HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4145 Staff Analysist
December 19, 1983
Item No. 1 - Z-4145
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance
Requested:
JUSTIFICATION
Ron Harb, Joe Akel, Terry Moore
By: Richard Groh
1719 Merrill Drive
Lots 8b and 9 of Charles Valley Subd.
"C-4" Open Display District
From the rear yard setback provisions of
Section 43/7-103.4.3E of the Code of
Ordinances to permit a new building to
encroach 10 feet into a required yard
area (25 -foot ordinance requirement).
1. The owner identifies unusual lot configuration, non-use
area created at 25' and accessibility for fire and
emergency being available on adjacent lots.
Present Use
of the Property: Vacant lots
Proposed Use
of the Property: Construction of two new retail buildings
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
There are no engineering issues associated with this
request. The land is platted and all utilities and
drainage are accounted for, except for on-site. All of
the abutting lots are developed commercial.
B. Staff Analvsis
The site at issue is vacant with a few scattered trees
and very few development constraints. All abutting
properties are developed with commercial buildings and
perimeter service drives exists on all sides. The
drives give good separation between the structures
proposed on these lots and their neighbors. However,
there is no long-term commitment to retention of these
December 19, 1983
Item No. 1 - Continued
drives by this applicant. The standard staff response
to a proposal of this nature is redesign to fit the
lot. In this instance, the circumstances enforce that
kind of response. This owner desires to accomplish in
his rear yard what his neighbors have provided in a
side yard relationship. We see little justification
for the variance, except possibly the configuration of
the lots. However, that is not in our judgment
sufficient justification. We feel that if the lots are
to be developed with common drives, parking, etc.,
perhaps a single structure would better fill the design
needs. In addition, it might be appropriate to replat
the lots as one building site for development purposes.
This understandably would be difficult due to the
easement running along the common line between. Should
platting occur, perhaps a single building could be
located without a need for a variance.
C. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The architect, Mr. Groh, was present representing this
variance and presented additional comments in support of the
request. There were no objectors present. A lengthy
discussion of the proposal then followed. A motion was made
to approve the request as filed. The motion passed by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention
(George Wells) and 1 open position.