HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-07 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 7, 2000 at 3:45 p.m.
in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
Approval of the Minutes Approved
BA 00-6.00: Variance (Jones, pp 485) Approved
BA 00-7.00: Variance (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484 Approved
SA 00-4.00: Sign Appeal (Baker Building LLC, pp 484 Approved
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Larry Perkins
Michael Andrews
Michael Green
Thad Hanna
James Kunzelmann
Marion Orton
Joanne Olszewski
• STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Tim Conklin
Dawn Warrick
Bert Rakes
Sheri Metheney
•
Mike McKimmey
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 2
Approval of Minutes
Perkins: What this is all about for those of you that may not know, we have a new member
on the Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals, James Kunzelmann. There is also
another new member who is not present at this time, Joanne Olszewski. That
brings us up to our full compliment of seven but we also have one member absent
today. We do have a quorum so we can proceed.
Conklin: I would like to introduce one more person. Sheri Metheney, is the new Senior
Secretary in Planning and she will be taking the minutes.
Warrick: Because Sheri is new, if you would, when you speak at least the first time would
you please say your name for the record so she will be able to get you correctly
reflected in the minutes.
Perkins: When we do get underway for those of you that have comments, today dunng the
meeting please say your name also for the record.
Conklin: In the packet we sent out last week we did include an updated list of members.
Their names, addresses and phone numbers. Also, the bylaws are included for
each of you, a schedule of meetings for 2000, minutes of the last meeting and the
current agenda. I thought it would be helpful as you may have misplaced your
bylaws you will have them there with regard to voting and how meetings are
conducted. I believe we also will need to, it said on the agenda, election of
officers.
Perkins: Correct. With that then, we will get underway. The August 7th meeting for the
Fayetteville Board of Adjustment is now in session. The first item of business is
to approve the minutes from the meeting held on May 1st. Are there any changes
to note?
MOTION:
Green: I move that they be approved.
Perkins: Okay. We have a motion to approve.
Orton: Second.
Perkins: And a second. Please call the roll.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 3
ROLL CALL:
The motion was approved on a 5-0-1 vote.
Perkins: The minutes are being entered into the record as submitted. It comes now to item
two which is the election of officers. I would like to put it a nomination for Mr.
Green for Chairman of the Board.
Hanna: I guess there is something to be said about continuity unless you think you felt
like you are getting too powerful.
Perkins: Well, no. It's not that at all I just thought I would nominate that is if you are
willing to consider it.
Green: I would certainly take it if you don't want it but I would certainly encourage you
to continue with it. You have done such a fine job. You know all the ropes and it
would save me a learning curve.
Perkins: Well okay.
MOTION:
Hanna: I'll make a motion that we elect Larry Perkins as our Chairman.
Andrews: Second.
Perkins: Okay. Any further discussion? Call the roll please.
ROLL CALL:
The motion was approved on a 5-0-1 vote.
Perkins: Thank you very much. That should conclude that item on the agenda. That's the
only officer we have
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 4
BA 00-6.00: Variance (Jones, pp 485) was submitted by William & Pamela Jones for property
located at 560 E Dickson Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 0.18 acres. The requirement is for 8' side setback. The request if for 6.7
side setback (a variance of 1.3').
Perkins: Without further ado then that brings us to our first variance request which is BA
00-6.00. This was submitted by William & Pamela Jones for property located at
560 E. Dickson Street. The property is zoned R-1 which has an 8' side setback
and what is at issue is the east side of the property is requesting a variance for 1.3
feet. Does staff have input on that?
Warrick: I will just kind of go through some of the background information. This particular
request does have quite a bit of background information. First, I will let you
know that this was brought to the attention of the City in the form of a complaint.
The subject property was the site of a property line adjustment in 1998. There is a
map in your packet that will hopefully help explain where that was changed as far
as how that lot line happened. That's on page 3.9. Originally there were two
linear lots that were stacked north to south. In 1998 they changed the
configuration of the lots to stack them east/west so that there was one existing
structure on a lot at the corner of Fletcher and Dickson and then the vacant lot
further west on Dickson Street. That vacant lot is the site of the project that we
are talking about today. After the property line adjustment was approved and
filed, the applicant applied for and was granted a building permit for a single
family home with a detached garage to be located on that new lot that's on
Dickson Street. The permit application did have a site plan in it showed the
required setbacks for the back and sides for that lot. After the construction of the
project, the neighbors thought that the garage structure was too close to their
fence. They requested that the Planning Division investigate, which we did. I
was told that an as -build survey was conducted by Alan Reid. I contacted him.
He provided a copy of that survey to our office. Upon reviewing that survey, I
wasn't sure whether his dimensions from the garage to the property line reflected
measurements from the wall or from the overhang. As you all know, we do
measure from the overhang. I called and asked him what that was. He told me
that the measurements on his survey reflected distances from the walls. I
requested that he go back and check in his survey notes and his field notes, which
he did. He gave me the correct setbacks from overhangs. Those are reflected on
page 3.14. They are written in on the sides. You can see that those reflect that the
northern corner of the garage, the northeast corner, is 7.3 feet from the overhang
to the property line. The southeast corner of the garage structure is 6.7 feet from
the overhang to the property line. That's where both of those, of course, do not
comply with the eight -foot requirement. We decided to go with the more
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 5
restrictive, the 1.3 foot variance as uniform across the site there. That's what was
needed. Basically, that is how this got before you. Based on the notification of
the violation to the property owners it was stated in that that staff would not be
able to support a variance based on the fact that the information provided to us up
front with regard to the building permit application reflected they planned on
constructing according to City requirements. We thought that we had to
recommend denial on the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions. There's
a lot of information in the report other than those two maps. There is substantial
information from the applicants with regard to their letter of request as well as
some photographs that they have provided.
Conklin: Once again with regard to the recommendation on page 3.3 we have listed the
findings that we are required to make as staff. Item number three talks about
resulting actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant. Once again their building permit did show the
proper setback they applied for.
Perkins: During that initial City inspection back in February of 2000, what was indicated
to the property owner at that time?
Warrick: That would have been in Building Inspections.
Conklin: That would have been in Building Inspections I am not sure what they do when
they go out there. Our inspectors ask the person in charge of building the house to
indicate where the property line is and they check for compliance based on that
information. We do not require a survey to be done to site the house.
Perkins: Now when the building permit was first requested and after the lot split, is it the
same as the picture on page 3.9?
Warrick: I believe it is.
Perkins: At that point it just indicated that from that east property to the footprint of the
garage or some part of the structure was going to be eight feet. That is what the
permit was based upon then?
Conklin: Yes. We can't issue a permit that doesn't meet our ordinance requirement. It had
to meet the ordinance requirements.
Perkins: So, nothing that you know of like lengthening the dog trot through there, that little
connecting hallway between the garage and the house, nothing's been enlarged
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 6
that you know of.
Conklin: Not that I'm aware of.
Perkins: Are there any further questions, staff, at this time anyway?
Green: Is the complainant here also? Yes. I'm just looking at the timing on this. I'm
just kind of curious as to why you waited so long to raise that issue. During
construction would have been the time.
Mr. Walker: My name is Stewart Walker. At the time, of course we didn't get out there and
measure at the time. The first time that we took issue is when the garage went up.
We went over and introduced ourselves to the couple building the house and we
were to understand from Reichert, the builder, that the garage would be a simple
garage. No living space just a simple garage. I believe what the building plan
shows just no living space upstairs. It's eighteen feet and in the building plan not
to exceed twelve. The problem is our lots are right here together. That garage is
there with windows. Our room is her office we look right in the shutter. So the
person now occupying the house never opens his blinds and we keep ours shut
too. Before the windows, when it was just being constructed, we asked please
don't put windows in. That's going to be an issue while we are selling this house.
It's a speck home. This is going to be an issue for them and us. We e-mailed and
tried to resolve that. They said it was too late so the windows went in. The whole
time we suspected it was over. We also, in the back of our minds, not wanting to
really get into all of it, assumed that there is a final survey, there is a bank survey,
I'm assuming, the City should catch it. This is all going to be caught, if it in fact
was over.
Perkins: Your name please?
Mrs. Walker: I'm Missi Walker.
Mr. Walker.
At the point where we had finally gotten, in our conversations conceming the
window, we had specified what will happen is, a window unit will go in there.
Someone is going to have their office up there and we are going to be too close.
Sure enough a window unit, we come home one day, is being installed on our
side. I immediately walk next door to the current owner of the house, Pat
Zimmerman and I ask him, we are too close here, can we...
Mrs. Walker: The window unit extends even closer.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 7
Mr. Walker.
It extends even further than what you have. The window unit is out further than
the overhang. You just don't like to have a widow unit right in your face. At that
point he informed us that he absolutely did not want the window unit put in the
house. He was told that he was going to have that, before the house was sold, that
would be heated with central heat and air with a unit in the back out of sight and
enclosed. That was determined later that they wouldn't do that. That they needed
to make that heated and cooled space and needed the unit. He said he didn't want
it in and it definitely would not go on his side. The point to us we took a fence
and put it on this side here. We had measured at that point and knew that the
property was over when it was built. To us, I don't know if we would have done
anything if the window unit had not shown up. That was about our last straw and
we didn't want the window put in, in the first place, but the time the window unit
went in. Anyway Ron Reichert, the builder, walked up and myself and Pat were
talking so we brought it to his attention right at that moment. I said we have
measured, we think you are short here, now you have this window unit that we
need to have moved. He said that I can come within two feet of your property that
is a detached garage and that he had a special permit and that he would show it to
me. I said I would have to see it. He said that in front of me and Pat Zimmerman.
I just kind of shut up because I thought there was two -foot permit out there that I
didn't know about. That's when we began these proceedings and found out there
was no two -foot permit.
Mrs. Walker: To kind of answer your question about the time line. The fact is we really weren't
sure that it was over. We didn't make it a point to go out there before all of this
came to head until he said the two -foot thing, to go out there and measure. Even
though it's blatantly obvious to anybody who knows anything about construction.
I work in commercial construction and setbacks are an easy thing and it's just
blatantly obvious. Throughout this process, I work with a lot of architects and
engineers and every one of them would drive by and say "You need to check that,
I know it's too close. Look at it."
Mr. Walker:
Our survey stakes were also pulled out of the ground, the original survey stakes.
When we went back to look the survey stakes, when we bought the house, we
bought the house first then it was divided up a month later, a month or two later,
our survey stakes were pulled out of the ground with new survey stakes put in
different spots. I don't know what, who, how it happened, what happened but that
is where some of this confusion probably took place.
Mrs. Walker. We don't really know how any of this happened. I guess we are the sort of people
that depend on people to do their job. That was my thinking that if it is in -fact
over they will catch it. I'm sure they will catch it. I work on commercial
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 8
buildings and they will sure catch it on that if you do anything. We really kind of
just had faith that if that was the case that it would be brought to our attention.
Once the air conditioner was in there and there were still just getting gradually
closer and closer to us that is when my husband and Mr. Zimmerman confronted
Mr. Reichert and were told two feet. That just shocked me. I never heard of such
a thing or a special permit. We had never received anything so that is what
prompted my investigation to come down here and look up the permits to see
what they actually said they were going to build when they build. To try to
answer your question about time line I suppose we were really just waiting to see
if one of the inspectors, someone who would know better than we would, if they
were too close or not. Then we wouldn't have to make an issue out of it. It's just
been on ongoing thing for over a year. I wrote the book that you have there so
I'm sure that you know it's just been one thing after another. Something that I
would like to point out is, if you notice, on the as -built survey they have more
than their required setback on the west side. The breeze way could have been
shorter. The garage could have been smaller. The whole thing could have been
moved over. A lot of this doesn't have to be this way. It could've been done
correctly in the first place.
Hanna: I would still like to hear from the applicant.
Perkins: Is Mr. or Mrs. Jones here?
Mrs. Jones: My name is Pam Jones. First of all, it was an unintentional, unrealized violation.
The last thing I wanted to do was make a violation. This was my first project
under my name the Creative Homes by Pam Jones. It was kind of my baby. That
was the last thing that I wanted to do was be in violation. The last thing that I
wanted to do was to upset Missi and Stewart Walker. I am a person of integrity
and I have tried to operate that way. From the very beginning, there was an
obstacle, if you look on there the lot barely meets the 8,000 square foot
requirements. In fact there is a little jog in the back by the their fence to make
sure, when you are doing in fill lots it's a building nightmare truly. It's upsetting
to people who have already been settled in a neighborhood that's been a way.
Missi and Stewart were upset that the lot was sold and bought. They were upset
that there was a home going to be built there. I tried very hard to understand their
feelings on that and tried to build a home that was beautiful and pleasing and an
asset to the community. The street has a sharp drop-off right there and when we
first went in to start having some of the trees cleared so there would be a way for a
truck to get on there. Not even to clear the lot just to get the truck on there, he
was backing out and a car hit the back of it. So nght away we realized we needed
to have, for safety reasons, a turnaround, for the person to back their car and
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 9
turnaround and go out forward onto Dickson Street. The other gigantic obstacle
that we had was that it was a wooded lot, we were doing a balcony on the west
side and of course we wanted to preserve as many trees as we could. The large
trees especially. I have pictures that are clear if you want to see them to show the
trees where she was saying about moving the house over, it was a consideration to
the west. We wanted to save these big trees and you can clearly see them in this
picture here. There are several along that wall. The other thing was, you can see
the detached garage, for the turnaround we needed as much space possible for the
turnaround to make room for them to go out to the front. These were all, and we
thought we were in compliance with what we were planning to do which was to
be in compliance with the side yard setback. The slope at the lot, that street just
drops down drastically there and we were trying to go as far to the east as we
could still believing we were in compliance so that we wouldn't have to do a lot
of grade work there. On the issue that she brought up of the window situation
ingress/egress, you have tohave widows. The other side of the wall over there
had the breeze way and so this was the most practical thing. This room is not
occupied. Mr. Zimmerman is a single individual. This is like a bonus room. The
mortgage company said that we had to have it heated and cooled. We delayed
putting the air-conditioning unit and heating unit in because Mr. Zimmerman was
wanting to put in central heat and air himself. We had to hold the money back in
escrow and they would not release that money from escrow until we put in the
unit. Neither Mr. Zimmerman nor ourselves wanted to put in that little unit that
you see right here in the pictures. We did not want to do that but in order for us to
get our money out of escrow we had to do that. He wanted to put in his own heat
unit but you know how it is when you are moving you have a lot of extra expenses
and he couldn't do that at that time. Like I said, there is a violation. It was
unintentional, unrealized. It was never noticed from the beginning. We did not
tamper, in any way, with any stakes. The last things that I wanted to do was to be
down here and to upset the Walker's. That's the last thing that I wanted to do.
It's just very difficult building on a lot with this many complications. I feel like
that this project is an asset to our community and to have to go in and do
something to the structure as it is, I feel would be unfair to us because it passed
inspection. If it was recognized at the beginning, we could have adjusted it but
now it would be a huge financial expense. We closed on the house January 27,
2000 and Mr. Zimmerman has occupied that house since February. I did not
know, in fact, I was the one that gave Dawn Warrick, Alan Reid's phone number
when she said "Is there a violation here?" I said "No. There's not. If there is, it
was never realized by me, the architect, the licensed subcontractors who did the
footing and the foundation work, at the closing, by the realtor, by the bank, none
of us realized the violation." I understand they are upset. They had a backyard
that now has a side -yard with somebody else's yard in it. They could have bought
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 10
Perkins:
Hanna:
Mrs. Jones:
Hanna:
Mrs. Jones:
Reichert:
Perkins:
Reichert:
Jones:
Reichert:
the lot. They didn't. I am very sad that this has happened but it was
unintentional. It was unrealized by all of us involved. I don't know about the
special permits. I was not privy to that conversation. Mr. Reichert is here,
perhaps he can enlighten you because I never knew of anything being said about
that. I was not aware of that conversation in any way.
Thank you Mrs. Jones.
I have one question. You were aware of the eight -foot side setback?
Yes.
Were you aware that was from the overhang or did you think that was from the
slab?
We thought from the slab.
We thought from the slab. That's where the yard came in.
Your name sir?
I'm Ron Reichert, construction manager. On the west side, we are ten feet from
the west side and the reason for that is we are over the eight feet we would be
further back because there is a utility easement ten feet on that side. That's why
we couldn't expand and didn't mention that. We would have been maxed on
the west and then maxed at the east and the garage has to be a little bit out of
square. Basically, what's over is the roof overhang The sixteen -inch roof
overhang.
Another thing, the lot kind of does this thing and so you can see from the
northeast comer it's very little on the overhang and then on the southeast comer
it's more because it just kind of goes like this. It was unintentional, unrealized. I
apologize to Missi and Stewart for the grievance. Like I said the last thing we
wanted to do was to be in violation. I would have fixed it immediately if I had
known from the very foundation. We would have fixed it. Our subcontractors
that did the work knew that we had the eight -foot side yard.
Regarding the property stakes on the east side of the property. We didn't move
the stakes. Her fence was up before we bought that property and before we staked
off the house. Her fence is about six inches over. That should have been on the
survey also. The stakes weren't moved.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 11
Mrs. Jones:
Andrews:
It's in violation. Her fence is in violation.
I didn't go around back but I'm assuming there are no windows in the back. This
is the only window?
Mrs. Jones: Yes, because of the walls. It was the only place that we could put it for
ingress/egress which is a wall.
I have a question.
Yes ma'am.
Mrs. Walker.
Perkins:
Mrs. Walker:
Perkins:
• Conklin:
Warrick:
Perkins:
Conklin:
Perkins:
Mrs. Walker.
Hanna:
Reichert:
•
Should the property north of 560 East Dickson ever be developed, do you feel like
machinery or whatever the. utility companies' equipment that they needed could
go through this space without having to remove our fence or tear up our yard?
Is that a landlocked lot? I'm not familiar with that.
I don't show it as a utility easement.
It's not a utility easement.
If it's a dominant lot to another property facing flush with them, they have to use
the easement through that property.
Unless they acquire an easement from you they shouldn't be going through there.
Unless you volunteer to it, yes.
I'm still curious about this two -foot special permit.
Mr. Reichert, would you mind sharing with us your side of the conversation on
that?
I told them the driveway can go as close to two feet from their property because
the driveway is in regular not the building. The building, the foundation was set
in at eight feet. They were well aware of that from day one. From day one, when
we first started clearing trees, she wrote numerous letters and complaints. This
isn't a new thing that she picked up after the property was done. This was
something all through property. The north side of her property, the east side and
south side, has a big utility easement in her building line. That's how we got to
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 12
Mr. Walker:
Perkins:
Mr. Walker:
Mrs. Jones:
Perkins:
Mrs. Jones:
gain access to put our sewer and water in. We had to go through the side of her
property, remove her fence and go through that We had every right to and then
she gave us trouble on that also.
We invited them through our back yard when I initially met Ron because there
were trees on the outside. We said "Come through the back yard." That was at
our invitation. We were also the first to walk across the street when they were
building and introduced ourselves. This is in no way us being angry that we
didn't get the lot. We had the opportunity to buy the lot. We didn't. Yes, we lost
a view but we are friends with our neighbor. We are actually not looking to have
this moved. We just don't want the air conditioner there.
Is that the main contention?
It was because it was the last straw. There has been more than that. Our yard,
after you got 15 days to bring our yard to compliance, I still have hay and gravel
and it's been a year. He called up, Sid Norbash has called two or three different
times and said unacceptable. But because we do not have any push or any reason
for them to get things done for us nothing has happened. We do not want to do
this and be in this situation. It's uncomfortable. It's the only way that the air
conditioner is going to get out of there. Otherwise, it would be, well you really
don't have anything that you can do. That's the way we have felt. We have felt
very run over this entire time. It should be very easy to have either spent a little
extra money on the air conditioning and do a few things When you are in a
historic district and you are really on top of each other I think you have to be
respectful of how things are going to shape up. That's really the issue with me.
Two feet is not going to make a difference on where we are. That's really not the
big deal. The air conditioner being right in our face that does make a difference.
We had said in the very first place when we had approached the window in our
privacy issue that we never want to see a window unit there. We don't want to be
this close and have this privacy issue. We don't want certain things to happen.
Well they did anyway. It's kind of a slap in the face to us that that's the way that
happened. There was never a phone call made to us saying there will be
somebody out here putting this window unit in. We just came home and it was
there.
I'm sorry. I don't remember ever having that conversation.
May I interject here?
Yes.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 13
Perkins:
Reichert.
Perkins:
How is the room heated? Is it heated through duct work?
No.
It's a wall panel heater?
Mrs. Jones: It's hidden.
Reichert: Originally this was an attic space over a garage and it's not attached to the house.
Perkins: For appraisal purposes it had to be heated and cooled to be counted toward the
overall square footage.
Mrs. Jones: Yes.
Reichert:
Perkins:
Zimmerman:
Perkins:
Yes. Mr. Zimmerman is here now maybe he can speak on the issue. He just
walked in.
Okay. Mr. Zimmerman, do you have any input on this topic today?
In all honesty, I don't have any input either way. I do understand both sides and
what's going on here but because 1 am friends with the Walker's and have to live
next door to them I understand their issues. I don't have anything to say one way
or the other. I certainly would hate to see the garage picked up and moved. It's
going to be a tremendous hassle. I hope there is some agreement we can come to
and that this would all work out amicably for everybody. I certainly don't have
any intentions either direction at this point.
It seems that the main bone of contention is the window unit. The neighbors can
work this out better than we can from up here. What can we dol
Zimmerman: Not that I want to air out my financial situation but I don't think it's my place to
have to spend two or three thousand dollars to put central heating into it or move
the window unit.
Perkins:
Zimmerman:
Perkins:
Is this unused space?
For the most part. There is nobody living there. It's basically storage.
Why does it need to be cooled at all then? You can take your old window unit out
now.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 14
Mrs. Jones: Sir. Like I said, it was the financing company.
Perkins: That's a done deal now though right?
Mrs. Jones. Yes.
Perkins: So it's no longer that critical.
Hanna: Here's the question I had. On the northeast corner, if this is correct, its seven
inches right? Nine inches from the overhang to the property line. I'm assuming
that it's hard to tell by looking at this, how much the air conditioner sticks out.
Here it actually looks like it's less than the overhang. I can't tell from looking at
this. My point is, it looks to me like even if they pulled the unit in a couple of
inches or three inches it would...
Mr. Walker: It's not pulling the unit in.
Hanna: I know. I understand that. I am just telling you if they pull it in three or four
inches you would still have this unit there that you don't like to be within about
eight feet.
Mr. Walker: It wouldn't be within eight. It would be the whole...
Hanna: I know. You were talking about the unit itself. We have been talking about the
variance for the garage. I'm just saying the unit itself this said the overhang was
eight feet but the air conditioner stuck out within two inches or whatever. They
could just pull it in a few inches and be within compliance. You guys would still
have an ugly air conditioner when you look out your window. That's what you
were complaining about. My point is, from looking at this picture, I couldn't see
that. This looks like it's less than the overhang or the roof but I can't tell that.
You guys said this stuck out more.
Mrs. Jones:
It's pretty close. I haven't gone up there and measured. It's all about perspective
and you can turn that any way in photography but if you go out there and look, I
cannot tell. I have not dropped a string with a weight to see but it would be
minuscule.
Andrews: It's pretty close to even with the overhang?
Perkins: It's still the objection of the Walker's that it's an air conditioner where it's at.
Again we are back to the air conditioner.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 15
Mrs. Jones:
Mrs. Walker.
Mr. Walker.
Mrs. Walker.
Mrs. Jones:
Perkins:
Mrs. Jones:
It's this big. I know that it's ugly but if we were not in violation of the setback
requirement they would still have to look at. I know we are in violation. I am not
denying that but I am saying that it was unintentional and it was unrealized. At
this point after this much time has gone by I feel it's unfair for Mr. Zimmerman or
ourselves, having closed on this house, to have to go in and take that out and do
all the repair on the sheet rocking and the wall and try to match siding and all
those obstacles. Even siding, it may not even match at this point. I don't know.
Can I just make one more comment? If you can give me a valid reason as to why
you should grant her this variance and I'm sorry but I don't see something as "It's
going to cost me more money." As a valid reason. As adjacent property owners
this venture of hers should have not of cost us anything. It shouldn't have cost us
one hour in time and it shouldn't have cost us one penny. We have spent money
restoring our yard because she wouldn't come over and do it. It shouldn't have
cost us anything. It shouldn't have been an interference in our lives, it shouldn't
have cost us time, it shouldn't have caused Sid Norbash time to come to my house
ten times. We are on the right side here. If you could tell me there's a fault line
on the west side of that property or some reason that this couldn't have been made
right. Preserving trees. They could have preserved trees on the east side as easily
as they could on the west side. Those came down. I don't see that as a valid
reason as to why they should be granted a variance. I'm sorry that I don't. I don't
see why Mr. Reichert as a state -licensed contractor either didn't or didn't
acknowledge what the setback should be. Or didn't know that it should be from
the overhang.
He didn't speak of that two feet as in the garage and walked away from me. He
was speaking of the garage itself not the driveway. Just to point that out.
I would think as a licensed contractor... I'm licensed in my field and I know my
stuff. If I don't know, I find out. I sit on a licensing board for the state. If it
comes to me that somebody has done something in violation, I just go straight to
the rules. I just go straight to the books. If you could give me a valid reason other
than the fact that it's going to cost her more money I probably wouldn't be here. I
don't see that as a valid reason. It should be eight feet and it's not. That's the
bottom line.
Mr. Perkins?
Yes.
There again, it should be eight feet. We are in violation. We are not denying that
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 16
but it wasn't picked up by inspectors. It wasn't picked up at a point in time where
we could adjust it. I am asking for grace. As far as Sid Norbash and I have had
numerous conversations as well. It is upsetting to have her yard to have a utility
easement go through it. When we did that it really upset them. It was unfortunate
for us too. It was very expensive to go through a yard instead of going straight
out to the street. The last thing that I wanted to do was to destroy their yard in
any way. I do have photographs, I felt like it was very adequately taken care of.
We hired professional landscapers to come in and do the job. They came back.
The gravel that she is speaking of was some that was kicked up by traffic and
pushed out from the road, when they had to cut through the road and everything. I
personally went there and raked it many times and it was very little. It was little
pile of gravel that she was upset about. I have photographs. We are not here
about that but this is what she has been upset about and I understand that. I have
had utility easements in my yard. My yard has been torn up. It's not fun. We
had the biggest snow we had, theone we had all the wrecks right in the middle of
this. It was impossible. We had to let the snow melt. It was just complication
upon complication. Then it froze and the ground froze. There are certain things
involving landscaping in the winter that you can't get everything done as fast as
you want it to. The last thing that I wanted to do, was inconvenience the Walker's
or make them upset. The last thing. You can only get subcontractors to come in
when they want to come in. You can request them to come immediately. That's
what a lot of her irritation has been because of the easement situation. She's been
very upset and I understand that. No one wants to have their yard gone through. I
have pictures if you want to see them. I felt very good about the way that it looks
and I was told by Sid that he felt it was very adequate. He's got to be the middle
man. He's got to hear her and he's got to hear me. I think it's just a combination
of frustration for the Walker's and this was just the straw that broke the camel's
back for them. It's unfortunate. It's difficult to do in building. It's very difficult.
Warrick: Mr. Perkins, just for the Board's knowledge, you guys don't have a lot of
information about Sid Norbash's inspections or about easements and activities
within easements because that is not something that you have any jurisdiction
over. A lot of this is other information that was submitted with the complaint
from the Walker's that has been distributed to various different divisions for them
to deal with and so that's why some issues are being brought up that you don't
have in your packet necessarily. It's kind of out of your scope.
Green:
I would like to look at what our options are. Of course the obvious worst case
option is to have them move the garage to comply with any and all setback
requirements. Not being a habitual offender of setback problems that does seem a
little extreme to do that. Other options might be... The wall unit seems to be the
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 17
Mrs. Jones:
Reichert:
Zimmerman:
Green:
Mr. Walker:
Mrs. Walker:
Mr. Walker:
main bone of contention. Why don't we look at what we can do with that? Is it
possible to put that on the other side of the garage? Is it possible to do some other
types of things?
It would involve rewiring the electricity. It would involve where the breeze way
is there, I don't know if there is actually room to cut.
If you look at the photographs. The breeze way between the two buildings has a
gable roof that runs into the side of the garage also. There's no room to get that
unit in there. We could repair the outside pretty easy but to find siding, because
that's a popular vinyl siding so if it didn't match it would be an impossible thing
to do. To place the unit somewhere else, the front and rear of the garages are in
the edge space. The finished area is not the entire garage and attic just the
standing area.
With the stairwell on that side of the house also would make it cumbersome to get
to it. I don't think that it's a feasible option to remove all air conditioning. It is
currently set up with facilities for a guest room in the event that I need to use it for
that. I can't very well ask somebody to stay in that room in the dead of winter or
the heat of summer.
I seriously doubt if your mortgage company would appreciate going back on the
agreement too. There should be some compromise, I can't imagine, the main
bone of contention is that one air-conditioning unit, that there can't be something
done short of moving the whole garage. That really seems extreme. Or cutting
off the overhang. This is a very nice looking building and I really don't think that
would make any sense to just whack off the part that's violating the setback. 1
would like to see something as far as a compromise. What could be done with
that air conditioning unit? It looks like that you could fix that air conditioning
unit everyone is going to be at least compromisingly pleased to a certain extent.
Am I wrong? Would that solve the problem?
I don't want to see the garage moved.
For Pat's sake.
That would be a nightmare. We really take that the whole way that the air
conditioner was put in there following... There is a whole bunch of other stuff on
this whole process that you aren't getting but this was the last straw for us. That
would be fine if that could be moved My wife works at home. Her office has
french doors that look directly at it. Fier office doors and that house are Just
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 18
literally that close. It's not just a little air conditioner.
Mrs. Walker. I hope that we could come to some compromise. I don't know how we can.
Mr. Walker: Other than central heating and air on the backside of the garage where there is
room and to heat and cool it like it should properly be
Mrs. Walker: That's going to be a major expense and I agree I don't think it should be on Pat. I
don't want to cause him any more problem or frustration than he has gone through
in all of this.
Mrs. Jones: What about the fence violation? Could we compromise since their fence is over
on our part? They won't have to move the fence.
Perkins: That's not part of our...
Mrs. Jones: That's not?
Mr. Walker:
We have already contacted the person who did our fence, taped off. We went
directly to him before anything has ever been said to us and he will repair that
stretch because they wired it off. They did it and accepted responsibility for it.
It's on the west short span where it gradually veers along that line.
Mrs. Walker: It's about an 8 -foot section.
Mr. Walker: We have already approached that and are going to have that moved and that's not
a big deal on our part. We approached Pat and let him know that we were...
Mrs. Walker: Ready to do that whenever. I don't, like I said if there was some type of
compromise, I think that we can write a report on this also. You all can't
determine who's saying what he said she said.
Mr. Walker: I think we are compromising a lot saying that the building can stay that much
closer to our house.
Mrs. Jones:
If there is room in the gable end under the breeze way, Ron was just saying, we
might be able to do that, that would be acceptable to Mr. Zimmerman. I don't
know if there is room. I don't know because I haven't measured or thought about
doing that. We would have to do the wiring for the electricity.
Reichert. That breeze way has an exposed ceiling. There's no ceiling there. It goes up to
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 19
the roof rack. The same gable end that's on the east side of house, there's a west
side but possibly that air conditioner could be in the same location but on the
opposite wall.
Mrs. Walker: Couldn't central heat and air be run through the breeze way to this space from the
house?
Reichert: No. You would lose all your heat and everything.
Orton: I don't see that it's our problem about how this is solved. If we say to move the
air conditioner than that will be up to them to determine how it's going to be
done. They will have to look at the different possibilities of how that could be
done because we need to solve that problem.
Perkins: Sometimes it's tough to work it out here and if we can't then we have to put it
back. Right now how it's worded is the house sitting too close to the property
line or not. With the overhang it is in fact, one corner of the garage is without the
overhang. A little corner there. Of course the eight -foot setback with the
overhang so typically they are not two stories off of the ground. One of the
reasons is to allow emergency vehicles through here so in this case that's not
inhibiting to emergency vehicles because the roof is somewhat higher. You're
right in arguing this that it's supposed to be eight feet. We try to solve it here
somehow. Sometimes we can't. Is there any other discussion about this from the
people present today about this that have any interest in it?
Green: Could we structure a motion to approve the variance based on them removing that
air conditioning unit? If you can't work it out then the variance is not approved is
basically what I am saying. If we could structure the conditions of the variance to
force a compromise or some way to work this out so that air conditioning unit
which is the offensive unit can be removed to your satisfaction. If everybody is
not satisfied then the variance won't be approved. I guess the other alternative is
to move the garage or move the overhang the part that is not. I don't know how
else to do that and still try to keep everybody winning. I would like to find some
way where we could compromise and make this a winning situation instead of an
undue hardship on someone.
Mrs. Jones: I don't see why we couldn't do that. I think we could try to come up with an
option. What Mr. Reichert suggested about the breeze way might be one.
• Zimmerman: I just would like to make sure that the motion is structured so that all three parties
builder, neighbors, owner, sign -off and give their approval of the final proposed
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 20
plan. I want to be included.
Perkins: Sure. You are the owner.
Mr. Jones: I'm Steve Jones. We would agree to removing the air conditioner on that side.
Perkins: Okay. Then that would still leave him a hole with want he wants to do with that
space.
MOTION:
Green:
I move that the variance be approved subject to an agreement by all three of these
parties stated here to remove the air-conditioning unit in a manner that's agreeable
to all three parties.
Conklin: Would you like to add a time line for that?
Perkins: What's a reasonable time?
Mr. Jones: 60 days.
Green: Within a 60 -day period then.
Zimmerman: 60 days for the agreement or 60 days for all the work to be done?
Green: Completed.
Hanna: I second.
Perkins: Okay. Is everyone present clear on how that motion is structured? Especially the
three of you that are most involved? It will be directed in the minutes.
Conklin: Just to clarify the minutes. If that isn't done then the variance is deemed denied.
Your options are remove the encroachment, or sue the City of Fayetteville. It
goes to Circuit Court.
Andrews: Can they not come back?
Conklin. Or you could table it and have them do all the work and come back and grant the
variance. You already made a motion and got a second.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 21
Green: I would just assume visit it once.
Andrews: If an agreement can't be worked out, if somebody's bows up and an agreement
can't be worked out then they are going to like he said sue the City or move the
garage. I have seen us grant variances much greater than this under circumstances
that were for, what I feel. Like, are intentional violations This has been an
unintentional violation I would have a hard time denying them.
Hanna: I think if you looked at every issue that has come before here, if it's human error
we are talking about a matter of inches, there is not one that we have not given
them the benefit of the doubt. Mike's right. That's why I was saying if that air
conditioner was built and the overhang was right at eight feet, regardless, to take
the personality out of it, they could stick four units over there if they wanted. If
they wanted to it would be legal. If you take the personality out of it and try to
get you guys to compromise it makes it more palatable for you guys, a little more
expensive for them and he's stuck in the middle.
Mr. Walker. We'll get to a compromise. I still, as far as things that are greater than this It's
hard for us to say get over the fact that Ron did say that he could come within two
feet of our property. He said that. I know what he said over here. That's what he
stated to me. I do think this was known a ways back because he shot it out of his
mouth that fast. I said "Hey. This is over." He said "I can go within two feet "
That upsets me.
Mr. Jones. That's the correct stakes that we have. That was our intention and we were to do
it right.
Perkins: We do have a motion and a second and of course the discussion is talking about
withdrawing this. It's your motion, do you want to proceed with it Mr. Green?
Orton: It has been seconded.
Perkins: It's been seconded so we have to vote on it.
Green: Yes. I want to continue with it.
Andrews: The other options though short of going to Circuit Court they probably could go
back and reapply for another variance or something, couldn't they?
. Conklin: Typically, once it's voted on, you are voting on the survey that you have in hand.
The decision has been made already. That concerned me a little but I think if
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 22
everybody can work it out. That's why I wanted, for the record, the statement that
it's deemed denied. Because if they do sue the City, I wanted to make sure that
the court and Judge can clearly see that this Board denied that variance because
that condition wasn't met.
Perkins: Okay. We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Would you
call the roll please?
ROLL CALL:
The motion was approved on a 4-2-0 vote with Andrews & Kunzelmann voting nay.
Perkins: We have a four to two in favor with the stipulations as spelled out in the motion
and therefore carries. Good luck to you on your project and your agreement.
Thank you for your time.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 23
BA 00-7.00: Variance (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484) was submitted by Arnold
Rankins of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church for
property located at 224 N. East. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains
approximately 0.54 acres. The requirement is for a 30' setback from Dickson Street and East
Avenue. The request is for a 14' setback (a 16' variance) from Dickson Street and a 10.4' setback
(a 19.8' variance) from East Avenue. The requirement is for a 10' side setback. The request is
for a 1.5' side setback (a 8.7' variance).
Perkins: Okay. The next item for business on the agenda is BA 00-7.00. This is a variance
request by St. Paul's Episcopal Church located at 224 N. East Street. There are a
number of setback issues here. Could you help clarify this staff?
Green: Mr. Chairman?
Perkins: Yes sir.
Green: Since my firm is involved in this project I would abstain from voting on this
discussion.
Perkins: Please put that in the record, ma'am.
Warrick: Are you ready?
Perkins: Yes.
Warrick: This one is a little bit complicated because we are looking at setback variances on
three sides of the structure that is being proposed. St. Paul's is an existing church
facility located at the southeast corner of Dickson and East. They are planning on
expanding their existing facility. One thing that we need to look at and attack up
front is that the existing building currently encroaches the front setback which
faces East Street and that part encroaching is approximately seventeen feet.
Therefore, they could not expand that non -conforming structure without a
variance. So the first setback variance would be that request to make the existing
structure conforming as it sits.
Hanna: On the East Street side?
Warrick: On the East Street elevation. Correct. The building addition is proposed to have a
new parish hall and office building. One of the reasons that the building addition
is located the way it is is that the architect wanted to address the current
pedestrian pattern of Dickson Street. Keep in mind that the zoning along Dickson
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 24
Street kind of starts to change in this location and while the majority of the
businesses that are further west on Dickson are zoned C-3, Central Commercial,
this area of Dickson Street is zoned R-0 and therefore the setbacks especially from
the front property lines are much more restrictive. The side setback variance on
the east is to accommodate a covered walkway. That is adjacent to an ally at the
rear of the structure. The most immediate property that that affects is the Estes
Law Firm which is right here. This is the variance right here. You guys don't
have this copy in your packet but what you do have is a map that will hopefully
help shed some fight on these different variance requests. Page 4.10, thank you.
What you see on 4 10 you can see the existing footprint of the structure and the
larger dashed line that surround the perimeter of the lot is the required setbacks
and then you can see dashed lines in various locations that show the variances that
are being requested. The other setback along East Avenue that I did not mention
is for a new entranceway structure.
Perkins: Would you say that one more time? The dash, the solid.
Warrick: The larger dashed line, that's the required setback. It's twenty-five feet along
Dickson Street and East Avenue. The other sides have a ten -foot setback
requirement. The smaller sections of dashed lines that are shown in there are the
approximate locations of the variances that are being requested and the amounts
of those variances.
Perkins: So a portion of that building would come to this dotted line? Which lines up
about with the Hancock Building and the Estes Building.
Warrick: Very close, yes. Then of course along East Avenue they are proposing a small
entrance structure that would be approximately 10.4 feet from the property line.
The rear the setback would be to accommodate a covered walkway area.
Perkins: That's this space here?
Warrick: Correct. This isn't the greatest. Green property lines, black existing and darker
blue proposed are marked up on this blueprint.
Conklin: This request is similar to the request that you heard at West and Lafayette with the
Ice Plant Building where we do have our buildings up closer to the actual street,
sidewalk and right-of-way. Just one other thing I would like to mention that
Dickson Street is showing as a collector street and we will not be getting that
seventy feet of right-of-way either. This vanance will eliminate that requirement
and currently we are looking at reducing our right-of-way requirements on our
•
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 25
downtown collector streets as part of our Land Use Plan update. Something that
we are looking at to encourage buildings to be brought up closer to our streets
where you don't have parking in between. That is something we do encourage
and recommend.
Orton: There are other buildings that have removed that possibility already?
Warrick: Yes.
Conklin: Yes. The Dickson Street enhancement project is actually going to make Dickson
Street more narrow some places so we are spending a lot of money I think a
million and a half dollars to not widen Dickson Street but to make Dickson Street
more narrow. That seventy-foot right-of-way we are not really going to achieve a
thirty-six foot wide street with a ten -foot green space between the sidewalks and
curbs. We are looking for something different on Dickson Street. That is
something we are looking at in our downtown area to revise that standard.
Hanna: Have we had any complaints from the property owners?
Warrick: I don't have anything.
Perkins: Is Mr. Rankins here? Do you have anything to add to this project? Has is been
explained to your satisfaction?
Warrick: We do have three recommended conditions if you do decide to grant the variances
requested. The first is that the metal and wooden storage building shown on the
east side of the site within required setbacks shall be removed when the addition
is built. The second The proposed addition be processed as a large scale
development which would be a requirement anyway. The third, that a conditional
use application be processed in order to permit the expansion of a church within
the R-0 zoning district. The church is a conditional use within that zoning district
and so we would expect that large scale and conditional use to be presented to the
Planning Commission in tandem.
Andrews: My one thought that I had is they are requesting that the building be closer to the
street than any other building along there. The Estes Building is twenty feet
away. Do you have any leeway there to pull it back just a few feet?
Foster: I'm Jim Foster. I'm the architect of the building. We are trying to get a great deal
of space in a very tight setting. This design is to preserve as much of the west
lawn, East and Dickson Street Lawn as we possibly could. They really want to
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 26
have an image on Dickson Street for that church. Right now it's really difficult
because of the setback and the trees. This is to give them a new presence on
Dickson Street.
Conklin: Mr. Perkins? Jim, could you let them know with the Dickson Street Enhancement
Project what you are going to end up on Dickson Street with regard to the
sidewalks, street, cross-section. Are you aware if at that location, that's going to
fit in.
Foster:
At that location we are not really narrowing the street, we would like to but the
churches along there prefer to keep it as like it is to preserve all of the illegal
parking for individuals Sunday morning. So that would not allow us to narrow
that from how it is today. We are going to have new walks, new lighting, new
fencing, landscaping on this.
Conklin: It's also interesting just on Dickson Street the different zoning classifications,
categories. As you drive down the street you end up in a C-3 area where you have
zero setback when you are along a sidewalk. You have no setback in some areas
and some areas you are going to have a twenty-five foot setback. Even though
you are on the same street or same block you may have buildings coming up plush
with the street. That's one of the things I looked at when we talked about a
recommendation. My opinion, I think it would be better to have buildings
brought up closer to the street so you can see them when you are driving down
Dickson Street and encourage the parking in the back. Have the buildings up
front.
Perkins: Anyone else present have any input on this issue?
MOTION:
Orton: I move that we grant the variance under the conditions that have been listed by the
staff.
Perkins: We have a motion to accept with the three conditions that are spelled out.
Hanna: Second.
Perkins: And a second. Any further discussion? Would you call the roll please?
ROLL CALL:
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 27
The motion was approved on a 5-0-1 vote with Commissioner Green abstaining.
Perkins: This carries as written with those three written stipulations. Thank you. Good
luck on your project. That concludes the business for the Fayetteville Board of
Adjustment. At this time we need to open the meeting then to the Board of Sign
Appeals.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 28
SA 00-4.00: Sign Appeal (Bakery Building LLC, pp 484) was submitted by Gregory House for
property located at 311 & 313 W. Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central
Commercial. The request is for a variance of §174.10 (C)(3) Freestanding Signs (a&b). The
requirement for the proposed 50 s.f. sign is a setback of 35' from the street right-of-way, the
request is for a 10' setback, a variance of 25'.
Perkins: There is an issue on that SA 00-4.00 this is for a Sign Appeal at the Bakery
Building submitted by Greg House for property located at 311 & 313 W. Dickson
Street. Does staff any further on this?
Rakes:
Mike kind of reviewed it before he left, but at any rate, I think that Mike and the
owners or applicant have reviewed several alternatives to having a sign there and
what they come up with was a monument looking sign that was too tall to be a
monument sign and the setback was too close to be free-standing sign. We had to
make a decision do we want to put in for a variance for too -tall monument sign or
a too -close free-standing sign. We decided to go for a too -close free-standing and
get a setback variance. At this location, they just work themselves out, utilize the
space where they moved, they just worked themselves out of there.
Perkins: I don't know if they are going to be able to see this sign if they are not already on
the property.
Rakes: Only one direction.
Perkins: That's just a loose observation I threw in there. So it's a free-standing sign?
Rakes: That looks like a monument but it's too tall to be a monument sign.
Perkins: We will call it a free-standing sign. It is one sided?
Conklin: It's one sided. It backs up against the building.
Perkins: It's almost a wall sign. Not quite.
Warrick: Then it would be off site.
Perkins: I can see you have had some complications.
Orton: If they had the wall it would be off-site?
Perkins: Okay. Of course your recommendation is to?
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 29
Rakes: If they are satisfied with just one side of the sign that they can see from the street,
if they want to spend that kind of money for it, I don't see why it should be
denied.
Perkins: Sir, do you have any input on that?
Sharp:
Yes. My name is Robert Sharp. I'm the architect of the building. The sign was
designed in my office. The impetus for this project started about a year ago when
there was some turnover at that building. It's down Dickson Street. It was a
tricky site to develop. We had to use the existing buildings there. We didn't have
much choice of where the parking came in or anything like that. We just took the
walls as they were. One of the concerns, even on the building in front of Dickson
Street only, one little piece of the building actually fronts Dickson, the rest of it
faces the parking lot. Some of the tenants in that building have some visibility
issues as you get farther off Dickson. The idea was to compensate for that a little
bit if we get a nice sign. At least when people drove by from the east they can see
that sign and at least know there was something there and maybe if traffic slowed
down they could see the little emblems from each business. We weren't as
worried so much from the west because you get the whole leg of the original
Bakery Building you can see. The presence is a little better on that side. That's
the reason we went over to the west side of the project. We did what we could to
make the sign match the architecture of the building. It has a little neon on it. It's
got the same kind of the type of buildings brushed a little bit which matches the
original typography of the art decor of the building. It will be a nicely designed
sign and won't be something that will clash with the architecture or anyone else's
property values. We also worked with Mike McKimmey with the Commission,
started life as a wall sign then it was a monument sign. It's good that we made it
as literally as tall as a monument sign needs to be half of it to be covered. It had
to get taller, then it looked more of a free-standing sign. That's how we ended up
with what we have. We worked with him closely throughout the process. He
knew it was a tricky project when we started it. Trying to take all of his
recommendations and do this. We really appreciate if you could grant this
variance and really give this whole project the best chance it could have.
Andrews: It looks like there is space for ten tenants. Is that what you have in the Bakery
Building? Is that possible?
Sharp: It's possible.
• Andrews: How many of those do not front? Or, how many do front? What I'm getting at is
the one's that front I think they have adequate signage. If they don't front they
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 30
definitely have a problem. How many of those are we talking about?
Sharp: I kind of look at the Retro Cafe. It's got good visibility Corky's Barbeque has
pretty good visibility. The other tenants all have marginal visibility. That would
mean six tenants that don't have good visibility. In the future some of these
spaces may divide up. You never know how they are going to split. The main
reason to even put the Retro Cafe or Corky's Barbeque would be so it would be
complete.
MOTION:
Hanna: I walked by there just the other day and I think visibility is pretty poor for all of
them. We walked all the way up Dickson Street. We had to stop to look and see
what's up there so I don't have a problem with this. I think it makes sense. That
needs some revitalization down there Thus is a quality looking sign and it's like a
monument. I make a motion that we accept the variance requested.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Perkins: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Would you call the roll
please.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call the appeal passes with a 6-0-0
Perkins: Your appeal goes through as requested. Thank you for your time. Sir you have
sit patiently all day. Do you have any input today? Just wanted to give you the
opportunity. Do we have any new business? Do we have any old business?
Orton: I would just like to make a comment. The campaign signs, I wonder if in the
package that Heather is giving out, is there information in there for the candidates
on when they could put the signs up and when they have to take them down?
Also, getting permission to put it on private property not put in on public
property. A few things like that that might be helpful. Of course we have another
problem but I don't think it would go with this. That is people taking down other
people's signs and destroying them. I don't know what we can do about that.
Perkins: Let's not go there.
Orton: As far as the other things are they included?
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
August 7, 2000
Page 31
Rakes: I think we have pretty good conformance on them taking them down. I saw some
people out taking signs down the day after election.
Orton: Yes. There are a lot of very conscientious candidates. Whether they won or lost.
They have their people going around taking them down.
Green: Some of them probably wanted to hurry and get those signs so they could use
them for the next time.
Perkins: If there is no other business, then we stand adjourned. I thank all of you for your
time.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
our) aerresnein4 b otorier, (169h bo its
lott, of •1-O rrnro() -444-e C r Cone! r` .on (P?Q Ur11
U.) 1 {t CPD c js 1Or @ornpLSbn ,
•
•
rNth
ILA
eirhlt1S
filayi
En W-19.00
Sones
5- t
In in
-co Eng-
7_1,00
Dord
MOTION
cl-ferril,o'1Cn___
,('
rn
SECOND
0 GA,,,
1-ni
i t
lignac,
J
(4.-0{)
L. Perkins
7
4Yr
,
V
1
Y
M. Andrews
Y
Y
N
M. Green
X
u
v
T. Hanna
Y
J.
Kunzelmann
1 Ido
��v✓�(�l,`'�
Y /
/�
/ `�
J. Olszewski
Akxso ic--
p-i5c --
ar
�
M. Orton
Y
`/
1
ACTION
Q -Ni
Pac`�d
VOTE
G-) -(`)-
1
5--0-
I
14 "Z O
our) aerresnein4 b otorier, (169h bo its
lott, of •1-O rrnro() -444-e C r Cone! r` .on (P?Q Ur11
U.) 1 {t CPD c js 1Or @ornpLSbn ,
•
•
•
•
V
tOLAIEX
snip
Si---
e uls
Baia(
Lit
Uhw
MOTION
or
nn°,
--ion
SECOND
Hyry-t
banal tram
L. Perkins
i
M. Andrews
Y
Y
M. Green
rtbcki
y
T. Hanna
y
/
J.
Kunzelmann
y
, Y/
J. Olszewski
ai�-e at'abetxtv
M.Orton
y
I
ACTION
approve
`_- x_
a-Brdoed
Its2'0'
o
VOTE
0_ 1
V