryp will take out
C :considerable ground area that could eventually be built on. "For this reason we do
a} not feel that this unit will create any real difficulty because of constructing more
Z apartments than the ground normally would justify. The waiver of height comes under
D the same situation, he said. In order to get the number of units we want and maintain
Q� parking on the lot, we have to occupy less of the lot area and go higher." Mr.
0 Brueggeman stated that they are still encroaching 10 feet into the alley and they can
0 either close it or allow it to go through Stith° a'10 foot offset by opening up at the
M north property line.
As to the requirements for a green stip along Scott Streets Mr. Brueggeman said that
this is being provided at the end of the parking on both the Main Street and Scott
Street sides which would amount to a 10 foot strip. (ed.- This statement is not
entirely correct.)
Mr. Venhaus said this is a rather peculiar situation inasmuch as the property is
divided into a zoning district, a portion of which is industrial and a portion of it
being residential. If Scott Street were construed as the front yard of the property
-2-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 1541970
they would have to provide a 25' front yard area - green area. However, they have
frontage on three streets, so we would assume that the option would rest with them in
terms of what they wish to call their frontage. However, insofar as Scott Street to
the east and to the north is zoned in a residential fashion, we would think it
entirely appropriate to require them to provide a planting area. The apartment
complex immediately to the north provides such a setback and across the street
generally conforms to that kind of a building line. The Main Street -half is industrial
zoning and the Scott Street half is residential."'
Mr. Venhaus added that whatever alternative is chosen, it would require action by the
Board to either franchise 10' of the alley or close it, and in either case the Board
would have to consider it and approve it.
The proposed complex will be thirteen floors of 156 units of one and two bedroom
apartments, and would provide 160 parking spaces.
Mr. Venhaus added that "we are not dealing with an absolute science when we establish
a square footage minimum, a minimum relationship between the number of units and
total lot area that I would suggest we need such a figure that can be closely adhered
to. If we pursue this particular line of reasoning and we allow this increased
density at a substantial reduction over what our new Development Code calls for, then
I think we accept the line of.teasoning that says that the density on a piece of
property is dependent upon what'you pay for the ground, and I would suggest that
however arbitrary minimum square footage figures might be, this is a poor guide for
locating high density uses approximate to the downtown area. Again I would urge you -
to consider upholding the 500 square foot requirements set forth in the new develop-
ment code, and not grant a variance on the square footage figure indicated."
Mr. Williams suggested that any action the Board might take would be premature consider-
ing the fact that the alley closing has not been presented to the Board of Directors for
its disposition, and this could alter the entire project. Mr. Taylor stated that the
utility companies had not been contacted about this alley closing as is customary9
nor had the Fire Chief been consulted about a fire lane use of the alley, and that the
property owner to the north objected to this closing, but indicated that something
could be worked out with the applicants.
A motion was made that action be deferred on this matter until after it has been
presented to the Board of Directors for approval of the alley clos' - The motion was
seconded and passed.
Tract No. 3 - Z-2371
Applicant: Arkansas Hotel Corporation
Location: 601 Broadway
Description: Lots 1 thru 4, and Lots 9 thru 129 Block 1069
Original City
Classification: "H"-Business District
Variance: Requests Variance from the Height and Area Provisions
of Section 43-19 of that ordinance to permit
construction of a building in excess of permitted
(12 stories - 122' 601)
The Staff recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the
application regarding the height variance, but recommends deferral of case until the
next meeting to permit revision of documents furnished such as matching of site plan
with elevationsp and'solution of ,ingress and egress problems.
The Little Rock Housing Authority interposes no ooj ection to the requested Variances."
„„3-
Board of Adjustment Minutes -
June 15,1970
Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff had worked with the local engineer for the project
in working out plans for ingress and egress so that they could be aware of the
problems before they, brought in the complted plans, but that the approval of height
variance was recommended.
Mr. Charles Matthews, appeared as representative of the applicant, Arkansas Hotel
Corporation. He stated that this is a two -fold request; one for a variance from the
height restrictions and another for the setback restrictions. They plan to set back
30 feet from Broadway, but none on 6th Street, and he asked that the restrictions
contained in the ordinance be waived on both counts. Mr. Taylor explained that in an
"H" Business District there are no yard setback requirements, so in effect if the
Board grants the height waiver, the other waiver is also granted - one takes care of
the other.
When questioned about a sign, Mr. Matthews"said that a sign would be placed on the
southwest corner of the project site, the dimensions of which he did not know as the
plans have just been completed. A sign variance would be requested at a later date.
The height variance is requested to accommodate a.building over eight stories or
100 feet in height as the ordinance stipulates. The.,struc Lure i$ proposed to be 12
stories or 122' 6" in height.
A motion was made that the application be approved as submitted. The motion was
j seconded and passed.
Tract No. 4 - Z-2160
Applicant: T#e Wilson Company, Inc.
Location: 200 Block Schiller Street
Description: Lots 1, 11, 12, and that portion of Lots 2 and 3
lying outside West 3rd Street relocation right-of-
way, all in Block 6, Plunkett°s 2nd Addition
Classification: °'P"-Commercial District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions, of
Section 43-15 of the ordinance to permit construction
of building in excess of that height permitted (601±)
Mr. John N. Geyer, Agent for The Wilson Company, Inc. was present.
The Staff recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the
requested Variance. A Variance to permit four stories in height (1 floor parking,
3 floors office space) from Third Street side was granted by the Board of Adjustment
December 1691969. The new proposal is to construct a total of 6 floors (2 above
original grant) now that two lots to the east have been acquired to assure adequate
off-street parking."
Mr. Geyer stated that they intend to add an additional two floors to their proposed
building which was approved for four stories in a Variance granted in December, 1969.
The Wilson Company hag acquired additional space to the east to provide 57 parking
spaces. The only change in the original plan is that the entrance on the west side of
the building will be abandoned.
A motion was made that this application be aPpproved M-�p as submitted, which was seconded,
Ld and passed.
0. =4-%
CO
M
Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 15, 1970
Tract No. 5 - Z-1654
Applicant: Coleman Dairy, Inc.
Location: 6001 Asher Avenue
Description: Long legal
Classification: "P-Commercial District and "A" -one -family Dist.
Variance: Requests a Variance from the Use Provisions of
Section 43-7 of that ordinance to permit expansion
of non -conforming use
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the
application with recommendation that owner proceed with application to rezone subject
property to proper classification."
Mr. Gene Withrow, Architect for the project, was present and explained that Coleman
Dairy, Inc., proposes to add 12,000 square feet to its present plant for a warehouse
and bottle room. Since this is a nonconforming use, it was suggested to the applicant
that the property be rezoned to "I" -Light Industrial District to accommodate its
needs, which they will do.
A motion was made for approval of the Variance as requested, which was seconded and
passed.
Traict No. 6 - Z-2370
Applicant: Tatum Street Baptist Church
Location: 3424 Tatum Street
Description: Lots 5 and 61 Block 137, and Lots 1, 2, 3, of
Block 138, John Barrow Addition
Classification: "B"-Residence District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the Use Provisions of
Section 43-3 of that ordinance to permit parking
lot in a residential zone
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The'Staff recommends approval of
requested Variance provided proper screening is,installed on parking lot. The
construction of the proposed parking lot would relieve a parking problem as the
existing church has no off-street parking at present, and parks on street right-
of-way. This application is the result of an application for building permit on
Church to the north and across 35th Street. The present Church was constructed before
this area was annexed to the City and off-street parking was not required."
Rev. Melvin Burris, Pastor of the Tatum Street Baptist Churchwas present. He said when
they bought the property they did not know that the parking area had to adjoin the
Church structure, and until they bought this lot they did not have any parking area.
Mr. Taylor explained that it would be necessary to provide screening along the south
and east property lines which is across from residential properties. Evergreen
planting or a .fence type of screening could be used. Mr. Burris said they would
comply with this requirement.
A motion was made that the application be appxoved�as submitted provided proper screen-
ing -is provided. The motion was seconded and passed.
.05..
Board of Adjustment Minutes -
June 15,1970 _.
Tract No. 7 - Z-2313
Applicant: Jimmy Davis
Location: 6121 Porbing Road
Description: Lot A of a Subdivision of Tract 5 of Home Acres
Addition
Classification: "I" -Light Industrial District
Variance; Requests a Variance from the Screening Provisions
of Section 43-21-(H)-(b) of that Ordinance to
permit deletion of required screening on parking area
Mr. Venhaus stated that the property we are talking about is located on the south side
of Porbing Road.approximately-(00 feet west of Geyer Springs Road. This property was
rezoned three or four months,ago from "A" -Single-family to "I" -Light Industrial. All
of this area to the west of Geyer Springs Road on both sides of Porbing Road are either
presently zoned industrial classification or used for that purpose, and is shown on
our Comprehensive Development Plan in an industrial classification in the future. In
other words all of the ground the length of the map north and south and west of
Geyer Springs Road is shown to be converted to industrial use when a zoning applica®
tion is filed. We have some uses that remain in the area, but the area is still zoned
"A" -Single-family and we have "A'° -Single-family development on it, and I would assume
that we would have to consider these properties in transition. A number of them,
t� particularly on Geyer Springs Road have been zoned in this area to a commercial or
industrial classification.
Ld
p This property came in for "I" Light Industrial zoning. The stated purpose of the owner
was to develop a used -car lot on the property, There was substantial objection at
that time from the north side of the street.
J
The Board of Directors has put me in the position of trying to reconcile the diverse
interests of the two parties - the property owner to the north and his concern for
the use of the property as developed, and also Mr. Davis who is the applicant, who
r proposed to build the used -car lot. The used -car lot has been constructed. As part
of their negotiation process, I personally asked Mr. Davis, pretty much without port-
folio to operate. in such a way as to keep down those objectionable features of his
operation such as signs. He has put a very unobtrusive sign indicating the business
that he operates on the property. We also talked about not putting in pennants, banners,
streamers, which be has complied with. We asked that tsars be worked on in closed build-
ings, and junk automobiles not be stored out on the open lot. This also has been complied
with. The remaining issue from the original zoning was the matter of screening. The
zoning ordinance would require screening on the north line where the property is iAmediate
ly across the street from residential uses, and also along the east line. Adjacent to
the east line the property is not developed - there is a vacant lot. Immediately to
the east of that there is a frame structure which is a non -conforming beauty shop, and
used also for a residence. Immediately to the east of that is a single-family dwell-
ing, then ae pick up "F"-Commercial at the southwest corner of Geyer Springs and Fprbing
Road. This screening, with the straight application of the ordinance, would be required
then on the east line and on the north line. You will notice on your plot plan that
lights are indicated - overhead lights- I assume for security purposes and to provide
lights for customers in the evening, have been constructed on the site. The lights have
been kind of an issue. They are not an issue in this particular application, but they
are of particular concern to me because they seem to be the single remaining persistent
issue so far as I know with respect to the development of this used -car lot. The
applicant has made a request of this Board to waive the screening in the front and waive
• 6-
Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 15,1970
'the sdreening on the east, believing of course that in a used -car business they do not
Waht their visibility cut down on Forbing Road and I assume that they are of the
oppinion that the screening to the east would effect very little since this property
could be considered in transition from a residential to an industrial classification.
I raised the issue of the lights because they have become particularly important to
me because I �ave.talked on the telephone about them a great deal; I have been out
to the site, and have been trying to reconcile the lighting issue. The last I heard
of this issue I asked our Director of Inspections, Roy Beard, to get with Harry Bacon
of the Arkansas Power & Light Company to review those lights and get his expert judg-
ment as to what could be done to the lighting system by adjusting the shields to
ameliorate the effects of the lighting on the properties on the north side of the
street: I believe the shields have been adjusted. I have heard no feedbacks since
then. The gentleman who lives across the street is present, and perhaps he can tell
you how he is getting along with that particular issue.
From the Staff°s recommendation standpoint, we did not make a positive recommendation
to you basically because we see this issue as a matter of reconciling diverse interests
and equities in the property, and I don't know if there is very much science we can
bring to it. On the front of this property there is a 40 foot curb cut which is
allowed by ordinance which leaves a total of 45 feet that could be screened - 20 feet
on the west and 25 feet on the east. I can't think of anything that that screening would
accomplish in terms of protection of the property on the north side of Forbing Road. It
would not cut down the car lights, or the visibility of the car lot - I don't know of
anything that it would accomplish. The screening would be more effective on the east
side of the property. However, we have got a non -conforming commercial use at that loca-
tion at the present time, and I think eveything that has happened in this area clearly
indicates that it is in transition at the present time from what was a residential area
to an industrial and commercial area. With that much background, I would like to turn
it:over to Mr. Davis who wants to speak to this request."
Mr. Shelby:R. Blackmon, attorney, was present representing Mr. Jimmy Davis, the appli-
cant. He said that from his standpoint, the case had been stated very clearly. He
said that the objector lives on the second lot to the east across from the vacant lot
and not directly across from the used -car lot; that he had the proPerty,rezoned for
a used -car -lot and in his opinion the requirement, for screening would "kill" it for
this purple;. that he has tried to comply with the wishes of the objector by putting
in expensive overhead lights rather than the low swinging lights which were objected
to and had refrained from putting up banners which were also objected Ito. "He has a very
clean concrete used car lot. He has put his carwash in the rear where it could not be
seen at the request of the objector. We have a signed petition by every property owner
in the adjacent area except this one objector not to put up screening. Mr. Posner, the
objector, has a large metal sign out in front of his lot with "Dixie Home Modernizers,
Inc." on it. He operates a business at his home with building equipment and employees
going in and out of his home constantly."
He added that it would be dangerous for cars pulling in and out on sorbing Road and he
could not see that it would serve any useful purpose whatever. It would not beautify
the site and probably would look worse with a screen than it would with automobiles
facing the highway.
Mr. Dover asked Mr.,Biackmon if the Planning Commission attached any condition to its
approval for rehoning, to which he replied "no". Mr. Dover commented that "we are
talking abut the ordinance requirements of screening, and n of a Kanning Commission
requirement." Mr. Venhaus said this was true,
Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 15, i970 �w
Mr. Henry PosnsF, 6108 Forbing Road, was present in opposition. He said he lived
_R directly across the street from the subject property. As far as the screening is
concerned this is a provision of the ordinance, and he was not too concerned about
* that, he stated. "As far as the lights are concerned9 the Arkansas Power & Light
* Company ins.tallpd eight 400 watt mercury vapor lamps which are three times as strong
as lights you will find in a comparable area in a baseball park at nights They are
tremendously powerful and before they had shields on two lights, we could sit in our
house at 3 A.M. with the drapes'cl"ed and read a newspaper. This, Ibecame so ridiculous
we took pictures at 2000 A. M. without flash attachment and it looked like broad day-
light. The birds sing all night long. There is no nighttime as far as they are concerned.
I have seen large lots - one just opened up on Forbing Road and the highway and they
have ten times as much area as he has, and they have ten times as many lights as he
has and not one single light will shine off the property. This can very easily be
arranged. I don't want my property lighted at night. As far as the: screening is
concerned, this is a City affair. I think it would be nice and pleasant., but as far
as the lighting is concerned I think every one of those lights must be shielded in
order for us to have darkness when darkness should be."
Mr. Venhaus added "you see we have had a sort of blending of issues here. The issue
before us is screening,and the real issue is the lighting. I was particularly anxious
for this to come before the Board. I do not consider Mr. Posner a "complaining witness".
I think there is an issue of equity here. I think it is also true that Mr. Davis has
done a number of things to comply with the request that I made of him that he operate
in such a way as not to create any more burden to residences on the other side of the
street. Mr. Posner does have a positive interest in this application. I am seeking a
standard. I don't quite know how to develop A standard for lighting. I want to "deal
' the Board in" because you have the authority to review this in connection with the
screening requirement, I want to "deal you in" in terms of lighting, but I am not
quite sure how. The ordinance only says that lighting shall be directed moray from
adjacent residential property. I don't know how to interpret that in any way that I
could come to grips with. Arkansas Power & Light Company has been out there and have
made their recommendations. Apparently they have been complied with and from Mr. Posner"
W commente I would judge that he is not in the least bit satisfied with the level of
< light control that has been afforded. I guess at this point I am saying "does anybody
have any ideas". I am pretty much at a loss. I think Mr. Posner has the right to be
helped. I thank he has a real problem if his property is lit up like broad daylight.
° I am not quite sure how to ameliorate this situation or what action this Board can take
to lend assistance to the problem."
D
?" mr. Blackmon said Mr. Davis has no objection to shielding the lights. "He put up this
( particular type of lights because he thought it would satisfy Mr. Posner. He would
0 have preferred the regular used -car lower lights. If you require the shielding of
10 the lights, we will be happy to comply with that."
W. Taylor 'stated that when he and Mr. Davis talked to Harry Bacon of the Arkansas
Power & Light Company he indicated that he could put some shields on the "in" lights
and lights on the north side directed to the south, and additional shields if desired.
We Venhaus suggested that -the Staff°s recommendation for approval of the waiver of
the screening requirement be contingent upon the lighting on the front lights being
as prescribed by the Arkansas Power & Light Company to cut clown the lighting and
ameliorate the effect of the lighting across the street, to make a formal requirement
that no banners, pennants, streamers, etc, be developed on the property; that no dead
storage be utilized on the property in terms of dead vehicles that will not run. "I
would like to see those things in a motion for a waiver of screening requirements."
..8m
Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 15,1970
Mr. Flake asked what part of the ordinance requires the lights to be directed away
from the adjoining lots. Mr. Venhaus said the same part that relates to the screen-
ing. Mr. Flake asked if the Staff had the authority to interpret. Mr. Venhaus said
"we have the authority, but the only problem is that I personally don't know how to.
It is a matter of judgment that only a lighting expert really could go out there and look
at those lights and say "here is what you can do to minimize the lighting, and that is
the best that can be done with these lights. I don't know. You could go out and
adjust the shield a little bit, and one man could say we have got that taken care of,
and the next one say it is still broad daylight in my front yard. I am pretty much
in a quandry about this, which you can see."
Mr. Dover said that "obviously you can minimuze thelighting by removing the lights.
You can minimize it to zero. What we are talking about is the question of how much
light the property owner is going to get to use. At that point I am not sure that
it may properly come within the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court as, to what is
a nuisance out there as opposed to what is the proper use within the jurisdiction of
this Board. I don't know how we can fix candlepower or that type of thing. I
personally do not know how to do it.
Mr. Grundfest stated that he did not see that it is incumbent on the Board to tell the
Staff or Mr. Davis how to run his business on the lot, if it is properly zoned and
done in a way it is supposed to be. "I am certainly interested in Mr. Posner's problem
af.lighting, and apparently Mr. Davis is trying to cooperate in the way that he deems
proper and I think if you get Arkansas Power & Light Company to go back to the site
or anyone else who might be able to offer help, and Mr. Davis will follow these
recommendations, I can't see that the variance as requested has anything to do with
any of these other factors."
Mr. Venhaus said he had done everything he could to reconcile this problem out there.
Mr. Dover added that he did not think it is a problem of this Board, a problem of the
City of Little Rock; that the application was for a variance to permit the deletion
of the required screening which has nothing to do with the lighting problem.
Mr. Posner said that when the matter was brought before the'Board'for rezoning he
strongly objected stating that lights would be put up and they would be damaging.
He said he was promised by the Board that it would be allowed with the understanding
that he would not have to police this situation, that no lights would be focused on
his property, and he refused to be a policeman to try to enforce something."that I
think should be your obligation or somebody's obligation. No one has the right to
stand across the street and throw a light beam into my house, but here are 3200 watts
of mercury lights that are flashed in my house twelve hours each day and this has got
to stop."
Mr. Blackmon indicated that they are willing to work toward a solution of this problem.
He said Mr. Davis did not want this type of light in the first place and they would
cooperate in any reasonable program for lighting. Mr. Posner said as far as he,was
concerned there was nothing to negotiate. Mr. Taylor suggested that he and Mr. Bacon
go out to the property and make a survey of the situation and hopefully work out a
solution.
Mr. Flake said subject to the other members agreeing with him, his feeling is that
there are two separate ordinances, one for screening and one for lighting; that Mr.
Posner has a remedy, and if there is a requirement that no one direct his lights CO
adjoining lots, the City has the power of enforcement, and Mr. Davis could appeal
that here; or Mr. Posner could appeal that in court if he feels that the City is not
enforcing it, his feeling vAw that there be a recommendation on the application for a
variance 'in ,screening.
�9�
Board of Adjustment Minutes
" June 15,1970
A motion was made that the waiver of screening be api2roved, which was seconded and
passed.
IV. DEFERRED MATTERS
1. Z-1608
Applicant: West Side Baptist Church
Location: 2715 West 7th Street
Description: Lots 4, 5, 6, Block 11, Ferndale Addn.
Class if ication: "C"mTwo-family and "F"-Commercial District
Variance: Requests a Variance fromthe Yard Area Setback
provisions of Section 43-12 of that ordinance
to permit addition to church that projects 8 feet
into Front Yard Area
The Staff recommendations were read as follows: "This application was deferred at
the May meeting due to failure of the applicant or his representative to be present
at the meeting. The Staff recommends approval of the application."
Mr. R. A. Hill, Pastor of the Church was present and apologized for his failure
to be present last month. There is a front entrance facing 7th Street, and the
6' X 10' vestibule creates a problem in that they do not have enough room to pass
in and out and no space to store coats, umbrellas, etc. It is their desire to
come out the width of the porch and extend 4' beyond that which actually means
a 4' extension of the existing structure. This would be extended across the
building and give them a lobby 30' wide and 10' deep.
A motion was made that the application be approved, which was seconded and passed.
2. Z-2359
Applicant: Jewel Johnson
Location: 816-818 North Polk Street
Description: Lots 16, 17, 18,Block 3, Lincoln Park Addn.
Classification: "B"-Residence District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the Main Provisions of
Sec. 43-2-(5) of that ordinance to permit more
than one main structure on a lot
This application was deferred at the May meeting due to the applicant's failure to
present proof of notice to adjacent property owners as required, and failure to
attend the meeting. On June 1st the owner of the property modified the proposed
addition to the structure at issue to the extent that a building permit has been
issued. As of this date there is no indication that the applicant wishes to pursue
this matter further. The Staff recommended that the case be filed.
A motion was made to file this case since the problems incident to it had been
resolved. The motion was seconded and passed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 P. M.
DON R. VSNHAUS9
Secretary.
!-r -�''Z• crJ
I.. Dickaon Make,- C airgan
•• 10-