Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-01 Minutes (2)MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, July 1, 2002 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAR 02-15.00: Variance (Merry -Ship, pp 447) Page 3 VAR 02-17.00: Variance (Scholzen, pp 445) Page 6 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews James Kunzelmann Michael Green Bob Nickle Marion Orton Approved Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT Joanne Olszewski STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Shelli Rushing Dawn Warrick David Whittaker Renee Thomas Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 2 ROLL CALL• Upon the completion of roll call, five members were present with Mrs. Olszewski being absent. Approval of Minutes Green: Welcome to the July 1, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the June 3, 2002 meeting. Does anyone have any amendments to the minutes of the June 3, 2002 meeting? Hearing none, the minutes will be approved. Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 3 VAR 02-15.00: Variance (Merry -Ship, pp 447) was submitted by Robert Merry -Ship for property located at 1011 E. Trust. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.58 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 8' rear setback (a 12' variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 02-15.00 submitted by Robert Merry -Ship for property located at 1011 E. Trust. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.58 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 8' rear setback (a 12' variance). Dawn, what can you tell us about this one? Warrick: Yes Sir. This is a request for a 12' variance of the rear setback. The single family home located at 1011 E. Trust Street was originally constructed in 1976. The edge of the garage portion of the home sits approximately 17' from the south property line which encroaches the required 20' setback by 3'. The previous property owner did own several lots adjacent to this property to the east which adjoin Sequoyah Drive. When these lots were all under common ownership, the condition of the south property line of the subject tract was different, the lot was situated as a corner lot with frontage on both Sequoyah and Trust Streets. That condition provided for a side yard setback requirement along the south boundary. When the lots containing the house and pool were sold without the adjacent lots to the east, that condition changed, making the south a rear property boundary. Nothing changed with regard to the appearance or function of the property except ownership. The subject property is now considered an interior lot for setback purposes instead of a corner lot. The applicant approached Planning staff with a proposal to increase the usable area within the structure and to inquire about the possibility of adding a carport to the south end of the existing structure. Both of these proposals could be accommodated through the City's current non -conforming use and structure ordinances. Within this part of the Unified Development Ordinance, §164.07(D)(1)(a) allows for the enlargement of residential structures by increasing the height. The following section (b) permits carports within residential districts to extend into the required setback as long as the structure is open on the sides and maintains a distance of 10' from the rear property line. The applicant originally proposed to use these code sections to provide an additional space for a vehicle at the south end of the house and to enclose a second story exercise room above the entire garage portion of the structure. The allowance for increasing the height of a non -conforming structure would not however, include the area over any proposed carport which would further the non- conforming nature of the structure. These restrictions made the applicant's proposal less appealing with regard to the aesthetic issues that would need to be addressed in order to maintain a uniform architecture to the house. The applicant would have had to request a variance to enclose the area above the carport. With the current proposal before the Board, the applicant has requested that the rear setback be varied to Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 4 provide for an enclosed garage and the addition of a second story above the entire three car garage. Referring to the elevation submitted by the applicant, this request will provide for a more uniform appearance for the overall structure and will accommodate the expansion goals of the applicant. We are recommending approval subject two conditions which are 1) Variance shall apply only to the proposed garage and second story addition as shown in the elevation drawing submitted by the applicant. 2) Future additions or alterations to this structure shall comply with all current zoning regulations including setbacks. Green: Ok, thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present? Merry -Ship: Yes. I am Rob Merry -Ship, the property owner. Dawn pretty much summed it up. The house was built 24 years ago. I recently bought the home. It sat on about nine lots at the time. I bought six of them and have not purchased three. I will be doing that, I haven't done it yet. To be able to carry on with putting a third garage and some space above, we realize that at the time the house was built it was a side setback and it had 17.1" instead of 8'. I thought that since all of the sudden the house was purchased by me and I don't have the corner lots. With a 20' rear setback it goes into the existing garage already. What I propose is to leave the 8' setback, add the third garage instead of a carport. I think it would look much nicer not to have a car port, even though I can do that, I would much prefer to have a enclosed garage, leave an 8' setback and then I am quite confident that I will have those lots in the near future but that hasn't been done yet so it would be a moot point almost if I owned those now but I don't own those now so I would rather go for the variance to do the enclosed garage. Green: Are there any questions of the Planning Commission? Nickle: Just a generic question. When you put in there #2 with future additions or alterations, this structure shall comply with all zoning regulations including all current zoning regulations, including setbacks. This is just for an example case, if somebody had that requirement on them and then later on something happened, does this prevent them from coming to the board and asking for another one? Or is that just kind of stating the facts that you realize that anything else would have to conform to. Whittaker: Or come back here. Warrick: My attempt is to make that clear that it is not a blanket variance that covers anything in the future that if there is something that would require your attention in the future we would have a new item before you. Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 5 Nickle: Green: Kunzelmann: Warrick: Merry -Ship: Thank you. Are there any comments from the audience concerning this matter? The adjacent property owner on Company Street, have we heard from them? Staff has not received any comments from the adjoining property owners. I did talk to my neighbors by the way. The closest person to me on the south side, I have talked to her. She is the lady that rents the house. I talked to her, that was my first move before I even came in. We discussed when I would start on it and what type of hours and we had a good meeting so you know the closest person that it would affect I have talked to her. Green: Is there a motion or anything? Motion: Nickle: I move that we approve the request with the comments of staff. Orton: I will second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance with the staff recommendations. Shall we call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-15.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Merry -Ship: Thank you and thank you Dawn for all of your help. Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 6 VAR 02-17.00: Variance (Scholzen, pp 445) was submitted by Edward Richardson Brya, AIA on behalf of Angela Scholzen for property located at 211 Ila Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The requirements are for a 25' front setback, 8' side setbacks, 8000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, and 70' minimum lot width. The requests are for a 21.57' front setback (a 3.43' variance), a 4.56 side setback on the east (a 3.44 variance), a 4.13 side setback on the west (a 3.87 variance), a 6600 sq. ft. lot size (a 1400 sq. ft. variance), and a 50' lot width (a 20' variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 02-17.00 submitted by Edward Richardson Brya, Architect on behalf of Angela Scholzen for property located at 211 Ila Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The requirements are for a 25' front setback, 8' side setbacks, 8000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, and 70' minimum lot width. The requests are for a 21.57' front setback (a 3.43' variance), a 4.56 side setback on the east (a 3.44'variance), a 4.13 side setback on the west (a 3.87'variance), a 6600 sq. ft. lot size (a 1400 sq. ft. variance), and a 50' lot width (a 20' variance). Can you give us some background on that? Rushing: Yes. I will talk about this item. As you can tell the property is a legal non- conforming lot of record. It currently does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of 8,000 sq.ft. in the R-1, Low Density Residential district. It doesn't meet the minimum 50' wide minimum lot width requirements. The applicant is requesting variances for both of those requirements. The house that is on this lot right now is approximately 1,185 sq.ft. and it was built in 1940 prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1970. The existing structure encroaches into those setbacks, the 25' front setback by approximately 3.43' and the 8' side setback by 3.44' on the east and 3.87' on the west. What the applicant is proposing to do is to remove 304 sq.ft. of the western portion of the existing structure and then replace it with a 1,116 sq.ft. two story addition. What this addition will do will use the existing footprint but also increase it by about 254 sq.ft. When that addition is made it increases the size of the structure to 1,997 sq.ft., which is almost a 68% increase in the size of the structure. The addition is going to use the existing setbacks and will not encroach into the setbacks anymore than it already is. The applicant is requesting a variance from the front and side setbacks to allow the structure to become a conforming structure that they may make this addition. As Dawn had mentioned in the previous item, I want to remind you that they would be able to increase the height of this structure based on the existing footprint but what they are doing is actually increasing that footprint, which is why they are requesting the variances at this time. We have, at the time that this application came through we did recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that the variance only apply to the structure as it exists currently and the addition that was shown on the site plans that they had submitted. Also, that any future alterations or additions Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 7 comply with zoning regulations and that the addition be constructed according to the site plan and that the character and materials are compatible to the existing single- family residence. I do want to point out that we have had some calls from neighbors who are concerned about the height and the bulk of this building because those lots are so small. At this time, I want to point out that the neighborhood organization approved this variance request. However, we understand that nobody from Ila Street was actually at this neighborhood meeting so residents that are directly affected by it are the ones that have called with some concern over this request at this time. What we would recommend at this point is to table this item until the neighbors have an opportunity to kind of work out some of the details on this. Warrick: You may want to discuss it and ask questions since all the applicants are here. I believe that several residents are also here. Obviously, there is more information available now than there was when we initially worked up this application's report. That is why we have these public hearings. Green: Brya: I would like to get some more information on it as far as what the issues and the concerns are going to be so that they can be addressed whether we face this issue today or whether we table it. It would probably be nice to hear from them. Do we have a representative of the applicant here? This is Mr. Scholzen, my name is Edward Richardson Brya. You can call me Rich, Edward is my father. She summed up pretty much what we want to do. All the additional variance that comes about because the existing structure does not conform make it sound more complicated than what it is. There is an existing "L" shaped portion of the site plan. Nickle: Do we have a copy of the survey? Brya: A copy of the survey was submitted with the application. Green: I was going to see if we had any additional drawings. Brya: I have duplicate copies of everything that I have submitted that I would be happy to share with you as well as a reduced set of plans of the entire project. Right now there is an "L" shaped portion of the building and a small back and there is a little notch there. What we propose is to remove this and in that same area, but filling in this portion that is not currently covered that actually encroaches into the setbacks with a two-story addition, maintaining this existing deck. The tree is right back here. Andrews: Are any trees coming down because of this? Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 8 Brya: Green: No. We will probably have to trim one in the front but the idea is to not remove any trees. With the internal circulation of the house it is basically a four square plan and we are going to keep the existing rooms in the portion of the house that we are not disturbing, we are leaving them alone. Adding a master suite upstairs, a kitchen and more space downstairs. It is a small house and a growing family in a nice neighborhood. Do I interpret this properly that the only addition is going to be affecting the west side? Since we are making such a drastic remodeling then the other non -conforming setbacks are being addressed also is that right? Rushing: That is correct. Brya: As I understand it in order to get a variance to do this we actually need a variance on the existing things. If we were to just use the right that the owners have now to make this portion two -stories tall its height would in terms of how it affects the neighbors would essentially be the same. What we would like to do is remove this structure so that the new structure is on sound footings. Really, the only area in this variance area that will occupy the setback that is not being occupied by this portion is right here where this patio is. Green: Ok. Andrews: Which is not an extra encroachment into the setback? Brya: That's right. It is staying along the same line of the existing setback that the structure is currently in. Andrews: If you did maintain the same footprint you wouldn't need any additional variance but you would need for the lot size? Warrick: Only if the applicant desired to make the lot a conforming lot. Even on an existing non -conforming lot there is a provision that residential structures can be increased in size by going up, increased in height. Rushing: That is on page 2.1 of your staff report under D.1, Non -conforming structures. Nickle: It is helpful to have those highlighted so we can get to that without reading all of that. You all have to read all of that. Whittaker: At least it helps to verify that somebody read it. Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 9 Green: May: Would anybody from the audience like to comment with concerns or questions? My name is Ellen May. My husband and I own the property at 215 Ila, it is directly to the west of the proposed construction. I have a short statement I would like to just read to you if I may. I am asking that this variance be denied. Setbacks and other building restrictions are in place for a reason to prevent development which might degregate the neighbor's quality of life, property values, and neighborhood integrity. A variance is an exception to the rule which should be granted only when others are not adversely affected. We have owned 215 Ila, our first home, since 1990 and lived there for ten years. We discovered that we needed more space and a larger house so we moved away with plans to retire back there someday. This block of Ila Street, which is one of the most desired residential streets in all of Fayetteville is an especially charming row of quaint little cottages and a registered historic district. Like many home owners we have sunk our life savings as well as our hearts and souls into this property. The proposed addition, especially the variance which is extending beyond the current footprint will completely block out our morning sunlight into bedroom windows and will block the southern sun from our house and backyard until afternoon hours in the winter months. Ironically, it is their extended addition which they are wanting to build to gain more access to these that takes them directly away from us. The endorsement of the neighborhood association has little merit. No one who would be directly affected by these plans was at their meeting held Sunday, June 23`d. Although I had called the contact person on Friday, June 21 s`, the day I received the notice from the city expressing my concern and asking for more information. I am surprised that the association did not take a closer look at this issue before voting in support. A towering two story structure less than 5' from my property line also destroys the privacy of my backyard and is unsightly and incongruous with the neighborhood. When we originally bought the house an encroachment such as this would have certainly been a negative factor in our decision. Undoubtedly this will affect both our property values and quality of life. In retrospect, city planners now realize that permitting development without restrictions is not a good idea. Since the times when those houses were originally constructed and modified ordinances have been enacted to keep further problems from occurring. To extend a non -complying easement at the expense of neighbors who are directly and negatively affected sets a dangerous precedent and would nullify the very reason we now have such ordinances and a board to oversee them. Two wrongs don't make a right. I ask for this request to be denied based on this fact. If the applicants want to expand their living space have them do so over the existing footprint of their house or move to a more conducive location. Send them back to the drawing board rather than ask us and future generations to live with this inappropriate addition. As a neighbor I would ask Tom and Angie to be more considerate of the concerns and objections their immediate neighbors are raising today. Problems which could have been adverted if they would have come to us in Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 10 the first place with their plans. While there is not an ordinance to legally protect the historic nature of this neighborhood, I would hope that their architect would factor in the unique character of this house in an effort to have any exterior changes to be in keeping with its original design and with others in the area. Perhaps the city has someone who could assist them with this if they want. This situation could be resolved into a win/win where the Scholzens get the space they need while serving as an example of the right way to expand a historic house on a small lot but this is not it. I respectfully ask that you deny this variance request. Green: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Snow: My name is Robin Snow. I live at 205 Ila, which is the lot that is two doors directly east of 211. My husband Jeff Green and I have lived there for a number of years. We have got many concerns about this proposed addition but I will limit my remarks to just two of those concerns. The size and the placement of the addition. The size of this addition proposed is of concern due to its two story nature and its proposed placement on the lot. This structure will sit west of our back yard. We have a view from our backyard that we enjoy fall, winter, and spring. We have a view of the most recognizable historic structure in Arkansas and that is old main. It is lit up every season of the year and it is painted like a Christmas tree at Christmas. We feel that this view increases the value of our property significantly. Especially those of us who graduated from the University, whose parents and grandparents graduated from the University and who work at the University. It is a very significant view for us. If this proposed structure goes in place it will totally obliterate our view of Old Main and we feel that this affects our property values. Also, our other concern is about the variance itself. The variances have already been extended on this piece of property and we feel like to take an inch is ok but to get a mile is a little excessive. We appreciate your attention to this and our heart felt concerns. Thank you. Green: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Reagan: My name is John Reagan. I am Ellen May's husband and I basically want to echo what she has said already but also to add that I think that the way this has been handled by our neighbors is a little bit questionable in the fact that we were not brought into the process early. We found out about it almost too late to do anything about it. Thank God for Tim Conklin and the letter he sent to us otherwise we would not even have known that this meeting was going on. We did attempt to contact our neighbors about this. I feel like we were almost fed misinformation. I am not certain that I am not accusing them but we were not invited to the neighborhood meeting, we were told about it a couple of days after it had happened and what the results were. When we did talk to them, this may just be our interpretation, when I spoke with Angela my understanding was that they wanted to, and I know that they need to do Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 11 something with their garage area. I have worked on that house before and realize that the foundation is separated from the rest of the house. They do need to do some work there. My impression that I was left with in speaking with her was that the only addition would be to take that garage area out and go up with it and that the rest of the going up with was going to happen over the main part of the house which sounded ok to me. It is kind of a rosy picture and I went for it. I explained to my wife that it was acceptable to me but then Ellen spoke with her on the phone and was lead that there would be no west facing windows on this structure. If you can look at your drawing you will see that there are several of them. We just don't feel like we have been given the whole ball of wax here by our neighbors. I noticed that the gentleman that was here before who got his variance approached his neighbors and in my opinion did the right thing in the first place. To keep the affected neighbors out of the loop in a case like this angers me. I think there could have been a lot more honorable way to handle this. I thank you for your time. Green: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? Willis: I am Roxy Willis, I live just east of the property. Like with Robin, that building would obscure my view of Old Main and plus I think that the addition is just incongruous with the entire area. These are tiny lots, tiny houses. If you drove by I think you would understand what we are talking about. Brya: I would just like to make a couple of comments. When I went to the Planning Division and found out if we would need a variance first of all and then what was required, I went and did the research, found out who the adjoining property owners were and submitted that information as required to provide proper notification. The Reagans, while they call themselves neighbors, are actually absentee landlords who live in Winslow. As far as the structure being incongruous with the neighborhood, the style of the structure is basically matching existing materials throughout with wood shingles, etc. Just as a reminder, it is not the variance that we are speaking about that is going to affect any view of Old Main or the neighborhood. It is only the small portion of the footprint that requires the variance. If the variance is denied we will most likely still build a two story structure here as an addition. I understand the heart felt feelings of the neighbors and liking things the way they are but things change and I am sure that in the future, I have lived in several large cities in old neighborhoods and most of those structures do get added onto because people want to live downtown where it is nice, especially when the sprawl happens. They say "Hey, lets go back downtown." The houses though were all built in the 1940's and lifestyles have changed, etc. Things change. Green: Ma'am, did you have a comment? Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 12 Garrison: My name is Betty Garrison. I am at 208 Ila, I am kitty-cornered across the street. This is my third house to live in in Wilson Park. My second to remodel. I may end up purchasing some other house in Wilson Park. That seems to be where I want to live. I have a lot of concern and support the neighborhood association but I too was not notified of any meeting about this house. I can appreciate applying for the variance. I am having a great deal of difficulty approving anything that encroaches on the 7' distance between one house and the property line or anything that is so monumental in size as to obstruct views or change the whole appearance of the house. I would have that no matter where it was in the neighborhood. There are other things that I object to in the neighborhood but I certainly feel like we should speak about what is happening adjacent to us. Brya: I know that you don't actually have drawings of the proposed structure because they were not required to be submitted with the variance application so I did at the Reagan's request fax something in so that everyone here knows what the thing looks like and you have no idea. Here are a few copies of that. Andrews: I have a question. Your neighborhood association doesn't tell you that you are going to have meetings? May: No, and I even called in advance and told the contact person specifically in advance of the meeting that this was presented that I was concerned that I was the adjacent neighbor, and that I had some very strong concerns and would like some more information. Andrews: Ok, so you have no ideas when the meetings are for your own neighborhood association? Reagan: Our neighborhood association doesn't associate much with our neighborhood. Andrews: Our neighborhood association we know a couple of weeks in advance. May: We didn't know and even when I asked specifically two days in advance of the meeting to be told when I could get some more information or how I can get some more information, I didn't even receive a returned call. Andrews: I would get with my neighborhood association and get that corrected. May: I would like to point out that it is true that we live in Winslow now. We decided we wanted more land, a larger house, so we left our dearly loved house on Ila Street with every plan to move back there. We do maintain it as a rental property but I am a business owner here in town and I am still very much connected to Fayetteville, Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 13 although my residence is in Winslow, my heart is still in Fayetteville. That home is the first home I ever owned and the home I hope to settle in and die in. It is not like we are absentee management that don't really care. I would also counter that it is the specific extension beyond the footprint that is causing the problems blocking our southern light. A two story structure is definitely going to be, I would hope that there was a way to be less offensive but it is their right to go up. It is the addition on to the back that is causing the biggest problem for our neighbors to the east who lose their west view because of that 12 or 15' extension. That is also the extension, if you follow the arc of the sun that blocks our southern light. Brya: 1 am sorry but we are not actually extending the footprint to the rear of the lot in any way. Green: It looks like to the north of the proposed addition. Brya: About 4' to the north there where that little deck is between the notch. May: Was that addition approved by somebody or was there a need for that to be? Brya: I believe that predates the zoning ordinances as well. Green: Would a separate meeting with the neighbors involved for their concerns, is it too late to try to have a meeting like that to see if maybe there is a compromise or that their specific concerns can be addressed in the design at this point? Scholzen: I feel the need to say something for my wife and myself'. We in no way meant to deceive anybody. We didn't go door to door and talk to everybody because we didn't think it was going to be that much of a monstrosity as the term has been coming around. Again, this is our first house together. We were married last September here on the town square and are starting a family and we want to establish roots in that house and try to live there as long as we can. We just want to try to build some space there so that we can do that. If I had it to do over again, obviously, I would go around and talk with everybody I think it might be a good idea if we do that and get some ideas. The one thing we considered when doing the plans was what is the best way to preserve the trees, preserve the landscape that is already there. Because our backyard is pretty much a hill that goes pretty steep up it would be pretty difficult to go back. If we go to the east it would be difficult without tearing out that tree and tearing up the deck that is already there. For us we though this would be the best way to preserve the area. From the street you can hardly tell there is going to be an addition at all. The one place where it is really noticeable I guess is on the west side and possibly from the east because you are looking down so you wouldn't notice the addition right there. I know my wife wouldn't intentionally try Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 14 Green: to deceive anybody with the plans. Her understanding of it is that the roof and front peaks so it is not going to be much higher than what the front roof already is. I am sure that it will be a little bit higher but the general height won't change that much overall for the footprint. Again, just to reiterate what Rich said, it is actually to the north where we are extending the wall. There is no further building to the south. I prefer to have it settled today but if we need to do it later we can try to work it out. It sort of sounds like it may be moot for us to go ahead and act on this if there is other possibilities or options of everyone walking away in a win/win situation. I know I would always prefer to find that solution if possible without having to have a winner and a loser if we can avoid that at all. Just one question for our Assistant City Attorney, some concern has been raised by the neighbors about preserving their view and that sort of thing. We don't really have any ordinances or statutes on rights of view or air rights? Whittaker: Those can be handled in the common law. You are right. There is no specific statutes but there is case law out there about that and there is private action between property owners. One of the subsidiary concerns when bulk and area regulations were formulated was to try to preserve view, air, and light. That is certainly something to consider. It shouldn't be your only consideration obviously. As far as view specifically as any sort of property right, that is usually in a case between two private owners. Green: If you are planning to meet together, I probably should reiterate that really the only thing that is causing the variance request at this point is that small 300 sq ft addition to square up the actual outline or the footprint of the building is really the only thing that they are having to have the variance for. As far as the two story structure is concerned they have a perfect right to do that. They just don't have a perfect right to do that without a variance if they are going to extend it beyond that existing footprint. That is what you need to keep in mind I think when you do meet and try to work something out that is acceptable for everyone. Nickle: I calculate the additional expansion to be 254 additional square feet per floor over what they have now. Green: Ok, are there any other questions or comments? May: I do think this would be kind of an opportunity to come away with a win/win. I know that Roxy's house has been remodeled and made into a two story. When you drive down that street and look at it it doesn't jump up and bite you. It doesn't look like an addition, it looks like it has been part of the house. I am hoping, I realize that there is not a historic district ordinance that would mandate, but there must be in the Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 15 world of design a way to get the space you need while making the house still look like it belongs there. And allow as a courtesy if you will, to be mindful of things like our views and our sunlight and things like that and how you expand. I know there has got to be a way. Garrison: I would like to say that my husband and I live in 800 sq.ft. on Ila Street. May: We have 927 sq.ft. Garrison: We built decks on the front and the back and have turned our backyard into a beautiful garden spot which is definitely enhanced by the view of Old Main, not that it makes much difference perhaps but we feel that it increases the property value to have that view and that is why we haven't built off the back of our house. May: Brya: A lot of us have outgrown our houses on Ila Street. Like I said, mix with the situation of either doing something that changes the character of the neighborhood that drew us there in the first place or move away to a place where you can have all the room and the space that you need. That is what we had to do. I would just like to stress that these are small houses but this is by no means an extravagant addition. We are going to end up with a house that has three bedrooms and two bathrooms, one living room. There is not a lot of bells and whistles and extra space. I believe the new house is still not overly sized for the neighborhood. Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, lets all remember that. Green: Is there any other comment? Andrews: I move that we table this until the neighbors have a chance to get together, have a meeting, and decide if they want to come back. Nickle: I second. Green: Ok, I have a motion to table and a second. Can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table VAR 02-17.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Brya: Can I get some guidance from the board as far as timing? I am trying not to drag the building process out too much. Warrick: The next meeting of the board will meet August 5th, which is the first Monday in August. We will need materials to go forward to that meeting no later than two Board of Adjustment July 1, 2002 Page 16 Brya: weeks prior so basically we are looking at a month between now and then. Two weeks for you to schedule your meeting and if you would just call our office and let us know a time frame and what to expect then we will be able to forward that item to the next agenda. So in a worst case scenario, if nothing changes we can just resubmit the same thing. Should the Scholzen's elect to modify the house without requiring a variance, do we need to by that date withdrawal this application, since it has been tabled? Warrick: I would like some sort of notice as to which action you choose to do. A letter requesting a withdrawal from the next agenda would be appropriate if that is what you choose to do. Brya: Ok, thank you. Green: Is there any other item that we wish to come before this Committee? Warrick: Staff has nothing further. Green: Ok, hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.