Loading...
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-