Board approves variance allowing shared access and side‑yard paving for Adams Masonry site

5479954 · May 16, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Zoning Appeals approved petition 25‑14, granting a variance to allow paving in the side‑yard setback to create shared access between two industrial lots at the southeast corner of Virginia Street and East 112th Avenue; planning staff recommended approval and a shared‑access agreement will be required at site development.

The Board of Zoning Appeals on May 15 approved petition 25‑14, a variance allowing encroachment of the western side‑yard setback so flat work and parking may extend to the property line and accommodate a shared access aisle.

Jennifer Baker, speaking for Adams Masonry Inc. and representing her brother Todd Adams, described the request as a means to mirror existing development on the adjacent lot (Lot 48) and to create a shared driveway with the contiguous property at 601 East 112th Street. Planning Department staff reported that the property is in an I‑1 industrial zone and that current standards require a 20‑foot side‑yard setback; the proposed layout would extend flat work to the property line and therefore requires a variance. Staff said a shared access agreement will be required at the site‑development stage if the variance is granted.

The staff report noted that multiple properties in the subdivision already use shared drive aisles and that an earlier ordinance change removed flat work from side‑yard setbacks, creating a situation where prior approvals now technically conflict with the written standard. Planning staff recommended approval of petition 25‑14 and said notices were sent and published; the department received no calls of remonstration.

Board members noted the prevalence of cross‑access in the park and the practical need for the shared aisle. One board member observed that a cross‑access agreement would allow both properties to be sold or used independently. The board voted to approve the variance; the motion passed on a recorded roll call in favor.