HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-06 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 6, 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 00-10.00: Variance (The Mill District, pp 523) Approved
Page 3
BA 00-11.00: Variance (Baldwin, pp 559) Approved
Page 8
BA 99-25.00: Variance (Wilson, pp 442) Approved
Page 10
Discussion of Raley v. City of Fayetteville, Washington County CIV.98-1097: BA 98-26.00
Page 13
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Larry Perkins
Michael Andrews
Marion Orton
Michael Green
Thad Hanna
James Kunzelmann
Joanne Olszewski
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Tim -Conklin
Janet Strain
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 2
Approval of Minutes
Perkins: Good morning. This is the November 6, 2000, meeting of the Board of Adjustments.
We are now in session. The first item of business will be approval of the minutes for the
October 2, 2000, meeting. Does any one on the panel have changes or deletions to
make to that. If not, please enter those as part of the record.
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 3
BA 00-10.00: Variance (The Mill District, pp 523) was submitted by Robert Sharp, Architect on
behalf of The Mill District for property located at 404 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy
Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 3.29 acres. The requirement is for a 10' side
setback, the request is for a 4t side setback (a 6' variance).
Perkins: That brings us to our first appeal, BA 00-10.00 submitted by Robert Sharp, Architect
on behalf of The Mill District for property located at 404 W. 6th Street. The property
is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 3.29
acres. The requirement is for a 10' side setback, the request is for a 4' side setback (a
6' variance). Does staff has background on this please?
Conklin: Yes. Good afternoon. This is a request for a 4 foot side setback, a 6 foot variance, 10
foot side setback is the requirement under I-1 zoning. This building is located in what's
called The Mill District. The Large Scale Development has been approved by the
Planning Commission. They would like to renovate the building, add some clear story
windows, periput walls structures on this building. Because it is non -conforming they
needed to request a variance. Typically, we advise applicants if they are going to do
any type of renovation or remodeling to get a variance and that way if anything is
damaged or destroyed they will be able to build it back in that same location. Our
recommendation is for approval based on the site plan that's included. That would just
be for the existing building footprint. The building adjoins the American Milling metal
warehouse to the north. It sits approximately 10 to 12 feet from the property line.
With this 4 foot set back and that 10 to 12 feet, you are looking at around 16 feet
separation between the two buildings. Overall, this is a project that will enhance the
appearance of this area. It has been vacated for a number of years and the City is
trying to encourage the re -use of this property as a mixed use development. That's all I
have, if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.
Perkins: Is Mr. Sharp present?
Sharp: Yes.
Perkins: Sir do you have anything to add to this?
Sharp: We apologize for being late. Tim summed it up well.
Conklin: I have included elevation drawings of the building and an existing material shot of the
site showing where the current building is located adjacent to this American Milling
building to the north
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6 2000
Page 4
Perkins: While they are looking at that is there anyone present that has commentary on this
appeal?
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mrs. Presley: We own the property by that, Presley's, it's also in that area.
Perkins: Your name please ma'am?
Mrs. Presley: Presley.
Perkins: Presley. I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. Do you have any commentary one
way or the other?
Mrs. Presley: I was concerned. Our property is on the property line and I didn't know whether they
were interested in purchasing that building as well or what they were doing.
Perkins: The principal is here I guess you can ask that question.
Sharp: Tom is working on that issue and he's talked to you in the past about the property over
there, I think with your husband. We would be interested if you were interested in
selling it. The issue with your building on the property line is not an issue.
Mrs. Presley: You came up and built a fence there at one time. That's your fence, not mine. I was
concerned that it may be over our line. No one said anything about it. I do want to say
that if it's mine, it's mine.
Sharp: The fence is just to keep people out of the construction zone. After it's developed that
fence will come down.
Mr. Presley: Over here you do have the road closed. It's completely closed. That won't be open
anymore.
Conklin: The City Council can vacate that right-of-way for the alley and then they also amended
the Master Street Plan to not require the street to be built in that location. There will
not be a public street going through that property.
Mr. Presley: Part of the alley is between us and the feed property that I know we don't go as far as
. the feed property there. I know that.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6 2000
Page 5
Conklin: I'm not sure if that's been vacated. Typically the property owner prepares a legal
description. If it hasn't been vacated, it could be vacated and under state law you
would receive half of that adjoining your property line. If it's a ten foot alley you would
get five feet of it. I would be more than happy to sit down with you and show you the
paperwork that has to be filled out to make that request. I'll also check and see what
was actually vacated by ordinance of the City Council. It may already be done.
Mr. Presley: That place has been surveyed several times from different managers before the old mill
was there. Each time they came up, one time they come up 4 foot over on our
property and said that's there's, sometimes they go 10 foot and they are back and
forth. I got nails all over the alley down there where they staked it off. Jeanine's
mother owned the property long before this feed mill went in and that property is 4 foot
higher than the other if you notice that. She has owned that since back when they had
the Campbell Supermarket there.
Perkins: Is that property to the west of this feed mill?
Mr. Presley: To the west of us belongs to the feed mill.
Sharp. Their property is east of the feed mill.
Conklin: On this corner in the northeast corner of Prairie Creek.
Perkins: That little chunk that's not taken is C-2?
Conklin: Yes.
Mrs. Presley: Prairie Creek is only two blocks long.
Perkins: Did that answer any concerns you had?
Mrs. Presley: I don't know. George and one of your men had an exchange one day about the fence
and George told them to get off our property here and he said "This is where he told
me to put it and it's where it's going." We backed off.
Mr. Presley: That didn't bother us putting a fence on there.
Mrs. Presley: No. I just didn't want any misunderstanding about what's yours and what's mine.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
• November 6, 2000
Page 6
Sharp: The back wall of your building is right on the property line.
Mrs. Presley: That's my understanding.
Mr. Presley: It's right straight on the property line. I got the dimensions from the City. I came up
here and got it. It took me three days before I got a permit to build on that. They told
me to start with I couldn't build on the property line. I asked them how far this building
here was from the property line and said it makes a difference doesn't it. You are in
the City limits and you can build on the property line as long as you run the water to the
alley. So my water comes off of the top of the building and goes to the northwest
corner of the building and comes out there and hits the alley there.
Perkins: Any further discussion? •
Mr. Presley: We are glad to see someone doing something with the old mill.
Perkins: Have you seen what the building is going to look like? A picture of what they plan on?
• Mrs. Presley: No.
•
Mr. Presley: No I haven't seen that. I know what the old one looked like, I looked at it for years.
Oh, look at that Jeanine!
Perkins: It will be some residential and some retail?
Conklin: Yes. Retail and office on the first two floors.
Mr. Presley: My building is going to look so ugly we are going to have to do something.
Perkins: No. Your building just went up.
Hanna: ? Real Estate had the ugliest building in the neighborhood.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Perkins: You just made money on this. Do we have any further discussion? Do we have any
motions?
MOTION:
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6 2000
Page 7
Kunzelmann: I'll make a motion that we accept the variance that's requested.
Andrews: Second.
Perkins: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll please.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call BA 00-10.00 passes on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 8
BA 00-11.00: Variance (Baldwin, pp 559) was submitted by James Sowell of Baldwin Piano and
Organ Company for property located at 1101 S. Beechwood. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy
Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 26.71 acres. The requirement is for a 10' side
setback. The request is for 9' 4" (a 8" variance).
Perkins: Our second item on the agenda is BA 00-11.00 submitted by James Sowell of Baldwin
Piano and Organ Company for property located at 1101 S. Beechwood. The property
is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 26.71
acres. The requirement is for a 10' side setback. The request is for 9' 4" (a 8"
variance) on the setback on the south side of the building. Does staff have any
background on this request?
Conklin: This is a variance request. This is actually a variance request in three locations on three
enclosed ventricles or enclosed covered areas for entryway doors. This is the site of
the Baldwin Piano manufacturing plant. It also contains a warehouse to the south. That
property was split last month and a property line was created in between the two
structures. Since then, they have looked at one of the requirements to remove the
connection between the two buildings to meet setbacks. Since then, they have looked
at trying to create these enclosed areas due to the structural beams of the connections in
between the two buildings and where they can break them off. It has resulted in an 4
inch encroachment for the actual structural part of the building in that location. They
request a variance in order to put 3 inch insulation board on the end of it and then put
some 1 inch overhang on the actual enclosed area It's probably best if you take a look
at this. I know it's kind of hard to see because we are talking about such a small area
This is Beechwood Avenue. If you are familiar with the Randall Tyson Track Center,
it's back down in this area. This was all one piece of property. The property was split
right through here. We have three, two enclosed walkways between the buildings, one
covered awning. They are completely removing, on this warehouse side, the enclosed
areas, the awning. When they looked at creating these three entryway areas, that's
where they found out that, based on the construction, that they really would like to save
as much as they can based on the construction that they are already 4 inches at that
point where they can cut it off and there the three variances that are being requested.
They will have an 8 inch variance right there, right there and right there. They had a
bigger drawing. I did reduce that in your agenda packet. If you don't grant the
variance, one remedy would be for them to do a property line adjustment and get it re-
surveyed and pay $200 and move the property line over 8 inches to resolve this
encroachment. I think the encroachment is so minor that requesting a variance is
appropriate and staff is recommending approval. If you have any other questions or
comments, I'll be happy to answer them.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
• November 6 2000
Page 9
Olszewski: Tim, you said in here they didn't consider it at the time of the split, why is that? Who
should have considered it?
Sowell: I'm James Sowell. It's just of those things when you are planning a project like this,
obviously between us and the new owner of the warehouse, Hanna Candle Company,
we put this property line straight down the middle. If we had planned this prior to that
we could have negotiated with them. We probably wouldn't have a property line over
it. When we work with the contractors to actually get this done and we wanted to
keep these structures here as an entryway and as two storage rooms. It was exactly 24
inches to the outside of the beams. We would have to had to build these beams. We
are asking for the same thing. It's a small encroachment.
Green: It seems to be it's more administrative at this point. It's certainly not creating anything
different for them to resurvey and lose the property line 8 inches.
Perkins: Is that a motion?
• MOTION:
Green: I move the variance be approved.
Orton: I'll second it.
Perkins: Any further discussion? Call the roll please.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call BA 00-11.00 is approved on a 6-0-1 vote with Thad Hanna abstaining.
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 10
BA 99-25.00: Variance (Wilson, pp 442) was submitted by Jim and Candes Wilson for property
located at the 815 Berry and 835 Leverett (corner lot). The property is zoned R-3, High Density
Residential and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The requirement is a 25' setback on Berry Street.
The request is for a 15' setback (a 10' variance). The request is to amend the condition that required
construction to start in one year.
Perkins: The next item on the agenda is BA 99-25.00. This was submitted last year initially by
Jim and Candes Wilson for property located at the 815 Berry and 835 Leverett (corner
lot). The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately
0.32 acres. The requirement is a 25' setback on Berry Street. The request is for a 15'
setback (a 10' variance). The request is to amend the condition that required
construction to start in one year.
Conklin: Yes. BA 99-25.00 was a variance of 10 feet for a required 25 foot setback on Berry
_ Street. They plan on building a multi -family apartment building at this location. The
Condition of Approval stated that the variance would be void if construction was not
erected within one calendar year. We past that. They contacted the Planning Division
and asked if they could receive and extension. I did not feel I had the authority to
extend or make that decision administratively so I brought it back to the Board. I am
recommending that if you do extend it, you extend if for one year. Any questions, I will
be happy to answer them. Talking with Mr. Wilson this afternoon, he believes it will be
built by September 15"1. Is that correct?
Wilson: September 1".
Conklin: One year should be adequate time to get this constructed. One of the reasons why we
try to limit out approvals on variances and at Planning Commission we do that also with
the Large Scale Developments, ordinances do change over time and we have some of
these files in our office. Someone comes into my office and they have a project that
was approved ten years ago and they want to use that Planning Commission approval
but now we have storm water ordinances, tree ordinances, grading ordinances,
commercial design standards and it makes it very difficult for staff to meet those
ordinances and make that developer do what all the other developers have to do today.
That's why we try to put these restrictions on timing. Just last week I had one of those
situations. A development was approved five years ago and a lot of things have
changed in five years so that's where we are at today.
Perkins: Mr. Wilson, what has delayed that project?
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6 2000
Page 11
Wilson: We had an engineer that we were working with and he just kept not getting out there
and doing what he needed to do at a critical time. It got to a point where our builder
said he's not sure we can get it done by August of this year so we just decided to put it
off because we were afraid to risk brining it up in September or October of this year.
We don't find that to be a good time to rent things to college students. We decided to
put it off to avoid the risk.
Andrews: When do you expect to begin construction?
Wilson: At least by January. We may well do the plumbing and pour the slab in December but
certainly by January we will be in full swing.
Green: Depending on the weather of course.
Wilson: Pardon me?
Green: Depending on the weather.
Wilson: That's the reason we may go ahead and do the slab in December to try to get that
taken care of so we can move on.
Andrews: My reason for asking was if it was going to be another six or nine months there is some
debris, concrete blocks and things and I thought it would be good to clean those up but
if construction is going to be started fairly quickly.
Wilson: Yes. Someone graced us with their dumping bricks on us. The apartments that were
being built to the south of us were under construction. Really without permission he had
a dumpster sitting on us and someone decided to go in there and dump their brick and
of course we will have to do something with it. In the letter to Tim, Tim you may say
that this doesn't have anything to do with this, I mentioned the basic box location and
site of it and everything we want to be the same that we are willing to go from a
stairwell on each end of the building to a single stairwell at the center. I don't know if
that has anything to do with this group or not.
Conklin: No. That's more of a building code issue. As long as Building Inspections approve
that, I don't have a problem with that.
Wilson: I didn't want to fail to mention that if it did come up.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6 2000
Page 12
Conklin: I appreciate that. I hate to be surprised when I go look at these things.
Wilson: Any questions that I can answer? We are basically doing the same thing, trying to
preserve all the same trees that we talked about last time. Those are as important to us
just as they are to the City.
Perkins: Does anybody have any questions or anything? Any motions?
MOTION:
Andrews: I move that we grant the variance as submitted for another year.
Green: Second.
Perkins: Okay. We have a motion and a second to grant the request. Any discussion? Call the
roll please.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call BA 99-25.00 is approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6 2000
Page 13
Discussion of Raley v City of Fayetteville, Washington County CIV.98-1097: BA 98-26.00.
Perkins: That brings up the fourth item on the agenda today which is a case that's with the result
of a previous meetings that we had, a discussion of Raley v. City of Fayetteville. There
was a ruling made on that. Does staff have background on that please or an update on
that?
Conklin: Sure. The City of Fayetteville attorney's office has forwarded this to you as a group,
for your information. It was a Board of Adjustment case, it was an appeal of Planning
Director, Alett Little's interpretation of what constitutes a duplex and what constitutes a
single-family home. She made a decision or interpretation to an adjacent homeowner
who then appealed her decision to this body. You upheld Alett Little's decision as the
City Planner and agreed that she was correct. Ms. Raley then sued the City of
Fayetteville and they went to the Washington County Circuit Court and the judge has
overturned the Board of Adjustments decision on that and her overturning that decision,
she states that the structure was vacant for ten years and therefore became a single-
family home and therefore has to be used as a single-family home. Our City Attorney is
asking if you disagree with what they would like to do which is appeal Stacy
Zimmerman's decision, let him know. I would say you probably need to vote on that
as a group if you guysare not in consensus, wish not to appeal, let us know and we
won't appeal it. As the current City Planner, I find it difficult, of course I was here
when Alen was here too so, I find it difficult to recognize that a structure that is
physically separated down the middle has two separate kitchens, two bathroom
facilities, two front doors, two electric meters, two gas meters, turns into a single family
home when it's not rented for six months. We do have a section of non -conforming
uses in our ordinance. It talks about when you abandon a use for a period of time, you
—can no longer -use -it that way. -The issue -Lhave-is,-I already had this question asked just
last week to, while there was a house in Washington -Willow Historic District, it has
four units and one of the units wasn't rented for a year. I don't know how I'm going to
enforce knowing when something is vacant for a certain period of time. In this case, the
house was sold in Multi -List Book as a duplex. It's difficult, I almost would have to be
the judge here to decide if it automatically turns into instead of a four unit apartment it's
a three unit because that one unit wasn't rented for six months. I don't know how I
would ever enforce that ordinance and the arguments that will occur in my office
between neighbors and the person that owns the structure. I believe we should appeal
it. It's difficult to understand how something that meets the definition of a duplex under
a zoning ordinance can turn into a single-family home. The definition of a duplex is
something with separate cooking and sleeping facilities.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6 2000
Page 14
Perkins: It was in the wrong zone right? It's R-1.
Conklin: It's R-1 right now.
Perkins: It had been acting like a duplex since mid '60 off and on.
Conklin: Yes.
Orton: I was just thinking it's non -conforming. It's a non -conforming use in the R-1.
Conklin: That's correct.
Orton: That would make a difference between apartments. Are you talking about apartments?
Conklin: I'm not talking about any non -conforming residential use. Basically, if you can't rent it
out and it's non -conforming, it turns into a single-family home.
Andrews: That's where the argument between use and occupancy comes in. My understanding
is, if you remove the kitchen for six months then the use is abandoned because you
changed that residence use of it. Just because it wasn't occupied doesn't change the
use and 1 can't understand the judge's decision and I definitely think that our decision
back then was correct so I agree with the City Attorney that we should appeal the
decision.
Perkins: How did the new owners treat it? Did they rent it?
Conklin: Yes.
Perkins: So it's been acting like a duplex since almost a year ago right?
Conklin: Yes.
Hanna: The way this law reads if you bought a duplex as a fixer upper and you moved into one
side and just worked for six months and a day on the other side without renting it out
and just doing the work yourself and your neighbors threw a fit, if it was a non-
conforming duplex then they way Stacy read this is that boom this is a single-family
home. Correct?
• Conklin: That's how I read her decision on this case. I guess, I can't speak for Ms. Zimmerman
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 15
Orton:
here but I guess her argument is you have to rent it out in order for it to be a duplex and
our definition talks about if it has two kitchens and it's physically separated, that's how
I've always looked at these residential uses in Fayetteville is, "What definition do they
meet?" If I go out there and someone has a house they built and they have two
kitchens in it and it's separate and I go "You just violated our zoning ordinance, you
built a duplex." I've done that up west of the University, many times, touring houses.
I've always looked at it that way. That's the difficulty I have accepting this decision.
We have many non -conforming residential uses over in the Wilson Park Historic
District, Washington -Willow, I can see it now someone is going to come into my office
and say "Well so and so back in 1976 didn't rent out that side of their house for a year,
you need to write the current owner a letter and tell them they can't use that as a duplex
anymore." Fourteen years later. It's difficult.
Tim, what do you do about someone that wants to make an apartment for their mother,
_ grandmother or whatever? This was a companion thing originally and then when they
are gone, then it becomes a duplex.
• Conklin: We have an ordinance that we adopted three or four years ago to encourage second
dwelling units or grandmother units and one of the conditions in there is that one unit has
to be owner occupied to make sure it's not just rental property that you own it and you
rent out one. We don't limit who you can rent it to. The idea is to increase affordable
housing in Fayetteville and provide alternative housing where you can have a studio
apartment so we have done that. We also have an ordinance that allows a duplex as a
conditional use in R-1.
•
Orton: What happens when it's not, when the original owners die or move away and then they
have-left?—The grandmother portionandthe main portion of the house._
Conklin: If they rent them out, they are in violation under this current ordinance.
Orton: If they sold it.
Conklin: Yes.
Orton: There must be something in the selling of it?
Conklin: Yes. Deed restriction. We require a deed restriction to be placed on the property.
Orton: This needed a deed restriction then?
Board of Adjustment Minutes
• November 6 2000
Page 16
•
•
Conklin: I think the testimony we had was back in 1950's, 1954 or 1955, they built it, he was
gone out of town and they wanted to have a place where they could have another
person living in the house and that's how it was created. That was their intent but under
our current ordinance, it's defined as a duplex, in my opinion because it's physically
separated. When I went into it, there is a wall separating both units right down the
middle and it has two front doors, two kitchens and it looks like a duplex.
Olszewski: What I noticed in reading her statement is that it seemed to hinge, I'm not an attorney
but, it seemed to hinge on this code. She says the intent of this chapter is to permit
these non -conformities to continue until they've removed but not to encourage their
survival. What I would think that would be a big issue for you is, that there are a lot of
buildings that are non -conforming because perhaps the setback is supposed to be
twenty-five feet and, for instance, it's twenty-one feet or something. Many people,
residents and owners don't realize that they have a building that is non -conforming and
that's the thing that Iwas struck with. I'm not_ giving an opinion, just that that's what
her case is on that that's non -conforming. When you went into that section where you
weren't continuing it for a period of time, you were therefore in violation. If the Board
of Adjustments had said they granted a variance to this house to be duplex then this
wouldn't be an issue.
Conklin: Well the Board can't grant variances of use. The Planning Commission could grant a
Conditional Use for a duplex.
Olszewski: If that had happened, this wouldn't be an issue.
Conklin: Right. The current owner bought it with the understanding that it was a duplex and has
used it as a duplex and was not aware of this argument that it was vacant for ten years
and not used according to Ms. Raley and the judge as a duplex.
Olszewski: There is a lot of these out here.
Conklin: Yes. That's what concerns me. Most of the property in our older historic areas of
Fayetteville have similar situations. Potentially, I could be very busy dealing with
making people convert their homes if they were vacant back in the 70's for a year or
something. I could have a whole stack of these in my opinion.
Green: It's going to open a gate. If our City Attorney feels like we have a good case then we
ought to follow that advice
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 17
Conklin:
Green.
Olszewski:
Conklin:
Green:
Orton:
Conklin:
Green:
Conklin:
Orton:
Perkins:
I'll let him know.
Besides, Judge Zimmerman was a Juvenile judge.
This has been just recently? Oh, okay.
I don't have a good understanding of the court system but even when we get sued like
on the Overlay District, it goes to the Chancery Court there too and a lot of these land
use cases, I know sitting in there right before our case and they were doing domestic
abuse case and all of a sudden now we are dealing with Overlay District and building
materials or screening or something.
Well if we pass Amendment 3 maybe that will fix that.
- Then they will all be together..
I don't think we need anything.
You don't need a vote or anything.
He'll forward it or whatever he needs to do to appeal it at the next level.
We seem to have a consensus with what Mike said.
Any old business?
Olszewski: What happened to that one we okayed last time. I read something in the paper that a
number of people.
You don't sit at home and watch the Planning Commission meetings?
That's what I mean, where is it now?
Hanna:
Olszewski:
Conklin:
The variance on the University Avenue will be on the second reading tomorrow night at
City Council. City Council meeting, by the way in case you are interested, starts at
4:30 instead of 6:30 and that probably has something to do with the elections
tomorrow. The one on University Avenue, that kind of took my by surprise. First it
was a down -zoning from Commercial to Residential. The property south of there is all
I-1, Light Industrial, Heavy Commercial which allows concrete mixing facilities and
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 18
everything else. Thirty years ago the City had a citywide zoning map that they adopted
and this is one area that I'm working with the neighborhood and neighborhood
associations to take a look at what zoning they think is most appropriate for their
neighborhood because that side of the street, I-1 zoning is probably not the most
appropriate and they probably thought that the rail line there that it was going to
redevelop but now people have purchased these older homes that were built in the 20's
and they are renovating them and they do need some type of protection in my opinion
so we'll see where that goes. That one took me by surprise especially when 40/29
called and actually came down and wanted to interview me and I asked which
development and they told me University.
Kunzelmann: What happened to the air conditioning unit over on Dickson Street.
Conklin:
Orton:
That has been removed and siding has been put up so that's been resolved
—The neighbors got together on that -
Olszewski: One other thing, it was in the paper again that the meeting today was Tuesday. It said
Tuesday, November 6, 2000.
Conklin:
Olszewski:
Conklin:
Olszewski:
Conklin:
Olszewski:
Was that the display ad?
Yes. You might want to check that.
Janet puts those together.
__I would have thought the Times would have caught that._ It was in Sunday's paper.
It should be in on Sunday's the Northwest Arkansas Times. You raised a question last
week about when you get the agendas. If you want to discuss that we could. Joanne
was concerned about how much time you have to review the material. I'm more than
willing to work on getting those out earlier, I just need to know when you would like to
see those because we have to get the reports and minutes complete.
I would just like them as early as you can get them. I try to read them and go by the
place and think about what it might mean. I'm new at this so it's going to take me a
little longer to figure it all out.
Conklin: We are going to hand deliver them on that Wednesday that way at least you will get
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 19
them on Wednesday. That's what we did this week. Since you had made that request,
I just have one of my staff members hand -deliver them. We do that on Planning
Commission agendas. The mail, I don't trust the U.S. Postal Service. We had to do
that with Planning Commission agendas because we were mailing them three or four
years ago and they were getting delayed and lost and everything. I'll just do that.
You'll get it by Wednesday though.
Perkins: Any new business? If not, we stand adjourned. Thank all of you very much.
•
cit
4
•
5DA
I1-lsco
In;;
eAoo - lo
k
01S+e:ct
C3aldw`11�
bAoo-1l
1.3
Q,,a-t1i-ad
1-Sor1
MOTION
per
�
�,r >
L%rrlrew3
f
{
fro
-�
iSGektyn
arCn
L. Perkins
Y
Y
Y
M. Andrews
V
Y
Y
M. Green
1 1V
i
T. Hanna
Y
Ab
Y
J.
YKunzelmann 1
Y
J. Olszewski
`1
Y
Y
M. Orton
Y
ACTION
(-a- U
(9.-0-1
'7 -o -a
VOTE
R411-