Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-05 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 5, 2002 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED . ACTION TAKEN VAR 02-18.00: Variance (Keating, pp 290) Approved Page 2 VAR 02-19.00: Variance (Smith, pp 446) Approved Page 6 VAR 02-20.00: Variance (Millennium LLC, pp 177) Approved Page 9 VAR 02-21.00: Variance (Morris, pp 446) Tabled Page 11 VAR 02-22.00: Variance (Jones, pp 447) Approved Page 15 • MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT • Michael Andrews James Kunzelmann Michael Green Bob Nickle Marion Orton Sheree Alt Joanne Olszewski STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Shelli Rushing Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Board of Adjustment • August 5, 2002 Page 2 • • • Green: I will call the meeting to order at this time. I want to welcome all of you here. I want to especially welcome our newest member of the Board of Adjustment, Ms. Sheree Alt, we are glad to have you with us Sheree. We now have a full house with all seven of our members. Speaking of membership, please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call, there were six board members present with Commissioner Olszewski being absent. Green: The first item on our agenda is approval or consideration of our minutes from the meeting of July 1, 2002. Has everyone had a chance to go over those minutes? Are there any corrections or additions to be made to the minutes? Nickle: I move that we approve the minutes. Andrews: Second. VAR 02-18.00: Variance (Keating, pp 290) was submitted by Bill Keating for property located at 385 Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The requirement is 15' of landscaping along Villa Blvd. The request is for 5' of landscaping (a 10' variance). Green: The minutes are approved. Under new business on the agenda is VAR 02-18.00, it is submitted by Bill Keating for property located at 385 Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The requirement is 15' of landscaping along Villa Blvd. The request is for 5' of landscaping (a 10' variance). Dawn or Shelli, can you give us some more information on this? Warrick: Sure. This project is located near the southwest corner of Sunbridge and College. There is the Americar car dealership at that comer and immediately west of that is the subject property. The structure onsite formally housed a child care facility. The applicant is in the process of renovating the structure and the purpose of that renovation is to provide some office space as well as an enclosed location for Americar dealership to detail and evaluate their vehicles. For the office addition that they are working on, it is only a renovation because they are not actually adding square footage to the structure, they are just modifying the existing. It does however, require some additional parking spaces. The applicant has proposed a site plan that is included in your packet. He is providing that additional parking, the proposal is for the parking to be located along the Villa edge of the property, which is the west property line. There is a requirement in the Unified Development Ordinance for parking lots to have 15' of landscaping • • • Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 3 adjacent to front property lines between the parking and the street right of way. This particular request is for a reduction of that required landscaped area to reduce it from 15' to 5'. Because one of your required findings deals with special conditions or unique circumstances to the property, we did explore that and there is a memo in your file from the Landscape Administrator addressing the issue of a large, mature tree which is at the rear of the structure that is being renovated In order to save that tree, which is desirable for the city as well as the applicant, pushing the parking closer to the street right of way is the most effective way of protecting the tree. There is another unique circumstance in that there is a large amount of right of way between this parking area and the actual street curb where Villa is located. Generally you will only see 5' or maybe 10' of right of way that is landscaped between a subject property and the actual constructed street. In this particular case there is a substantial amount of right of way that is landscaped. A lot of it is actually kind of a ditch or drainage type area but it is not constructed in any fashion. Another unique circumstance to this particular property is Villa Blvd. It has not been vacated, but it is no longer utilized to the south of this property. If you will remember when Sunbridge Drive was connected to College Avenue, Villa was basically abandoned south of this property. There is one connection, it serves as sort of an access drive for the Braum's restaurant, which is south of this property. Beyond that it used to primarily access a mobile home park and then kind of have a dogleg back onto College, which is no longer utilized. It was not a real safe intersection. With those outstanding circumstances and with the recommendation from our Landscape Administrator, staff is recommending in favor of this request. Green: Thank you Dawn. I believe Mr. Keating is here. Do you have anything further to add to this or would you like to make a presentation of any kind? Keating: No, Dawn did a great job. Green: Does any member of the board have any questions or comments? Andrews: Was there thought given to try to put the parking on the south side of the property there and that way not have to have any on the west side? Keating: Yes. I have actually kind of scrunched it around about everyway you can think of. I am going to redo the front a little bit. My biggest problem was that I had to get handicapped accessible. The front is going to take care of the handicapped accessible in the front. It doesn't show up on this plan very well but there are two big garage doors. In other words, half of this building is going to be office space and the other half of it is going to be like a detail shop where they bring cars in, Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 4 clean them, do whatever they have got to do to a car. That will be on the right hand side of this building. I am not sure if I can afford that. There are two big garage doors where they can actually drive in a car, if a customer buys the car, they can drive in and they can actually service it for him and then they can drive it out the back. That pretty well cancels out the back, trying to get parking back there because you have got an access way almost through that building coming around. It gets the parking further and further away. I have actually had the parking almost every place you can think of on this lot. It just didn't seem to work very good in the back. Andrews: That was my thought. If those five spaces that are on the southwest corner, that they could be rotated around and you would pull into them facing south and then we wouldn't need, it seems like you could save a lot of driveway because that is already going to be paved isn't it? Keating: Yes. If I do structure out I may pave that way anyway. What I really wish is I wish there was some way the board could just close Villa Blvd. right now, make it an alleyway and then everything would work. Then I would have room to park alongside the building the way it is but I don't see that coming up in the cards very quick. In any case, the 10' will at least allow me, no matter how I go about it, to have access around the building, whether the parking is right there or on the south side of the parking lot, it will allow me at least an access around that building. There is just shy of 30' to the property line from the building. If you take up 5' or 6' of sidewalk and then you take up 5' of the green space on the other side, things just start to get a little tight to make it accessible. I have got probably 20' of green space left from the property line to the sidewalk, where the sidewalk stops there. One way or the other, it would be nice to get the relief of that 10' to either make that an access around the building or to locate the parking right there and tum it around. I would have liked to have made a drive through but right there on the southwest corner of the parking lot, there is a big open ditch that is on the city property and so I can't get egress out of there. That is why I am thinking about trying to go around the building In any case, if I can get the 10' then I can start thinking about the best way to get it all to work around there. Green: Would you state your name for the record? Keating: Bill Keating. Green: Are there any other questions? Do I hear a motion? Motion: • • Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 5 Nickle: I move that we approve VAR 02-18.00 as staff recommended with their comments. Orton: I will second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to grant the variance with staff recommendation, is there any further discussion? Anyone from the audience? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-18.00 was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Mr. Andrews voting no. Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 6 VAR 02-19.00: Variance (Smith, pp 446) was submitted by Richard Smith for property located at 523 N. Washington Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The requirement is for a 8' side setback. The request is for a 2' side setback (a 6' variance). Green: The next item is VAR 02-19.00 submitted by Richard Smith for property located at 523 N. Washington Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The requirement is for a 8' side setback. The request is for a 2' side setback (a 6' variance). Dawn, can you give us some more information on this? Warrick: This property is located east of College Avenue, about half a block east off of College on Washington between Davidson and Maple Street. The structure on the property, the original structure was built in 1889 and we are certainly dealing with a historic sort of structure that pre-existed any of our zoning regulations. There was an addition to the structure in the 1920s to add a kitchen, which also pre- dated the zoning regulations in Fayetteville. The area of the 1920's kitchen addition is located approximately 2' from the alley, which is along the south side of the property. That is the area that we are dealing with on this particular request. Behind that kitchen area, there was a back porch that was built when the kitchen went in around that time, which sat approximately 5' from that south property line adjacent to the alley. Recently the applicants removed the original back porch and rebuilt it. The location that it was rebuilt is approximately the same location, it is about 1' further away from the alley than the original porch structure was located. However, it does still encroach the required 8' setback from that side property line. We are looking at a request for a 2' variance to allow the porch addition. Probably the best illustration to give you a reference to what we are looking at is a site plan on page 2.12 and then a closer up map view on page 2.14 that gives you some reference to how this structure sits in reference to the alley itself. The structure is non -conforming. Because we are looking at an addition to an owner occupied single-family structure that is less than 25% of the original square footage, it is permissible under our code, under the non- conforming section, to have this type of an addition. However, there is the stipulation that any addition would have to meet the R-1 requirements with regard to setbacks, which is where the 8' setback comes back into play and why we are looking at a request at this point for a variance of those two feet in which this encroaches. Special conditions of course relate back to the age of the structure and its original location on the property. There is an alley adjacent to the south part of this property, which provides additional distance between this structure Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 7 and any adjoining structures. Of course the purpose of setbacks is to provide some distance for air flow, for light, for access in between structures. The alley does accomplish that to some degree by separating the structure and the adjoining properties to the south. Staff is recommending in favor of the variance request. We have placed three recommended conditions and those are that the variance apply only to the proposed porch addition will be built. Second, that a building permit shall be obtained before commencement of any additional work and third, that any future additions or alterations shall comply with zoning requirements. Any future variances must be brought as new and separate applications before the board for consideration. Green: Is the applicant here? Would you wish to speak to this Sir? Smith: No. She did a pretty good job of it. One of my concerns was the alley itself. Seeing how the existing structure is only 2' from the alleyway, I was kind of hoping that the City Council might consider vacating that alleyway. I know that when I bought it, it was there but the alleyway extended all the way through the neighborhood at one point and all back west of that has been closed off. This is the only remaining section of that alleyway that is open eastof College. It poses a safety hazard for my kids. When you work around your house or your kids are outside and cars are zipping up and down that thing, it is a problem. It basically seems like it has been abandoned by the city, they haven't taken care of it in years It is potholed and overrunning and everything else. Green: Could you state your name for the record? Smith: Richard Smith. Green: Ok, thank you. That used to be the exit after the drive thru window of KFC I believe when that was in use as a drive thru window. Warrick: There are still commercial properties that have access to that alleyway. Mr. Smith and I have talked at least a couple of times about the potential of vacating the portion of the alley that is adjacent to his property. It would of course require Planning Commission consideration and City Council action but it is something that as an adjoining property owner, Mr. Smith can serve as an applicant and make that request. He and his neighbor together could do that. It is something that we can pursue. If you want to visit with us some more we would be glad to do that. Smith: Ok. Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 8 Green: Lunsford: Green: It is certainly beyond the scope of this body. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this application? I am Scott Lunsford, I own the property south of Richard's property and I just want to say I have no objection whatsoever to this variance. Are there any comments or questions? Motion: Orton: I move that we grant the variance including the requirements made by the staff. Nickle: Second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance request with staff's stipulations there, is there any further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll CaII: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-19.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment • August 5, 2002 Page 9 • • VAR 02-20.00: Variance (Millennium LLC, pp 177) was submitted by Dale Carlton on behalf of Millennium, LLC for property located at 2827 Millennium Drive: The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.72 acres. The requirement is for 20' rear setback. The request is for a 13' rear setback (a 7' variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is a variance submitted by Dale Carlton on behalf of Millennium, LLC for property located at 2827 Millennium Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.72 acres. The requirement is for 20' rear setback. The request is for a 13' rear setback (a 7' variance). Can you give us a staff recommendation? Rushing: Yes. This subject property is located in the Millennium subdivision and it did go through the large scale development process. It was approved by the Planning Commission in November, 2000. After it was approved, after the building was constructed, two 9'x 24' decks with heights ranging from between 42" and 63" were constructed on the rear of the building. The decks were not shown or approved through the large scale development process. At the time those decks were constructed they did not seek a building permit. The applicant did come through and request a building permit in early July of this year. The floor of the decks are higher than 30" and that requires that it meet the setback for the zoning district. They do encroach the rear setback by 7' and at that time we notified the applicant that they would need to seek a variance before we could sign off on a building permit for that. The unique conditions to this site are that at the rear of the property where the deck is constructed the property begins to slope into a drainage ditch, which causes the floor of the deck to be higher than 30" because of that swale. We feel that that particular condition of the property is justification in granting the variance. It is the minimum variance necessary. We don't see that it will cause any problems to adjacent property owners. We are recommending approval of this setback variance subject to a couple of conditions. First of all, that the variance apply only to the existing decks that are drawn on the site plan that is provided in your packet and that any future alterations or additions comply with all of the zoning regulations, including those setbacks. Green: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Carlton: Dale Carlton, I am actually representing the applicant, Millennium LLC. The situation arose that to exit properly out of the building, after our site plan was established and set, it became evident that there was a drainage ditch, city requested concrete ditch that is to the east of the building, and for us to access it behind our building we had to also put a concrete drainage ditch so that proper drainage would allow for flow. In doing such, it caused the building that was level, now everything slopes down to the drainage ditch. When we built the decks they were exits out of Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 10 Green: Carlton: Andrews: Kunzelmann: Green: Roll Call: Green: the building, otherwise there would be concrete steps down to the drainage ditch and so we built the deck out and put the steps to the side so there is a proper fire exit and everything else. We didn't realize the 30" requirement. That was our ignorance and we apologize for that. We have now learned a valuable lesson in that and we are here requesting that because the slope is a grade it has to be above 30". Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this issue? Are there any members of the board that would like to address the issue? That concrete swale back there is sort of in a place where there are only transformers and other utilities back there. I don't think it is very visible from any other property. In no way does this go over any utility easements. There is a 10' utility easement and 20' setback easement. We didn't even begin to reach the utility easement, it is just that the large setback easement backing up to other commercial property it actually increases the aesthetic value by having the deck rather than just concrete steps down to a concrete drain that if there was a fire and water at the same time, we would really actually be in trouble probably fire wise. I will move that we pass the variance with staff recommendations. Second. There is a motion and a second to approve the variance request with staff recommendations. Is there any further discussion on this issue? Call the roll please. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-20.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. The variance request passes. • Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 11 VAR 02-21.00: Variance (Morris, pp 446) was submitted by Gary Kinion of Gary Kinion Inc., on behalf of Jennifer Morris for property located at 525 N. Mission Blvd. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback on Mission and Gunter. The request is for a 10' front setback on Mission (a 15' variance) and a 0' setback on Gunter (a 25' variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 02-21.00 submitted by Gary Kinion of Gary Kinion Inc., on behalf of Jennifer Morris for property located at 525 N. Mission Blvd. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback on Mission and Gunter. The request is for a 10' front setback on Mission (a 15' variance) and a 0' setback on Gunter (a 25' variance). Shelli, do you have the background on this? Rushing: Sure. This property is currently used as an antique shop. It is located at the northwest corner of Mission and Gunter. It is located in the R-1 zoning district and is surrounded on all sides by that R-1 zoning district. The front setback currently is 0' on Gunter and it does sit within a portion of the right of way of that street. The front setback on Mission is about 9' and the side setback to the west is 8' and the side setback to the north is approximately 42'. This building was originally built as a commercial structure in an area that was predominantly single-family, residential uses. It was built prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1970 and prior to 1982 the structure was used as a furniture store. At one point it became vacant. It was vacant in excess of 120 days, which lost its status as a legal, non -conforming use. The property owners came forward to the Planning Commission in May, 1990 requesting a conditional use in order to have an antique store in a portion of the building. At that time the Planning Commission did unanimously grant the conditional use. One of the conditions of that permit was that the non -conformity not be expanded. They came back through in November of that same year and requested another conditional use to lease the other half of the building as an antique store. The Planning Commission again, unanimously approved that with the condition that the parking lot be striped. The structure that is there now is approximately 3,110 sq.ft. and what the applicant is proposing to do is add onto that building in order to have area for storage and some display area The size of that addition is 19'x20', which is approximately 380 sq.ft. It would be located on the north side of the existing structure. I believe that we do have on page 4.15 the location of the existing building, it also shows you the location of the building setbacks just to kind of give you an idea of what they are proposing there. We do have a section in our U.D.O. that regulates limited neighborhood commercial uses in residential districts, the antique store is considered a specialized retail under that section. Board of Adjustment • August 5, 2002 Page 12 • The maximum gross floor area of that type of use in a residential district is 3,000 sq.ft. The existing structure does not comply with that requirement and the addition would increase that non -conformity even more than what it already is. The addition does meet all of the setback requirements for the R-1 zoning district. We do have parking requirements of one parking space for 250 sq.ft. With the addition we would require 14 parking spaces. Right now none of those parking spaces are striped, which is one of the conditions of the original conditional use permit. At this time because of the maximum square footage requirements we are recommending denial of those setback variances. However, if the board should decide to approve that variance, we would recommend a couple of things. 1) They strip the parking lot; 2) That there not be any future additions to this structure. One other thing, because this was an original conditional use permit, the people who own it now did not request that conditional use. We would like to suggest that they come back to the Planning Commission and request an amendment to their conditional use permit because the original permit did not allow them to have any expansions whatsoever so at this time we are recommending denial. Green: Is the applicant here? Would you state your name please? Kinion: Gary Kinion. Jennifer Morris could not be here. She got called out of town on business and asked me to come by and sit in on this meeting. Green: Do you have a statement or anything further to add? Kinion: As this goes along we are finding out more and more about the conditional use permit and we did not know about the parking lot being striped. I guess that wasn't conveyed when they bought the property from the previous owner. We didn't know about the conditional use also showing that there would not be anymore additions so that was kind of a surprise to her and to me. What she was asking for is mainly for storage. She just needs more area to store some of her stock and it wasn't encroaching even close to the lot line on the side that the addition would be on. Green: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address this issue for or against? I guess I had a question for the City Attorney but I guess that Shelli might have already addressed that. That is do we have the right to grant a variance on size requirements when that was a stipulation of the conditional use. • Whitaker. I think you could probably pass on whether the variance would be appropnate but that wouldn't enable them to then go forward and obtain a permit. As I have gone • • • • Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 13 Green: through the minutes, the May 1990 and the November 1990 Planning Commission meetings, the May, 1990 memorandum from then Associate Planner Becky Bryant, clearly says "grant the conditional use but prohibit expansion of the non -conformity" referring to the structure on the site. I think as it stands that they are going to need to go back to the Planning Commission and seek some kind of modification of that conditional use. It seems that for that building the entire condition was that it not get any bigger and then subsequent to that the maximum 3,000 sq.ft. was adopted. I think as far as variance, yes, I think it could pass but I don't think it gets them much further as long as that conditional use prohibits any expansion of the property. If this variance request is denied then they still will operate under the conditional use permit that conveyed with the property I suppose right? They just wouldn't be allowed to add anymore to the building? Whitaker: Correct. Green: Does anyone else have questions? Andrews: I have a little discomfort if you will, passing something that specifically goes against what the Planning Commission passed when they got that conditional use. I wonder if we do encourage, and by the way they have improved the building. I notice that the exterior looks much better than it used to and I think that that is a great addition to the neighborhood. I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate if they are going to have to go to the Planning Commission anyway to get their conditional use modified if nothing else, if the Planning Commission allows that would it not be appropriate for us to table consideration of this and see what happens at the Planning Commission? Whitaker: Certainly. I think that is within your discretion to decide how you want to proceed here. Tabling, particularly with the fact that the applicant is not here herself, is not here to address you I think is probably prudent. Green: Motion: I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable either approving this one without further information about how we can supercede what the Planning Commission had approved earlier on a conditional use. • Nickle: I would move that we table it until something gets resolved at the Planning Commission one way or the other. Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 14 Andrews: Second. Green: There is a motion to table and a second. That does not allow any further discussion, could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-21.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: This particular issue is tabled until further notice and then I guess the applicant will get instructions on what the options are to proceed with the Planning Commission. Thank you. • Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 15 VAR 02-22.00: Variance (Jones, pp 447) was submitted by Samantha Jones for property located at 824 E Trust Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 21' front setback (a 4' variance). The requirement is for 70' frontage with 8, 000 sq. ft. of land area, the request is for 50' frontage (a 20' variance) with 7.000 sq. ft. of land area (a 1,000 sq. ft. variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 02-22.00 submitted by Samantha Jones for property located at 824 E Trust Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 21' front setback (a 4' variance). The requirement is for 70' frontage with 8,000 sq. ft. of land area, the request is for 50' frontage (a 20' variance) with 7,000 sq. ft. of land area (a 1,000 sq. ft. variance). Can you give us background? Warrick: This property is located on Trust Street. It is east of Mission between Fallin and Vinson Avenues. This area that the property is located in was subdivided at a 'time where 50' lots were common you can see by some of the map information at the end of this item, page 5.15, 50' lots were very standard in this particular area of town. Therefore, we are dealing with small parcels of property. It is 50'x140', which does not meet current zoning regulations for the R-1 district. It is 1,000' shy of the land area requirement and 20' shy of the lot width requirement. Therefore, we are looking for variances from both of those regulations in order to make the lot legal The applicant has requested a setback variance from the front setback requirement for the front of the property for a proposed porch addition, which would extend 4' into that 25' required front setback. The applicant would like to add a front porch in order to have a functional entry to the home as well as enhance the aesthetics of the property. Many of the homes in this neighborhood do have front porches and a more unified architectural treatment in the area includes porches. Because of the size of the lot, which is one of the special conditions, it is difficult for the applicant to be able to add a functional front porch area that has enough room to swing the door open and actually have an entry to the home without encroaching the front setback. A 4' variance would provide enough room to do that. Staff does not believe that granting the variance would be detrimental to adjoining properties or the area. Therefore, we are recommending in favor of the request. We do recommend three conditions and those are 1) That the setback variance only applies to the proposed porch addition; 2) That a building permit be obtained prior to commencement of any construction; and 3) That any future additions or alterations comply with building regulations and that future variances be brought forward as separate applications to the board. • • Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 16 Green: Is the applicant here? Jones: Yes I am, my name is Samantha Jones. Green: Would you like to state anything else that you would like us to consider? Jones: Just one thing. This is the smallest addition I could possibly put on this. The porch that used to be there, I had to step off of the porch with one foot in order to open the door. Green: I walk in that area all the time. I was looking at the porch that used to be there, the outline of it. It was just a very small door overhang I guess you would call it, a very small stoop. Would anyone else like to speak? Best: I am John Best, I own the property immediately to the east of this house. It is the old log house if you are familiar with those homes through there. Green: I watched its development. Best: That has been a challenge. I think that her house was built around 1954 if I remember right. We owned the property adjacent to the log house at that time and I wondered even as a kid why they built such a small porch. I was friends with the gentleman that built the house and lived there. Even as a child, if you opened that front door or opened the screen, it would knock me off the porch so I always had to stand back. I wondered why they built it so small. I think it will add a lot to the house from the front view. It will make it more conforming with the other structures in the neighborhood. I know she will certainly enjoy it and we both can sit on our porches and wave. About that 50' lot, the thing was originally platted in 1909 by the Southern Trust Company, and that is why all of those lots are so small up there. Green: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Gay: My name is Danny Gay, I own the property at 825 Trust across the street and I think it would be wonderful if they have a porch addition on their house. Green: Is there anyone else? Questions from the board? • • • Board of Adjustment August 5, 2002 Page 17 Motion: Andrews: For the simple fact of y'all being able to waive at each other, I will move that we pass this variance with staff recommendations. Kunzelmann: I will second. Green. .We have a motion and a second to approve the variance with staff recommendation. Is there any further discussion or comments? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-22.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Thank you very much. Is there any further business that should come before this board? Warrick: Staff has nothing further. Green: Again, we want to welcome Sheree Alt, we are very glad that you are with us and we are looking forward to many years of service here. Thank you very much. I guess we are adjourned.