12/05/1984 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? . .. . HOARD OF ZQNING APPEALS DECEMBER 53% 1984 PAGE 3 was administered to Mr. Frost, the developer, Mr.-Thomas, the present owner; many adjacent property owners, and employees of the adjacent build- ing. A letter from St. Richards Parish Council was read opposing the proposal Qn the basis of the danger it would c.reate for the children at- tending their schools,.and the intrusion of the car wash into a basically residential area. Mrs. Mantle, a resident of Whitethorn, questioned the zaning of the property; according to the zoning map, the zone line.,goes through the property showing the front part General Retail and part of the rear as residential. She was advised that there had been a ruling stating that the property was.to be General Retail; she is questioning when the ruling was made and who made it. All other neighbors were also opposing the proposal for the following reasons: heavy traffic conditions in the area (especially on Friday and Saturday when traffic is backed up for blocks); car wash would only be about 10' from house to the rear; in and out txaffic would be generated by a car wash; water problems and freezing problems which would be created by the water from this business; this property, which is now used for a parking for employees and customers of the adjacent building, is needed for that parking and would create parking problems; although there is an ordinance regulating hours of operation of.a car wash, this ordinance is not enforced. Mr. Frost stated that building is brick; attendant would be on premises; entrance and exit would be vn Whitethorn (not Andrus); no additional water would be left standing; and hours of operation would conform to ordinance. Mr. Thomas stated that use of parking lot is not part of lease for tenants of building and that there is parking around building. A letter had been received from Brian Gorris, a member of Planning Commission, requesting that the Board refer proposal to Planning Commission prior to granting any variance. Cfiairman Remmel stated that he'doubted that this.property Gould ever be used residentially, but there are several issues that the Board would like to study further, and they would like to continue the case until the next ineeting. C. Remmel moved to continue the request until the next hearing in January, seconded by E. Graves, and unanimously approved. Case continued. 5. Alice Eller, 4291 Brendan Lane Request for variance (1133.13). Request 10' rear yard variance for patio enclosure. Violation of Ord'. 62-33, Section 1163.01. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Kuenn- of Patio Enclosures. Mr. Reimnel stated that there is nothing behind the property. E. Graves moved to grant the vairance to Alice Eller, seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. 6. Robert N. Czuchran, 5574 Burns Rd. Request special permit to add to non-conforming dwelling (side yards and total side yards). Special permission required Ord. 62-33, Section 1231.02. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr Czuchran who explained that he started out just to build a closet and when he decided to add a bathroom he learned that he needed a permit. Chairman Remmel stated that this would be an improvement, but had a concern that the plumbing that has been done might not be up to code. C. Remmel moved to grant the special permit with the condition that all plumbing must be inspected by the city so that it does meet code,