HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3994-A Staff AnalysisAugust 15, 1983
Item No. 5 - Z -3994-A
Owner: Mapco Petroleum Company
(Earth Resource Company)
By: John Biola
Address: 8818 New Benton Highway
Description: Part of SW 1/4 of Section 35, T -1-N,
R -13-W
Zoned: "C-4" Open Display District
Variance
Requested: Rear yard setback provisions of Section
7-103.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to
permit a 10 -foot rear yard.
Justification: The owner states that the existing
building is 10 feet from the rear line
and no other option exists for addition
to the existing building.
Present Use of
the Property: Gasoline Sales and Food Store
Proposed Use of
The Property: Remain the same with additional floor
space for food sales.
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues:
None evident at this writing.
B. Staff Analysis:
The staff visit to the site revealed two points of
discussion which dependent on the views of the
reviewing party can make a case for or against the
proposal. First, we would point -out that significant
interior rearrangement will occur in this building
after the addition. This suggests that several design
options are available to the builder. These would
include elimination of the gasoline pumps at the front
door and expanding the building toward the highway as
well as eastward. Secondly, we would point out that a
large generally vacant tract lies to the north which
offers the possibility of acquiring 15 feet of land to
provide the required rear yard. The development of a
August 15, 1983
Item No. 5 - Continued
hardship case is difficult given the existing
circumstances and possibilities. The owner has not
chosen to note that annexation is one of the bases for
the problem. This use was constructed while in the
County.
C. Staff Recommendation:
It can be shown that this application is not supported
by the evidence and that other options are available.
Therefore, in the absence of stronger justification, we
recommend denial of the request.
BOARD ACTION
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike Haasbrook.
Mr. Haasbrook addressed the Board briefly. He offered
comments in response to the staff recommendation which
suggested they had pursued all of the remedies which the
staff had offered. A brief discussion then followed
involving all parties as to possible resolution of the
problems. A motion was then made by the Board to approve
the application as filed. The Board approved this motion by
a vote of 4 ayes, 1 noe, 3 absent and 1 open position.
The staff then pointed out to the Board that the bylaws
required a minimum of five votes to provide approval on any
action before the Board. A brief discussion followed in
which the staff suggested that a motion of the Board to set
the bylaw requirement aside in this case would be
appropriate. A motion was then made to accomplish this.
The motion was passed by 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open
position.