Loading...
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