HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_03 18 1985u
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 18, 1985
2:00 P.M.
I.Rol,l Call ;and Finding of a Quorum
A q�orum was present being 6 in number.
II.Approval 9f the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
�he mi nutes we re approved as mailed.
III.Members present:
Members absent:
City Attorney:
B.L. MurphreeHerbert RideoutGeorge WellsRichard YadaSteve Smit hThomas McGowan
Ellis Walton
(2 open positions)
Thomas (Tom) Carpenter
'-)
March 18, 1985
Item No. A -Z-4407
Owner: Russell Matchett
87 Broadrnoor Drive Address:
Description: Lot 386, Broadrnoor Addition
"R-2" Single Family Zoned:
variance Requested: 1.From the rear yard setbackprovisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3to permit an addition with a 12-footsetback (ordinance requires 25').
2.From the hei ght and area exceptionsprovisions of Section 5-101/F.2.b to permit an addition with a separationfrom the accessory st ructure (pool)of 4' (ordinance requires 6 1 ).
JUSTIFICATION:
The unusual and isolated configuration of the lot and the addition will upgrade the property.
Present Use of the Property: Single family residence
Proposed Use of the Property: Sarne with addition
STAFF REPORT
A.
B.
Engineering Issues
None reported.
Staff Analysis
The proposal is to co nstruct a 13' x 28' addition at the rear of the existing structure to be used for a family room. The owner has used lot co nfiguration as part of his justification and hardship for the variance. The lot is somewhat irregular in shape and being located on a co rner, does cr eate some difficulties for enlarging the residence without benefit of a variance. In addition to the lot, a recent improvement, a swimming po ol, to the pr operty also pl aces some restrictions on the lo cation of an
March 18, 1985
Item No. A -Continued
addition. A pool is considered an accessory structure which requires a 6-foot separation from the principle building. With this co nstraint, the lot and the size of the new co nstruction, it appears that a variance is justified. Realigning the addition and moving it away from the pool would still create the need for a variance. Because of the location of the house on the lot, any new co nstruction will encroac h into the rear yard setback. Also, the existing residence does ha ve some structural limitations on where the new construction can oc cur. The owner has stated there should be no impact on the abutting properties because there will still be adequate separation. A ha rdship does exist and staff suppor ts the request.
c.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-11-85)
The staff informed the Board that the owner ha d fa iled to properly notify the required property owner s. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 18, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noe s, 1 absent and 2 vacant posi tions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-18-85)
The applicant or a representative was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 22, 1985, meeting. The mo tion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open posi tions.
March 18, 1985
Item No. 1 -Z-1067-A
Owner: Donald Kirk
Address: 9805 West Markham
Description: Lot D, Markham Heights Addition
"C-3" General Commercial Zoned:
Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/d.l to permit a canopy for a dry cleaners and drive-up window for an eating place with 20-foot se tbacks (ordinance requires 25 feet).
JUSTIFICATION:
1.Laundry needs area for loading, which is sheltered fromthe weather.
2.Additional spaces is needed for the drive-through inorder to allow more efficient operation of therestaurant and internal configuration.
Present Use of the Property: Multiuse Commercial
Proposed Use of the Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A.
B.
Engineering Issues
The Traffic Engineer has expressed some reservations with the proposed drive-up window for the restaurant and whether there is sufficient storage area for cars utilizing the window. He is concerned that the stacking of the autos using the window could interfere with traffic flow on West Markham and circulation/movement within the shopping center's parking area.
Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to pe rmit two encroachments into the 25-foot front yard se tback. The property is occ upied by a small scale shopping
)
)
March 18, 1985
Item 1 -Continued
c.
center with tw o buildings on it. The variances are for the northern ends of each of the structures. One proposal is to allow a canopy for a laundry operation on the west side of the site. The canopy will be large en ough to acc ommodate two cars, as long as the fr ont of the building and be open for the most part. Because of this and the building to the west se tting cl oser to the street than the dry cl eaners, it ap pears that the canopy will have little imp act on the ar ea. Also, the structural involvement will be limited. The restaurant on the east side of the ce nter has a dr ive-up window currently but, because of its location, customers have to leave their car a majority of the time to use it. The owner is prop osing to construct an over hang approximately 5 feet into the setback to tr y to remedy this condition. The building wall would not be within the setb ack. Because of the restaurant's locati on and internal configuration, this appears to be the onl y area where this type of a modification could take place, so a hardship does exist. Again, the effect of this imp rovement with the variance sh ould be minimal because the property to the east is parking lot. Staff believes that the owner has provided proper justificati on for the variance and supp orts the request, subject to the canopy not being encl osed in the fu ture and that channel ization, curb cu ts, stacking and internal tr affic movements satisfy the Engineer's requirements. (Staff has requested the owner to provide a detailed parking layout and design of a drive-up window for the restaurant.)
Staff Recommend ation
Staff recommends approval of the request, su bject to the comments made in the Staff Analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Merle Seam on. There were no objectors present. Mr. Se am on discussed the prop osal and said that the owner had no problems working with the Traffic Engineer to address the various concerns. There was some discussion about expansion possibil ities. Henk Koornstra, the City's Traffic Engineer, then sp oke. He said that the stacking of autos for the drive-up window sh ould not bl ock one of the entrances for the shopping ce nter. Mr. Ko ornstra requested that stacking be provided for five cars. Mr. Seamon then questi oned the stacking requirement and said that he had problems with the stacking for fi ve cars. A motion was then made to approve the variance with the
)
March 18, 1985
Item 1 -Continued
condition that the owner and the City staff resolve the stacking and ci rcu lation is sues. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions.
)
March 18 , 1985
Item No. 2 -Z-4406-A
Owner: G.Bryant Jones
Address: #1 Riversedge Drive
Description: Lot 3, Riversedge Addition
"R-2" Single Family Zoned:
Variance Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-101.F.2.d to permit a pool 12 feet from the front property line (ordinance requires 60 feet).
JUSTIFICATION:
Excessive slope of the lot on the order of 45 °.
Present Use of the Property: Single Family Residence
Proposed Use of the Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A.Engineering Issues
No adverse comments reported.
B.Staff Analysis
The proposal is to co nstruct a swimming pool only12 feet from the front property line. The swimmingpool is considered an ac cessory building, and thezoning ordinance requires those types of st ructures notbe located closer than 60 feet to the front propertyline, so that is the issue at hand. The owner sta testhat the excessive slope of the lot is thejustification for the va riance. A site inspection ofthe property does confirm that. The lot dr ops offdramatically from so uth to north and does create arelatively small buildable area that would require avariance for almost any new co nstruction. This is thesecond variance applied for by the owner in the lasttwo months. The previous va riance was for a ga ragelocated closer than 60 feet to the front property
)
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 2 -Continued
line. The staff supported that request because of the definite hardship, and our position is the same for the current variance request. Si nce fi ling this application, a representative of the ow ner has stated that the location of the pool may be shifted to the northeast because of some new circumstances, but still closer than the 60 foot requirement. Because of this new development and possible uncertanties associated with the lot, su ch as soil conditions, staff sugg ests that a "build ing envel ope" be created for the pool. This would permit the pool construction to take place within a general area and not be restricted to a specific location. Details of the envelope wi ll be provided at the hearing.
C.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request and that this be the last variance granted for this property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant wa s not present. A motion was made to defer the request to the April 22, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions.
)
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 3 -Z-4418-A
Owner: McHowe Company
Address: Market Street at Merrill Drive
Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Charles Valley Addition Description:
zoned:
variance Requested:
"C-3" General Commercial
From the height prov1s1ons of Section 7-103.3/c. to permit a new building with a height of 55 feet (ordinance re quirement is 35 feet).
JUSTIFICATION:
So the building design can take advantage of topograp hical contours of the property.
Present Use o f the Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of the Property: Retail Center
STAFF REPORT:
A.
B.
Engineering Issues
Engineering reports no adverse comm ents.
Staff Analysis
The variance requested is to allow the construction of a new mall type project with a hei ght of 55 feet. The "C-3" district permits a maximum heigh t of 35 feet, so the variance is for 20 feet. The site is unique in that it has a grade difference from west to ea st. The west or Merrill Drive side of the property is lower than on the Market Street side. The la nd is fa irly level on the west side and then slopes upward rat her abruptly in the middle of the site. From that point to Market Street, the ea st side, the property is fla t. The survey indicates that the proposed lowest floor elevation will be 425.0 on the west side of the incline and approximately 438.0 on the Market Street side. The zoning ordinance states that the building height is
)
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 3 -Continued
"the vertical distance as measured through the ce ntral axis of the building from the elevation of the lowest finished floor level to the mean height between the eaves and ridge of a gable hip or gambrel roof." The central access of the proposed co nstruction is on the Merrill Drive side of the site at the elevation of approximately 425.0. The owner has provided a reasonable jus tification; the existing topographical contours, for the variance, and the staff supports the request. The project with the proposed he ight will have very little, if any, imp act on the surrounding area.
c.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The app licant, Ernie Peters, was present. There were two persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the request. Mr. Peters spoke brie fly about the variance and proposed project for the property. Ernie Matkin, representing the property owner in the area, sp oke and requested more details about the project. Mr. Peters presented some drawings and sp oke at length about the proposal. Mr. Matkin then indicated that he had no problems with the project if constructed as re presented on the dra wings submitted by Mr. Peters. A motion was then made to approve the variance with the condition that the final plan comply fully with the site plan/design as presented to the Board of Adjustment. The vote: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. The motion passed.
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 4 -Other Matters
Address: 6119 Bulter Road
Zoned: "R-5" Urban Residence
Request:
Clarification of the City's code on privacy fencing as to specifications. The property in question is ut ilizing a 6-foot chain link fence with pr ivacy sla bs. The issue iswhether that type of fence meets the City requirements.
STAFF REPORT
This issue is before the Board of Adjustment because of a building permit requirement. When the building permit was issued for the pr oject, it required a 4-foot op aque fence which was co nstructed. The fence and building fell into disrepair over the years and when the project was remodeled, the fence was replaced with the existing 6-foot chain link fence.
The fence was con structed with redwood slats that have approximately a on e-half gap between them. This ap pears to be creating a problem for the adjo ining residence because a fence of this type does not seem to provide an op aque screening. An example of this is at night when hea dlights from autos are penetrating through the fence. The City's Enforcement Office has received compliants from the neighbor hood about this situation.
Additional information from the Enforcement Office will be available at the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not have a recommendation at this ti me.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement Office was present and addressed the issue. He di scussed the history of the site and why the issue was before the Board of Adjustment. Gene Reed representing the owners of the project then spoke. Mr. Reed said that a previous 4-foot fence was in to tal disrepair and was not blocking headlights. He then stated that the new owners replaced the 4-foot fence with the fence in question, a 6-foot chain link fence with wood sla ts. Mr. Reed also said that the owners were gi ven two options to either repair or replace the fence. The owners de cided to repair the fence, the mo re expensive of the two choices. He
( J
)
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 4 -Continued
went on to say that the owners were making every effort to work with the City to upgrade and imp rove the property. There was a long discussion about the ordinance and its requirements. At this point, the Chairman asked if other interested parties were present, and there were none. Mr. Scott reported that his office had received some complaints about the fence from nearby residents. He then went on to describe how using metal slats could possibly improve the situation because they were wider than the wood slats. There was a long discussion about other fe ncing types, including the slats at angles. This arrangement would deflect the headlights better. Mr. Reed said that there was residential development on only the no rth side approximately a distance of 600 feet. He also sa id that the owners were willing to work something out or to reach a compromise. Staff then suggested that the issue be deferred for 30 days to permit the property owners and residents to reach some type of agreement. A motion was made to defer the item for 30 days to allow the staff, residents and property owners to meet and develop a satisfactory solution to the problem and for staff to advertise the is sue for a public hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 vacant positions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (3-18-85)
Kenny Scott of the City's Zoning Enforcement Office was present. There were no other interested parties in attendance. Mr. Scott informed the Board of Adjustment that the owner of the apartment complex had put up some 4' x 8 1
sheets of wood and was now complying with the ordinance because the wood was providing the necessary screening. A motion was made to withdraw the issue from the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions.
March 18, 1985
Item No. 5 -(Interpretive Issue)
Owner: Christie Bowman
Address: 2010 North Cleveland
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Residential
Request: To determine whether or not the actions (dog grooming) of the resident at 2010 North Cleveland constitute a home occupation as defined by the Zoning Ordinance
Present Use of the Property: Si ngle Family Residence
Proposed Use of the Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
This request is before the Board of Adjustment because of an enforcement action by the City. It ap pears that the Zoning Enforcement office received a complaint about the dog gr ooming activity and investigated it. The En forcement Office determined that the resident at 2010 North Cleveland was, in fa ct, performing this service. The resident was given the op tion of discontinuing the op eration or requesting the Board of Adjustment to act on an interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The la tter of the two was chosen.
The request is to determine whether this use meets the zoning ordinance definintion of a home occupation. The ordinance defines home occupation as "any use customarily conducted entirely within a dwelling and carried on by occupants thereof, which use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes and does not change the character thereof and in connection with which there is no display, no stock and trade, no outside storage of equip ment, no commodities sold upon the premises and not more than two persons are engaged in such occupation. Such uses as barbershop, beauty pa rlor, tea room, tourist home, animal hospital and dancing school shall not be deemed to be home occupations."
Since the definition does mention certain uses that are not considered home occupations, such as beauty parlors and animal hospitals, staff is of the op inion that a dog
)
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 5 -Continued
grooming service at a residence does not meet the intent of the home occupation provision. The zoning ordinance is very specific in this situation, because the definition does preclude uses that are very similar to a dog grooming operation in terms of outside traffic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that a dog grooming service does not meet the intent of the home occupation definition.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Christie Bowman was present and represented by Henry Allen, an attorney. There were five objectors in attendance. Mr. Allen addressed the issue before the Board of Adjustment and discussed the current situation. He sa id that Ms. Bowman grooms no more than five to six dogs a week and it is just a part-time oper ation. He went on to say that the use generates very few cars or persons and that there is no boarding of dogs. Because of this, Mr. Allen sa id that the use in question fulfills the home occ upation definition and urged the Board of Adjustment to find that this particular situation meets the home oc cupation provisions. He asked that the scope of the business be looked at this location. Mr. Allen presented af fidavits from residents not opposed to the issue. Charles Johnson, a resident on the same block, spoke at length about the situation. He said an addition was made to accommodate the use and that changed the character of the dwelling. In addition, there was considerable noise and traffic generated by the use. Mr. Johnson said all the neig hbors that he had contacted were opposed to the use. Don Botner was opposed to the use and said the residential character of the neig hbor hood should be maintained. Kay Johnson, Woodrow Boch and George Clark all spoke against the use. Mr. Cl ark questioned whether some boarding was taking place. Kenny Scott of the City staff discussed the enforcement aspect of the issue. There was a lengthy discussion about various issues, including when the operation started and when the addition was completed. The use began in May 1984, and the addition was completed in June 1984. Christie Bowman spoke briefly. She said it was a clean operation and that she had only boarded one dog. Ms. Bowman said she grooms an average of two to four dogs a week. Some additional comments were made by the various parties. A motion was made that a dog grooming operation was not a home occupation as defined by the zoning ordinance. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions.
)
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 6 -(Interpretive Issue)
Request:
STAFF REPORT:
To determine whether an auto upholstery shop is allowed by right in "C-3" General Commercial. This request is being made by the City's Zoning Enforcement Of fice.
This issue is on the Board of Adjustment's agenda at the request of the City's Zoning Enforcement Office. The request is to determine whether an auto upholstery shop is permitted by right in the "C-3" general co mmercial district or if it should be a conditional use in "C-3" general commercial.
The zoning ordinance's definition of an uphol stery shop is "a facility which makes coverings for furniture by applying such materials as springs, padding and fabric." No where in the ordinance is an auto upholstery shop listed.
In 1981, the Office of Comprehensive Planning stated in writing than an auto upholstery shop was al lowed by right in the "C-3" district. This position was reaffirmed by a second opinioin issued by the Planning Office in February of 1985. The Zoning Enforcement Office issued an opinion that the use in question is a conditional use in "C-3" and requires approval from the Planning Commission. (See accompanying letter.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this time.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Kenny Scott of the City's Zoning Enforcement Office spoke and presented their view of the issue. Mr. Scott said that the "C-3" district does not permit the servicing of autos, and that the use described here requires a conditional use because of the auto service aspect of the issue under consideration. David Smith, owner of the upholstery shop in question, was present and spoke. Mr. Smith said that he upholsters everything and described the operation in detail. There was a long discussion about the various issues associated with this request. A motion was made that the described activity at 4510 Asher Avenue falls under the "C-3" district as an upholstery shop. The motion passed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions. A second motion was made to request the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate pl ace in the zoning ordinance
_)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 6 -(Interpretive Issue)
for an up holstery auto shop. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions.
March 18, 1985
Item No. 7 -(Interpretive Issue) -Z-4413-B
Owner: Various owners
Address: 3300 Polk Street
Description: Blocks 4, 5, 8 and 9, Ruebel and Leymer's Addition
Zoned: "R-2" and "I-2"
Request: An interpretation of the zoning ordinance to determine whether
Present Use
a food processing facility (with slaughtering) is a conditional use in "I-2" or "I-3."
of the Property: vacant and food processing
Proposed Use of the Property: Food processing
STAFF REPORT:
The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to determine their appropriate zoning district, "I-2" or �I-3", for a food/meat processing facility with slaughtering. This request is being made on behalf of Rudy's Farm Company, who has also filed for a rezoning change and a conditional use permit. The rezoning ap plication is for "I-3" with a conditional use pemit.
The question being raised is which definition, agricultural products processsing or tanning or rendering of ani mals, applies to the proposed use. The zoning ordinance defines agricultural products processing as "a facility which involves the operation of processing, preparing or packaging agricultural products which are not grown on the site." Tanning or rendering of animals, as defined by the ordinance, is "a facility in which the tanning, rendering, slaughtering or butchering of animals is conducted. This use must be completely encl osed." This use, tanning or rendering, is a conditional use in "I-3." Agricultural products processing is a conditional use in "I-2" and by right in "I-3."
In the text of the zoning ordinance, the only time the term "slaughtering" is mentioned is as part of the de finintion of tanning or rendering. At no time is slaughtering li sted as a separate use. The ordinance does provide for uses not specifically ident ified as part of a particular use group in
March 18, 1985
Item No. 7 -(Interpretive Issue) -Z-4413-B -Continued
both the "I-2" and "I-3" districts as co nditional uses. The "I-2" district has "industrial uses no t listed (enclosed) and the "I-3" district list "other industrial uses not expressly provided for in the "I-1" or "I-2" districts unless otherwise prohibited by City or dinance."
Staff's position is that the proposed use, food processing with slaughtering, requires an "I-3" rezoning with a conditional use. This is because of slaughtering being part of the tanning and rendering definition or being co nsidered another industrial use not expressly provided for.
(See accompanying letter from David Henry for additional information.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed use appears to meet the criteria requiring an "I-3" rezoning with a conditional use permit.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
David Henry, representing Rudy's Farm, was present and spoke at length. There were no objectors present. Mr. Henry described the conditional use permit process that the use had applied for and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the C.U.P. in the "I-2" district. He went on to say that the present location was "I-2" and the facility was able to expand on three separate occasions. The last building permit was issued in May 1982. Mr. Henry said that there was no odor at the current site, and it was a very clean operation. He also said that the plant was U.S.D.A. approved and then described the slaughtering operation. Mr. Henry pointed out that there were no objectors from the neighborhood. A motion was made to interpret Rudy's Farm as an "I-2" use with a conditional use. The motion was approved by a vote of: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions.
,,-I March 18, 1985
Item No. 8 -Z-4425
Owner: Various owners (by James Isom)
914 Broadway (northwest corner of West 10th and Broadway) Address:
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "GB" General Business
Variance: Issuance of a cond itional use for location of a bus ter minal. Present Use of the Property: Used Car Lot, Parking Lot, Vacant Property and Abandoned Alley
Proposed Use of the Property: New Constr uction for a Bus Te rminal
STAFF REPORT:
A.
B.
Engineering Issues
1.Customer parking lot is improperl y situated. Thedriveway will be blocked most of the time due to nearness of inter section. Cars sto pped for thetraffic signal will block the driveway.Northbound tr affic atte mpting a le ft turn into thelot will block Broadway.
2.The driveway at the bus exit must have a la rgeradius so that busses tu rning onto Broadway willnot block two la nes.
3.Landscaping in the right-of-way should not beapproved. A large sidewalk is ne eded to supportthis fa cility.
4.Recommend additional land acquisition.
Staff Analysis
The staff review of the proposal de veloped 10 areas of design problems or site deficiency. They are as follows:
1.The site providing customer parking is a poorchoice due to access restriction at one point, to onear an intersection.
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 8 -Z-4415 -Continued
2.Internal circulation is poor, both for pedestriansand vehicles, due to fragmented vehicle use area.
3.The site configuration provides limited designalternatives for a facility served by longwheelbased vehicles.
4.The plan area is almost void of li vabilityfactors, i.e., landscaping and people areas.
5.There appears to be no provision for parcelpick-up or additional parking for that use.
6.Facilities of this character require an immediatearea parking for taxi service. This is notindicated on or off the site and probably is impractical.
7.The alley closure may cause a design problem atthe southeast corner of Lot 4, inasmuch as theState will receive one-half of the right-of-way.The present design of bus parking cuts thatcorner.
8.The plan area incorporates a presently usedparking lot for the veterinary clinic adjacent onthe north. No provision has been made forreplacement of those 12 plus stalls.
9.The plan does not reflect the site for a prop osedbillboard on Lot 4. This could be critical toboth parking and landscaping.
10.Land use concerns are:
a.The site is in appropriate for use of thischaracter, especially given the problemsnoted above.
b.Immediately adjacent residential areas.
c.Tra ffic onto Broadway.
d.Long-term desirability of this location,given the development potential of thiscorridor.
e.Design of the building.
)
March 18, 1985
Item No. 8 -z-4425 -Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has worked with this developer and the bus terminal issue for several months with a view to ward establishing this facility at the most functional and accessible site. In the course of our several reviews, it became apparent that this is a very difficult business to site in the core of the City. It is our feeling that the use should be ne ar other facilities of like kind, as well as major arterials. The subject si te fills most of the criteria, but is perceived as an exposed, sensitive corner by many of the involved parties.
The immediate areas is one of mi xed land use, access problems and blight. However, many local developers, landowners as well as staff, feel that this corridor can be a rebirth area for downtown. The community at large benefits or suffers from poor choices in the formative period of such a rebirth.
The imminent completion of I-630 suggests that we will experience significant and rapid redevelopment between I-30 and Chester. Given the 10-point negative analysis, the staff feels compelled to recommend denial of the cond itional use permit.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Staff informed the Board of Adjustment members that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the item be withdrawn without prejudice from the agenda. Before a vote was taken, several persons voiced opposition to the proposed use. Jim Lynch of the Downtown Neighbor hood Association spoke against the use and said it was incompatible with the area. He requested the staff to make an in-depth look at the entire area. Dickinson Flake, property owner in the area, said he was against the use. Bill Presson, representing Blue Cross, said the bus station would have a negative impact on the area. Cherry Nichols of the Quawpaw Quarter Association was opposed to the location and said it would have an impact on the redevelopment potential of the immediate area. Cheryl Ann Baker said the use would bring down property values in the area. A motion was made to withdraw the request without prejudice. The vote: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. The motion was approved.
n March 18, 1985
There being no further business before the Board ofAdjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
/ecretary Bd, �-