Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on September 05, 2006 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN BOA 06-2229: (GYSIN, 563) Approved Page 4 BOA 06-2231: (ROBASON, 484) Approved Page 18 BOA 06-2248: (MCDONALD, 367) Approved Page 25 BOA 06-2249: (MCDONALD, 367) Approved Page 25 BOA 06-2250: (THE DICKSON, 483) Approved Page 28 Planning Commission September 5, 2006 Page2 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Nickle Sherrie Alt Robert Kohler Karen McSpadden James Zant (William Chesser arrives later) STAFFPRESENT Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Eric Johnson STAFF ABSENT Andrew Garner Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page3 Nickle: Welcome to the September 5, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting. The first order of business will be approval of the August 7th, 2006 minutes. Zant: I'll move that they be approved as entered. Kohler: Second. Nickle: We have a motion for approval and a second. Any discussion, corrections, etcetera? Seeing none, would you call the roll, Suzanne? Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Eric Johnson and William Chesser are absent. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page4 BOA 06-2229: (GYSIN, 563): Submitted by CARLA & WILLIAM GYSIN for property located at 799 S. WASHINGTON AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI- FAMILY- 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 15 acres. The request is for a variance of the side and rear building setbacks to enable placement of a storage shed 3' from the property lines. Nickle: The first item on our agenda is BOA 06-2229 for property located at 799 South Washington. Suzanne, do you have a report for us? Morgan: Yes. This property was recently before you a few months ago. The applicant was wanting to rebuild a single-family home on the lot. The lot was 10 feet too small width -wise, so they had to come and get a variance for the lot width. That was approved. This is kind of an older neighborhood. All of the lots are typically smaller than usual due to platting of the subdivision with 25 -foot -wide lots. The property is zoned RMF -24, and the applicant has constructed the house -- they're finishing it. Whenever you looked at -- whenever you reviewed the lot width variance request, we took a look at the site plan that's on Page 9 of your report and it showed the removal of the existing home, the location of the new home, and then the relocation of Structures "A" and `B" further south -- or excuse me, to the west of where they were located. These are accessory structures. So the site plan that we looked at showed the new home and the two accessory structures within the allowable building footprint, and that was one of the conditions. After constructing the home, the applicants just would like to move that larger accessory Structure `B" to the corner of the lot, the northwest corner, because of the proximity of it to the home. It's within about 10 feet of the home, based on the site plan, and so the applicant is requesting a variance to put that structure within 3 feet of the rear and side lot line. Staff has reviewed this request and finds that, although there are other accessory structures in the neighborhood that are located near property lines, we do not take those into consideration for approval of these type of requests. We haven't heard anything, any comments from the neighbors on this, but in reviewing the former lot width request, it was stated that those structures were going to be in the building footprint, and staff could not find any special conditions on this property that would not be applicable to others and we are recommending denial of this particular request. Zant: Is this a storage shed, you know, like for lawn equipment? Morgan: Yes, I believe both of them are. The applicant is here and may be able to enlighten us on exactly what to expect of those. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Pages Nickle: Other questions for staff on that report? Is the applicant present? Would you like to identify yourself? Gysin: Yes. My name is Carla Gysin. Nickle: Do you have anything to add? Gysin: Well, I have some pictures and I just was given the report a few minutes ago on the findings that are being recommended. When United-Bilt submitted the permit request addition on the variance, they knew very well that we wanted a shed sitting back on some level. The way it stands now the shed will sit maybe 5 feet from the back of the house. I do have pictures, and it really takes up the yard. And the shed is restored. It isn't brand new, it's maybe three years old, and I would like to respectively request that the variance be granted. Nickle: Did you have a picture you wanted to pass? Gysin: Yes. I'll just pass them to you. Zant: While those are being reviewed, might I ask you a question. Was it you or your builder representative that got the variance six months ago? Gysin: The builder did and we were told that we didn't need to be present for that request. And it's been about nine months now. It's taking them a long time to break ground. Zant: Well, I guess it was granted approximately six months ago. Gysin: Okay. Zant: And what I need for you to share with us in your own words is, one of the conditions of that variance being granted, which I would hope you were aware of, but one of the conditions of that variance being granted was that no accessory structures were going to be allowed to encroach in the setback allowances from the lot line. And then, of course, as they got that variance and as everything proceeded and your structure has been built, you know, I just have to ask you what in particular is the rationale behind now contravening that, you're aware of that agreement that was struck, to where we'd have something to hang our hat on to grant this. Gysin: Welt, I recently became aware that a variance request would be needed. I frankly don't know how to respond to that. We would really just like to set the storage on the back of the property in order to have a yard and Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page6 leaving -- you know, to answer your question, leaving the storage shed where it is really sits literally in the middle of the yard, and, you know, I apologize for any inconvenience. I really don't know how else to state why it is that -- I guess basically I wasn't present for the variance. Initially I was not here for the initial request that the builder gave, you know, requested to the Commission or the Board, and that's my answer. Zant: Okay. See, I can understand where staff would make a recommendation like that in granting the initial variance so that you could in fact build, you know, because it's a little smaller lot and they gave you a 10 -foot variance -- Is that correct, Suzanne? Is was a I0 -foot variance? Morgan: Yes. Zant: -- so that the main structure could in fact be built, but as a condition of granting that, the staff, who are professionally trained and very highly trained, wanted to have an agreement to where we wouldn't be taking those accessory structures and then having them then violating other setbacks at the rear of the lot. So I'm having a problem with this, in all honesty. Gysin: Okay. I appreciate that. Our neighbor next to us, they do have a storage shed on the back of their property basically where we would like to set ours, and putting the storage shed where we would like it to be gives a little bit of a garage. Zant: And you may not have had time to read this, but the staff report here that you were just given references there are probably several properties in that area that have that same condition. Unfortunately, that becomes an enforcement issue because they're in violation of the setback requirement as well. So I thank you for your answer, and it's unfortunate that you didn't have knowledge of some of this earlier. That's it for me. Nickle: Other questions for the applicant? (William Chesser enters the room.) Kohler: A couple of things. There's nothing keeping an applicant to apply for a variance regardless of what past things have been approved or disapproved. Whitaker: Exactly. You can always come back and ask again. Kohler: Yeah. Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Pagel Whitaker: It really comes down to the Board's discretion as to whether to grant the new application, because they're not barred by previous. As a matter of fact, some of them in recent times have even included in some of the conditions the concept that if you want to do x, y, or z you'll have to come back. This is no different than that. Kohler: Right. We've got a request into the ordinance review committee right now on this very subject, that is, accessory structures, and it's for the same reason that the applicant stated is that it basically renders -- when you abide by existing rear and side setbacks, accessory structures end up being right in the middle of the backyard on a typical residential lot, and it renders the backyard, if not useless, close to it. In other jurisdictions they have ordinances that will allow accessory structures to be pushed towards a corner, oftentimes within a couple of feet of the rear and side property lines, and we drafted a request into the ordinance review committee to consider making that part of the code, the UDC, in order to preserve the usability, the functionality, of a backyard. So for that reason I would support the request for pushing that accessory structure back into the corner. We haven't heard from the ordinance review committee. It's been months and months. I can see why it might not be on the very top of their priority list, but still we would get some kind of a response from them because it is an important issue to a lot of people. Zant: Well, Counselor, let me ask you this. Although that may be in the works, there is a proposed ordinance to allow this, but that's not in place at this time, is it? Whitaker: It is not. Zant: It is not, no. And I think when we grant a variance, and I think there has to be -- there has to be some element, and there was, to begin with. There was an element of hardship, you know, or a variance on this smaller lot would probably have never been granted, and it had conditions attached to it, conditions that were accepted by the builder's representative as part of granting that, and to turn around and say that "Well, we'll just ignore that," you know, it's -- and if it were three years, five years down the line, I might look at it differently. I mean, this was just six months ago. The ink is hardly dry on that particular variance. So I just look at it and say I have great difficulty unless I hear a specific hardship other than, well, it would be more convenient, and that just -- I'm sorry, but that doesn't satisfy me. I'm sorry. Nickle: Karen, did you have a question? Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page8 McSpadden: I was wondering whether that alley is used back there, the alley behind the house. Gysin: No. Chesser: Does it exist? Gysin: Somewhat. I don't know how else to -- McSpadden: Could you drive a car down it? Gysin: I don't know if it goes from one end to the other or if it's open on both ends, but you can go down at least halfway. And there is property right directly behind the lot that they put up a fence, not that it makes any difference, but they have put up a fence, a fairly high fence. And I do have a hardship on the property in partway. In building it, the lot tends to get very wet and muddy even in June, and that part of the lot, as it turns out, the shed where we would like it to be is at the top of kind of a hill, so that would be of help in the water draining down instead of sitting in the middle of the water. Nickle: I take it Structure "A" did go away. Morgan: The applicant is keeping Structure "A" as they're showing on the site plan, just shifting it somewhat to the south. The smaller structure is still on the property though. Gysin: Yes. Whitaker: But it stays within the yard and not in the setbacks, so it's not an issue here; is that correct? Gysin: Yes. Nickle: And what is that structure used for? Gysin: Well, we'll probably be using -- I'm not really sure if we're going to use it for tools. It's probably going to be used for tools and ladders. I'm not real clear on that. Nickle: I've got kind of mixed feelings that this Structure `B" is quite a large structure -- Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page9 Gysin: Yes, it is. Nickle: -- frankly, to be put back in the corner, and if you were to turn it the other way as you have it now, in other words, the longer side of the building parallel to the house, -- Gysin: Yes. Nickle: -- and moved it over, more or less center it, I could see maybe a 10 -foot variance or something like that on the rear setback, especially since there's an alley at the rear. I think that could mitigate the rear property problems that might arise and still give you a fairly good-sized backyard to deal with. But I don't know whether that would be something you would entertain. You see what I'm suggesting there? Gysin: I appreciate that. If we could turn it in the other direction, that would open up the yard in doing it as you suggested. It will kind of -- it will look better, my opinion is, to have the door facing towards the street where it will give the idea it's a garage, even if it -- it was going to cost $5,000.00 for the storage shed. Chesser: I have to say that Jim and Bob have got me torn, because in more modern, newer developments I think that we're trying to put setbacks back a little bit, and the question that Bob raises, this issue that the new ordinance is addressing, would that allow her to put the structure in that spot, Bob, the changes that were asked for? Kohler: Would it allow her to put it where she has it now? Where she has it proposed, I mean? Chesser: Where she wants to put it. Kohler: Yes. Chesser: And there is a lot of -- I mean, in favor, there's a lot of -- there are a lot of structures like this over in the historic district. You know, real often a garage is right on the line. On the hand, I'm also swayed by Jim, who points out that we've been, sort of, on this ground already. Nickle: One thing I'll point out to you, this is zoned RMF -24, which that neighborhood is virtually 90 -percent single-family, wouldn't you say? Morgan: Yes. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page10 Nickle: And if it were RMF -4, the rear setback would be 20 feet, would it not? Morgan: That's correct. Nickle: So, you know, that's picking up 5 feet. If you view it -- even though the zoning is RMF -24, that was what was put on the plan back in 1970 or whenever, they just put it there, and it was almost all single-family houses. So why way back then they deemed that that would be appropriate for RMF -24, and now the people that are there are bound by RMF -24 setbacks, etcetera, it's really not recognizing the fact that it's really a single-family neighborhood, and really should be. If you will, I notice they're doing kind of a neighborhood rezoning of the old, Red Arrow District that was all built out as virtually single-family -- Morgan: Yes. Nickle: -- before we had the zoning ordinance, and that was RMF -24 I guess, or maybe 48. I don't know. But, you know, that neighborhood has banded together and they presented that, I don't know whether it's passed or not, to the Council for rezoning of that. Morgan: I believe it's gone to the Council, but it hasn't been -- Nickle: Hasn't been -- So, you know, I think part of this is to recognize this neighborhood for what it really is, a single-family, and look at as if it were zoned RMF -24 and they pick up 5 feet like that. So that would help ameliorate the request if you want to consider the request as is or if you want to modify it in, for instance, a suggestion that would have them turn it the other way. Because I think the fact that it might look like a garage -- from the street it's so far back it won't make any difference. People from the street would not view that and say, "Oh, that's a garage." So that part of it I don't see any logic in, but what's the pleasure of the Board? Zant: Well, I have a question, and I'll put this right to David and say here we have finding under Number 2, the no accessory structure, Chapter 164 of the UDC states "No accessory structure shall be erected in any required setback." It doesn't matter which zoning district, it pertains to every last one of them. Whitaker: That's how I read it. Kohler: Unless they get a variance, which they're requesting now. Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page II Zant: How would you defend that? You know, if we were to grant this, all of a sudden you could have a tidal wave of situations, and all you need is one aggravated homeowners association that this has been denied before, and they may get aggressive and say, "I'm sorry, you didn't allow this for us and you're allowing it here." I have a problem with it. I like consistency. Whitaker: Well, just generally speaking, you probably shouldn't ever base any of your decisions on one single factor of one single finding. Now, the ordinance requires a range of findings to be made and some will mitigate towards granting a variance, some will militate against granting it, and that's where you have to do the balancing act. Zant: I had discussed some of this with Suzanne some months ago, and in some states you need all six findings of fact positive. You know, here we need probably a majority of them to make it worth while and consistent. But, I don't know, I'm just kicking out what my gut feelings are on this issue. I think the staff report is right on and I just don't see the necessity, especially on such a recently granted variance, to then abrogate the conditions that were stipulated at that time and say, "Oh, well, we really weren't serious." Chesser: So you wouldn't even support a compromise of some sort? Zant: Well, explain the compromise to me in terms of specific feet that we're talking about. Well, if we're going to place it, what are we talking about? And if we have to negotiate this, then I want to know what kind of distances and what kind of feet that we're talking about into the setback area. If it's not much, I could probably live with it. If it's a lot, I doubt it. Kohler: Was there any public input? Nickle: I haven't asked for public input. We were still dealing with the applicant. Kohler: Well, I'm just curious about the neighbors. Nickle: I would open it for -- would anyone from the public like to speak on this specific request? Kohler: Did the neighbors send in any letters? Morgan: No, we didn't receive anything in writing or calls. Kohler: You did say in one of your letters that there was no -- something from the neighbors. There was no disapproval from the neighbors; is that right? Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page12 Gysin: Yes. Kohler: What does that mean? Does that mean that they're supportive or they're just not unsupportive? Gysin: I was told by the neighbor that it was quite all right. They thought it was, I guess, fine. Nickle: William. Chesser: Well, the thing that just goes a long way for me is that if you go over to the historic district you see this all the time and it doesn't -- I suspect it would fit in. You know, I know we can't use that, that they're all in violation, but then again, the zoning was superimposed upon structures that could have been built, you know, a hundred years ago. So I tend to support a little more flexibility in this kind of situation when you're on one of these really narrow lots. Zant: Ballpark, how old are these structures? Well, this one is brand new that just got built, but the neighborhood basically is -- Nickle: The neighborhood is mostly `40s and `50s, I suspect. Morgan: The subdivision was plated in 1912, so -- Nickle: It goes on back. Morgan: -- since then. Chesser: Okay. Fair enough. It is a new structure -- Zant: That's even before me. Chesser: -- in an old neighborhood, but I suspect that it wouldn't look particularly out of place in this neighborhood, so that actually -- and I'm telling you, I've seen this a lot of times, a garage in exactly this position on a lot of this kind of nature, so that's what goes a long way for me. I just feel like it would -- Nickle: I just have a little trouble supporting that the side -- as much of a side setback variance, it does go back and it looks like from the photo you brought us that there's a tree right back there, a pretty good-sized tree in the corner. Is that correct? Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page13 Gysin: Yes. Our property line is literally just right in front of that tree, so the tree would be behind the fence. We're going to be putting up a fence. I don't know if that answers your question. Chesser: Can you send those photos back down when you get a chance -- look through them first. Sorry. Nickle: Like I say, I could be supportive of a rear setback of 10 feet. I think that would allow them to put it fairly far back. And if they turned it around the other way -- I don't really see if you turn that building where it's parallel to the rear of the house, I don't think you're going to need that side setback variance that you're requesting. Chesser: Yeah, and let them go back in the setback but only up to a 10 -foot line, you're saying, from this -- Nickle: I think that's not an unreasonable situation, given the fact that if this were an RMF -4 it would be a 20 -foot, so that's 5 feet difference of that 10 feet that I'm talking about right there. So if it were RMF -24, that would be a 5 -foot variance to the rear setback. Chesser: So you're saying that your new setback that you would prefer to see is -- how far off the rear property line are you saying you want to see it at that point? Nickle: If we granted a 10 -foot -- Chesser: 10 -foot variance? Nickle: -- a 10 -foot variance, that would mean it would have to be -- or it could not be further than 10 feet -- or 15 feet from the rear property line; is that correct? Morgan: Yeah, that -- Chesser: Or it could be closer then. Nickle: Right. Chesser: Your point about -- I think a lot of things are sort of mis-zoned in that area. I agree with you there. I can see your point there. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Pagel4 McSpadden: Your proposal would be gaining them 10 feet of clearance between the house and the structure basically? ?: That looks right. Nickle: What is the width -- Structure `B" is 12 feet. So if you were 15 and 12, that would be 27 feet. Chesser: Well, if you moved it -- it's right on the setback line at this point, correct? One side of the structure is sitting on the setback line if I'm reading this drawing correctly. Nickle: That would be correct, and so -- Chesser: So 10 feet would give them 10 extra feet -- Nickle: Yeah. Chesser: -- if we gave them a 10 -foot variance? Nickle: If you want to do more or something like that. My main thing is I think the building should run parallel to the rear of the house and get away from the side setback. I think that would be less objectionable. Again, you do have that 20 -foot alley back there which gives great potential ingress into the property for emergency vehicles or anything like that, which is one reason we have those setback situations anyway. So I'm open to a different figure than I threw out, but I do think it's not necessary for a side setback variance if they are willing to move that building and keep it parallel to the rear of the house. Zant: Well, after all that complex discussion, if one of you good engineering types could make a motion that would address specifics, I just might support it. Have we closed the public hearing? Nickle: We did close the public hearing. Chesser: Well, I'm waiting to hear what Bob will say now. Kohler: I already spoke my support. Chesser: So you're supporting the whole thing? Kohler: That's exactly how it is. I support her request because it's in line with what I feel a change should be made in the accessory structure ordinance Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Pagel5 and how it applies to setbacks, and, you know, I would be supportive of a compromise as well probably. Chesser: Well, see, I find myself kind of in agreement with you. I think there should be a change in the accessory too, but I'm just not sure if we're able to support that -- Kohler: The fact that it's not on the books now doesn't really matter, because the reason we're here is to grant variances to exceptions to ordinances and this is exactly one of the ones that comes up very regularly and it renders backyards less -- you know, almost un -functional when -- I mean, you can see the dotted -in area where this thing would be if it was following the exact ordinance, and I think that that -- the relationship of that to the main building is a bad relationship. Chesser: Well, I agree with you there. Kohler: And so to get it as far out of the way as you can, I think there's -- that this should be as -- now, granted, this is a large one, this is a large accessory building. That photograph floating around emphasizes that. From that view it looks larger than the main building, even though it's not that big, but the other one -- I don't think that helps the cause much, but it's a -- Chesser: What about -- you know, I would probably support something like either the side or the back and let him maybe move it as where they're showing it, but move it over so it doesn't take the side setback but give them just a 3 -foot setback to the rear but keep the side setback as normal. That buys a whole lot more yard than there would have otherwise been, but it seems like -- I feel like I could support that kind of compromise. Nickle: And even in their letter they requested a setback of 3 to 5 feet off the property line. Chesser: Would that be acceptable to the applicant if it were to -- you show it 3 feet from the rear setback -- or 3 feet from the rear property line and 3 feet from the side property line. What I'm saying is, we'll give you the 3 feet from the rear property line, but it will have to be within the side setbacks, so -- which is what? 8 feet. McSpadden: Basically, you're just taking the building and pushing it straight back? Chesser: Moving it 5 feet farther -- no, I'm saying go ahead and let them rotate it and everything just as they're showing it here, because basically we would be giving them a 3 -foot setback on the rear and you could it put it -- Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page16 Nickle: Yeah, we can't dictate -- I don't think it's reasonable to for us to try to dictate how they orient it. Chesser: Or -- Nickle: But by eliminating a side -- or not granting any side setback variance, and they make the call on -- Chesser: Which way? Nickle: -- which way they want it. Chesser: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Nickle: I think that's a more reasonable approach and let them make that decision. Chesser: So I would support a 22 -foot rear setback variance at this time if anybody else would feel that that's fair. Alt: With no side setback -- Chesser: With no side variance, and then leave it to the applicant to decide which direction they would be best suited by putting it. How do you feel about that, Bob? Nickle: Is that a motion? Motion: Chesser: I will move to allow a 22 -foot setback variance to the rear, but not a side setback variance. Nickle: We have a motion for BOA 06-2229 to grant a 22 -foot rear setback variance. That's a motion. Kohler: Second. Nickle: There is a second. Further discussion? Suzanne, would you call the roll, please? Gysin W: Is it possible for me to speak regarding this matter? Nickle: Are you the owner? Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Pagel? Gysin W: Yes. I'm late, but I'm her husband and this is the soonest I could get here. Nickle: Well, we do have a motion to grant this variance, and then after we have our vote I would be glad to hear comment from you. Roll Call: The motion to approve a 22 -foot rear setback variance for BOA 06- 2229 carries with a vote of 4-2-0, with Alt and Zant voting no. Johnson is absent. Nickle: I would be glad to hear a comment. Sorry you didn't -- Gysin W: (inaudible) Nickle: Okay. Very good. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page 18 BOA 06-2231: (ROBASON, 485): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 403 E. LAFAYETTE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is for a reduced front setback on Walnut St. for an existing single-family dwelling and the expansion of an existing nonconforming deck. Nickle: Next is BOA 06-2231 for property located at 403 East Lafayette. And Suzanne, you have that also? Morgan: Yes. This property is located in the downtown area. It was developed quite some time ago. The home itself -- well, the lot itself meets all of the RSF-4 district requirements with lot width because it is on a corner. So it does meet the width requirements on Walnut Street and Lafayette, as well as the area. There's a very small building footprint in which to build. The existing home does encroach in the front building setback along Walnut Street, and the way that the home was built, there's a side door that comes out to Walnut Street and the home is elevated approximately 6 feet above grade at that point, so there is an existing 8 -by -8 deck with stairs going down to the backyard of that property. The applicant requests to place a new deck on the property, as you can see on Page 9 of your staff report, extending the existing landing somewhat along Walnut Street and then going back into the property, back from Walnut Street and expanding it to a larger deck area. Then there is a tree just to the south of that proposed deck. Staff reviewed this in regards to findings and we did find that there is a unique circumstance for this particular property in that the home and structure is built with this exit on to Walnut Street, which does encroach into the setback. We do find, however, that the proposed deck encroaches quite a bit into the setback and would recommend reducing the amount of encroachment by allowing just simply a walkway around the home and then expansion of the majority of the deck usable area in the allowable building footprint. So our recommendation is for approval for front building setbacks to bring the existing nonconforming single family dwelling into compliance and denial of the proposed deck, which significantly encroaches within the front setback, and staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the construction of 6 -foot tall, 5 -foot wide walkway to provide ingress and egress to a deck that will be located within the build -able area of the lot. Zant: Suzanne, I tried to reach you and failed this afternoon in regard to a question I had about this and the staff process. I don't think there's anybody here that would want to deny these good people having a deck. They've got a very large backyard and plenty of room for a deck out there. The question, obviously, is that little side porch and how we can access from that doorway around. Please forgive me for this, but I found the staff Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page19 report a little bit open-ended as to what its recommendation was. It's not very specific. And so I thought, "Well, how do we handle these things?" Does staff attempt to negotiate these things with an applicant at the point where they're applying for a variance and say, "You know, we might not be able to" -- or let's say you do all your research and findings and everything. When do people see the staff report? Today? I mean, is it pretty much late on in the process? Morgan: The staff reports are -- the final staff reports are available the Friday before the meeting. Zant: About one weekend? Morgan; Right. If time allows, then staff will get with the applicant beforehand and try to work with them. Sometimes we have some requests that are pulled off the agenda because of either our proposed recommendation, what we think we're going to recommend, or we find a different solution. In this case I didn't have an opportunity to coordinate with the owner, the applicant, to give them my recommendation before the staff report went out. I guess I had a feeling for what they were trying to do and just thought there would be a possibility, finding that there seemed to be a hardship on this property, that there was a way to allow the construction of deck, but mainly within the zoning requirements. Zant: I think my question boils right down to this and, that is, this situation probably needs to just simply be negotiated. It's just a question of whether staff had ample time to do it or whether we're going to have to do it at this level. Morgan: There would be a variance required -- Zant: Regardless. Morgan: -- regardless. Zant: I understand that. Morgan: And, you know, it's not typical that staff -- typically we just recommend approval or denial. It's very rare that we just propose something of our own, but I was trying to give a compromise to -- Zant: Well, that was noble, I thought. Morgan: I tried. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page20 Nickle: Other questions of staff on this right now? Is the applicant present? Yes. Would you identify yourself? Robason: I'm Heather Robason and this is my husband, Kelly. Nickle: Do you want to add anything? Robason H: Yeah, a couple of things. I did try to call Jeremy today. I don't know if he's in town. I talked with him before we submitted the application about our variance. I'm not clear -- and I don't know if we have a sketch. We didn't have the attachment, Page 11, in our e-mail that you sent or the website link -- so I'm not real sure what you're recommending, but here is what we have. Do you have a little sketch at all? Morgan: Yes. Robason H: I wouldn't support that in that we potentially could add on in this 25 -foot building setback. We have a sun porch back there and our thoughts are it's a two-bedroom house with a sun porch and we would like to someday turn it into a three-bedroom, and that would be the place to do it. So that deck, if it were built like that, would -- ?: Would have to go. Robason H: Oh, yeah. I do have some pictures as well. Morgan: You can have that. It's an extra. Robason H: Okay. Thanks. Just to kind of show you, I don't have (inaudible). We live next to the Catholic church that's been turned into condos, and they also have kind of a porch. I read something about the pedestrian traffic, so that's why I took that picture, just to show you where the sidewalk was and the porch that they have, which is almost adjacent to ours. The existing porch is really run down. We purchased our house about three years and have been renovating it just about every day since we moved in. We would like to replace the deck at least from the 8 -foot by 8. It's hard to put more than two people on the deck. It's just very small, and so we take our chairs down to the grass and then bring them back up, so there is need for more ramp. Robason K: We did get your e-mail on Friday, so we did have a chance to discuss it. I know that really, probably, what we're -- I believe what we're going to discuss is the variance, but we talked about, you know, different ways to Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page21 situate the deck to try to fit in with your requirements. We just kind of felt like having it straight across and most of what would be going further into the backyard would be stairs leading up anyway. Nickle: One of the things that I want to point out, again, this is one of those older lots, and when it's a corner lot with a 55 -foot frontage, a corner lot, because of the two -- essentially you're going to have two front setbacks. On a narrow lot like this, it presents even more challenges to a reasonable design format. And if you look at it right now, I'd say approximately a third of the house is built within the building setback, which shows you part of the problems that owners face when they go into these historic areas and come up with a lot. But it's especially disadvantaged when it is in fact a corner lot as this one is because it really, really just gives a very, very narrow situation in which to construct. And you see that they've got plenty of rear setback there, because it was a deep lot, but when you're on a corner lot that just presents many more challenges. I can tell you that from experience. I've tried to deal with it before myself. Any other questions for the applicants? Kohler: Were you proposing to cover any part of the new construction? Robason H: Yes. It would be the same portion that's covered right now. We want to change the roof line to match the roof line of the house. There should be an elevation in your package. Chesser: So just the portion that's dissected that shows this existing upper deck to be removed, but then it would be replaced with more covered deck, with (inaudible) extended out? Robason K: No, it won't come out any further towards Walnut. Basically that portion will be the same size. Chesser: But this will be torn off and replaced, essentially? Robason K: Right. Chesser: That's what I was asking. But you'll probably keep this roof pitch and extend it out so that it matches; is that what you're saying? Robason H: That's correct. Instead -- Chesser: Who's the architect, which one of you? Where did you have this done? Robason K: She's the engineer. I'm the -- Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page22 Chesser: The engineer. Okay, I see. Nickle: That's expressed on this side elevation right there, that small roof. Chesser: Oh, I'm sorry. Kohler: Of course, you can build anything you want inside a setback under 30 inches, right, but because of the grade change -- Robason H: That's correct. Kohler: -- you're at 6 feet, correct? Robason H: Yes. Chesser: No offense to staff, but I have to say I prefer the applicants' drawing. Robason K: I know earlier you asked the other folks here -- if it matters, we did poll our neighbors as well, at least on either side. We've got -- across at the Lafayette Lofts, we have Wyatt and Marsha Smith. They were supportive of the deck design and what we wanted to do, as were Renee and Donald Clay to our east. And then Andy and Kristin -- I'm blanking on the last name -- across the street, they were supportive as well. Nickle: Other questions, comments for the applicant? I'd like to open it up to -- Did you have something? Chesser: Well, no, I see it now. I was wondering about the height. So the height is actually -- what is it? 30 inches is the maximum? Morgan: Yes. You can have a structure that's 30 inches or smaller -- or less in a setback without a variance. Nickle: I would like to open it up for public comment and questions. Anyone here that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board then. Chesser: Well, I certainly have no problem with the repair of the existing side porch or the -- I mean, I guess I'll call that a repair. Kohler: It's a total rehab, isn't it? Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page23 Chesser Zant: Chesser: (Laughter) Zant: Chesser: Motion:. I think anything you did to that would be better, though, and they are in an extremely difficult situation, given their lot configuration. Well, do you want to make a motion then to approve it as submitted? Well, I don't know. Is it going to be shot down? Not by me. Not if it worthless to do so McSpadden; Let's give it a try. I move we approve BOA 06-2231. Chesser: Second. Nickle: We have a motion and a second, and a third, to approve BOA 06-2231. Any further discussion? Kohler: Well, we did have two -- there were two different -- Chesser: Oh, that's true. I apologize. Kohler: They're two different requests, I guess. Zant: There's a front and a side, isn't there? Chesser: Yes. Kohler: Well, it's to bring the existing nonconforming into compliance and then the deck issue. McSpadden: Do we vote separate on both of them? Chesser: No. Kohler: No, we can do this at -- Chesser: I would move that we take staff recommendation of approval of the front variance, the front setback variance, and then we also approve the Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page24 proposed deck even though it would significantly encroach with the front setback, despite staff s recommendation. Nickle: The proposed deck as seen on Page 9 of 14 of staff report? Chesser: Yes. 9 and 10, yes. Nickle: Okay. Just for clarification, did everybody follow that? Did we cover everything that we needed to cover, Suzanne? Morgan: Sure. I think McSpadden made the motion. Is that not correct? Nickle: Yes, she did. Chesser: Sorry. Morgan: Were you okay with that? McSpadden: I just -- Yeah. I move we approve it as proposed. How is that? Morgan: That sounds good. Nickle: All right. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Suzanne, would you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2231 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Johnson is absent. Robason H: Thank you. Robason K: Thank you. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page25 BOA 06-2248: (MCDONALD, 367): Submitted by KEVIN T. & MELANIE J. MCDONALD for property located at 2016 NORTH GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI -FAMILY- 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.72 acres. The request is for a 19' variance from the required 25' front setback to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance. BOA 06-2249: (MCDONALD, 367): Submitted by KEVIN T. & MELANIE J. MCDONALD for property located at 2032 NORTH GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI -FAMILY- 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.72 acres. The request is for a 7' variance of the required 25' front setback to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance. Nickle: Next is BOA 06-2248 for property located at 2016 North Gregg Avenue. And I guess Jesse is Andrew today; is that right? Jesse: I'll finish it up today. Nickle: All right. Thank you. Zant: Are you going to hear 2249 right with it? They're together in our packet. Jesse: I'll present them together and if you'll just vote on them separately, that will work. This is two existing four-plexes on Gregg Avenue. One is located at 2016, the other is at 2032. They were on a single piece of property, were developed together at the same time period. Recently a lot split was approved to put these on two separate lots. That's why we've presented them as two separate items, although they're completely related. The property is zoned RMF -24. Based on the research that Andrew had done, these structures were built prior to the current zoning regulations and setbacks and also prior to the adoption of the Master Street Plan, which significantly changed the right-of-way requirements from 30 feet from centerline to 45 feet from centerline, which by looking at the survey that's provided on Page 8 of 16, would obviously -- created one and created the majority of the setback encroachment for the other building at 2016. The applicants are requesting two variances: a variance of 19 feet for 2016 Gregg and a 7 -foot variance for 2032 Gregg. As I stated, the majority of the problems were created after the structures were built. As we see with nonconforming structures, they're severely limited as to how much improvements you can do for additions without a variance being granted. So the literal interpretation of designing regulations would present a hardship for this owner. Staff is recommending approval of each of the separate variance requests with four conditions of approval. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page26 Nickle: Questions for staff on this? Kohler: Well, none of this would -- we wouldn't be talking about any of this if the 15 -foot right-of-way dedication had not happened, right? Fulcher: Pretty much. It's looks like it's actually 18 feet for one of the structures. If you look on Page 8, the 2032 Gregg, it needs an 18 -foot approximate -- it has an 18 -foot setback, so that right-of-way extension didn't quite cover all of that. That may be more due of the time that it was built and the regulations at that time. Kohler: Okay. Nickle: Other questions for staff? Is the applicant represent? McDonald: Yes, sir. I'm Kevin McDonald, the owner. Nickle: Okay. Anything you want to add? McDonald: No. I think staff covered it. Nickle: Anyone in the audience like to speak to these two requests, because we're going to consider both of them? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board. Kohler: I move that we approve both requests as stated with the four staff recommendations. Zant: I'll second. Whitaker: If I could just ask you, since they are separate agenda items, to handle them as two separate votes. Nickle: The first on 06-2248. Kohler: Okay. Does that mean that there are no conditions of approval on the first one? Fulcher: Four conditions of approval apply to both. Motion: Kohler: Okay. I move that we approve 06-2248 with the four staff recommendations. Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page27 Zant: I second. Nickle: A motion and a second. Any other discussion? Would you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2248 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Johnson is absent. Nickle: All right. I will entertain a motion now, and we've already discussed it, on BOA 06-2249. Kohler: I'll move -- Zant: I'll move -- Go ahead. Kohler: No, you go ahead. Zant: No, go ahead. We'll keep the pattern. I'll second. Kohler: Okay. I move that we approve 06-2249 with the four staff recommendations. Zant: I'll second. Nickle: A motion and a second. Any other discussion? Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2249 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Johnson is absent. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page28 BOA 06-2250: (THE DICKSON, 483): Submitted by COLLINS HAYNES for property located at 608 W. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a 0' setback on Dickson Street and Gregg Avenue. The current zoning requires a 5' setback. Nickle: All right. Let's move on to BOA 06-2250 for property located at 608 West Dickson Street. Jesse, do you have that as well? Fulcher: You bet. Nickle: Thank you. Fulcher: This is property located at 608 West Dickson Street. It is zoned Central Commercial. This is the Mr. Tux Building, I'm sure most everyone is familiar with, which was built -- I don't have the approximate date, but we know it was many, many decades ago, prior to the current regulations we have on the books today. As with this structure, most of the structures within the downtown Dickson Street area are built up to the sidewalk, sometimes within the right-of-way if the right-of-way line is not at the sidewalk. The applicants are requesting a 5 -foot front setback variance from Gregg Avenue from Dickson Street. This is a -- you could say the applicants make it into a little bit more, but an expansion or a remodel of this structure and are wanting to expand this to the right-of-way line for a 0 -foot setback to accommodate this new approximately 55,000 -square - foot building. Looking at pretty much the existing structures in the downtown area, I think from staff's point of view the work that's been put into the Downtown Master Plan, and while the ordinances associated with that have not been approved, the policy document has been approved. The zoning map and regulations are currently at City Council, actually going tonight, and the request to put this at a 0 -foot setback is exactly what the ordinance is pushing for, to allow this built -to line to create more of a street-scape environment in the downtown area. Based on the policies that are trying to be put in place by that document, staff is recommending approval for this request with five conditions of approval. Condition Numbers 1, 2 and 3 I'd like to touch on real quick. Number 1, looking at architectural elements such as balconies, overhangs and awnings, those cannot encroach beyond the 0 -foot setback. If it were approved this setback would apply to all of those features. In the C-3 zoning district above the fourth story there is a 15 -foot setback requirement which is required. That's Condition Number 2. And Condition Number 3 is a little different in that the doors on the street level should not open to the sidewalk. They would then at that point impede the sidewalk traffic, so those should at all times be opening inwards into the structure. The other two conditions are fairly straightforward. Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page29 Zant: I have a question, sorry, on Number 3, that as a former owner of a retail store in a downtown area and I looked at Number 3, and I thought, "Whoops, inward turning doors." I assume that we have some sort of departmental review process. Does the fire department weigh in on some of these recommendations? I just wonder what the reaction is on life safety with doors that you don't want to open outwards in an establishment. Now, this isn't a bar or a theater or what -have -you, but nonetheless, I'd like your response to that. Fulcher: Yeah. The fire department would review. As an interior finish -out or a building permit, they would be assigned a review and would review this for all of their ingress and egress requirements, stairs, access, openings, and if the door openings in one direction is something that they look at and they state that it needs to open outward for whatever reasons, that obviously would somewhat trump this, I guess you would say. That's more of a -- Zant: They would override that condition if they saw -- Fulcher: Well, I wouldn't -- what I was about to say -- I mean, it wouldn't override this condition. It may be something that we have to bring back as an amendment to these conditions of approval. We could modify this possibly to say that in the event that the fire department requires that these open a different way. Kohler: I would just recommend striking "out onto the sidewalk where they could potentially." I would say, "The doors on the new structure at the street level shall not obstruct pedestrian traffic." Because they can open out if you recess them back in. Audience: Yeah, that's exactly what I'd say. Kohler: So, anyway. We're not there yet. Nickle: We're not quite there yet. Kohler: We're not there yet, no. Nickle: Is the applicant present? Would you like to address this? Identify yourself, please. Haynes: My name is Collins Haynes, and the request is pretty straightforward. We're just trying to recreate the street scene that exists there now. Where this building will go there's almost a 40 -foot -wide curb -cut in along that Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page30 street. There's no sidewalk. It's pretty tough to walk through there. What we're doing is just bringing this building out to match what exists on Dickson Street. I'd like to address the door issue later if I could. Nickle: Okay. Did you have a chance to review staff recommendations? Haynes: Yes. It's good. This is way complete. This is incredible. Nickle: I don't remember -- I remember Mr. Tux when it went in there. I think that thing may have been a service station before that, if I recall correctly. Haynes: It was indeed. We had a legacy title done on that and it actually dates back to the `20s and `30s as a gas station. It was vacant for a long time. The gas station was removed and we still -- then that was removed, excuse me, and then actually it was a house and a residence, and then that was torn down to accommodate the present retail use there. Nickle: I assume the tanks are gone? Haynes: Yeah. Well, for Phase 1 and Phase 2, yeah, so far, no problem. All we have to worry about right now (inaudible). Nickle: Any other questions for the applicant? Chesser: Just out of curiosity, where is Mr. Tux relocating; do you know? Haynes: That's something -- We are working with them now. It's in Fayetteville. Chesser: Are they going to stay in the building? Haynes: It's in Fayetteville though. Chesser: I was just curious. I'm sorry. Nickle: Do you want to address that door issue now? Haynes: No. I think what Mr. Kohler said is absolutely true. I mean, the door is going to have to swing out. I mean, there's no way around it. I'm going to have to swing these doors out. On Dickson Street I realty don't have a problem because the sidewalk is so big there. On Gregg I've got a problem, but I can finesse that. I can finesse my egress pattern. I just need a minimum sidewalk width, you know, that I have to hold. If you want to give me 5 feet, 6 feet, whatever, then I'll hold that. Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page31 Fulcher: I think the way it's been reworded, as long as it does not -- The doors on the structure on the street level shall not open such that they obstruct pedestrian traffic." Haynes: You're saying -- so the outside edge of my door swing can't be past the limits of my building line; is that what you're saying? Fulcher: They cannot obstruct pedestrian traffic. So, I mean, I guess if the sidewalk is dead adjacent to the wall of the building, then those doors should not extend such that they do that -- extend into the sidewalk area. Morgan: If you're looking for a specific measurement, we can get that to you. Haynes: No, no. I'll just hold them back behind the building line. We'll limit our extent of the swing to the limits of the building perimeter. Nickle: Okay. So do you have a new wording for Number 3 then? Fulcher: Yes. Just remove part of the sentence. "The doors on the new structure at the street level shall not open such that they could obstruct pedestrian traffic." Alt: So "out onto the sidewalk" should be stricken from that sentence? Fulcher: Yes. Nickle: Shall not open where they could potentially obstruct pedestrian traffic? Fulcher: Yeah. Nickle: Okay. Kohler: And, you know, that amount isn't up to us to decide, not this board. Alt: No. Kohler: And I don't think this Board can say that, you know, your edge of your door has to be to the perimeter of the building. That's up -- for you all to work out. ?: The sidewalk that we're required to put in is 6 -feet wide. That's a city standard. If it's a 8 foot 4, right now there's like 8 feet 4 from the back of the curb to the face of the building, so that might be some, you know, 30 inches in there we could play with. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page32 Haynes: I certainly understand. I understand the intent of what you're asking for. Nickle: You know, even an alcove can work if absolutely necessary. Chesser: Can I be clear? Someone will determine what potentially obstructing pedestrian traffic means at some later level, either a building inspector or a planning department or something? Fulcher: Yes, in its full review. Chesser: That's fine with me. Nickle: Other questions? You've had a chance to read all of these. I think they're fairly straightforward. Zant: In conclusion, I would just say to the gentleman, it looks like a very fine and worthy project and will be a fine addition to the street. Haynes: Thank you. Nickle: I didn't ask for public comment because I don't see anyone else out there, so we'll bring it back to the Board for consideration and a motion. Motion: Zant: I'll move that we accept BOA 06-2250 including the five recommendations with a modification to Condition 3 that it read, "The doors on the new structure at the street level shall not open where they would potentially obstruct pedestrian traffic." Chesser: I'll second that motion. Nickle: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Suzanne, would you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2250 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Johnson is absent. Nickle: We're going to have our July minutes with the next packet, so we'll be able to approve those. Other than that, I think we're adjourned. Morgan: Is that June? Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page33 Nickle: For June. Morgan: June. Okay. Whitaker: Before you leave, -- Nickle: Yes. Whitaker: -- this continues to come up and nothing is happening, I promise you. If you want the setback changes for accessory buildings, accessory structures, to have -- to be drafted and presented, you're going to need to push harder, because it's basically on the back burner by the Ordinance Review Committee. I don't know what staff -- if staff has put together any tentative proposals on that. I know there was talk of it. I never saw anything. But nothing is happening and it's not going to happen unless you push harder and renew your effort to get something to change, because this has come up now month after month after month and -- Nickle: We do not have a specific document that we've said, "Here, this is what we think you need to consider to pass?" Whitaker: I would say that you did not send a specific document. If you remember, it was two resolutions saying what you would like to see happen. No specific ordinance language was ever drafted. Kohler: I thought that's what they do. Whitaker: Yeah, but it didn't happen. Kohler: Well, we're not planning and zoning, so I trust that we cannot opt a resolution to send to Council. Nickle: No, we can't. Whitaker: That's right. You cannot. Nickle: Could we ask you to do something like that? Whitaker: My point is, you need to send a message that you would really like something to actually happen with this, because it is -- you know, I've sat here with this Board over five years and I've seen that. Nickle: Who is the current chair of that Ordinance Review Committee? Is that Brenda? Board of Adjustment September OS, 2006 Page34 ?: I thought it was Brenda. Whitaker: Yeah, I think it's Alderman Thiel. Chesser: Could we draft something for their consideration? Nickle: Yeah, let's draft a -- Whitaker: I would certainly think that planning staff could put together something, because I don't want something coming out of here that's then going to make your job impossible to do. Nickle: Well, maybe what we ought to do -- Whitaker: We need to see something and make some progress on it. Nickle: Why don't we see if you all can come up with something for us to look at and then talk about it a little bit and then -- something that you think is reasonably enforceable, etcetera, etcetera -- and we can discuss that and if we like it then I can write a letter as chairman of the Board of Adjustment to chair of the Ordinance Review Committee and submit this for their speedy consideration. Whitaker: It will move a lot faster if there is actually proposed ordinance language. Alt: And if we stay on top of it and see where it is. Whitaker: As you know -- you know, this is no secret to anyone here, I hope -- there are 8 million very large new concepts that are constantly pushing the smaller ones out of the way. As was alluded to, there's Downtown Master Plan trying to enact code to actually put the policy document into effect. Any number of things. The landscape ordinance finally passed, I guess. But a lot of these things as far as the Ordinance Review Committee's agenda were large and higher priority and kind of pushed things out of the way and it got lost in the shuffle. And my point is, if you give them something you just need to get it back and run with it, I think, if it's -- Kohler: Also, too, we've got some new members since we drafted that, and from what Jim was saying earlier, you know, you may not be in total agreement with what we wrote and, you know, I guess we have to speak -- or when we resubmit, it's in the present. I mean, it's the Board as it stands now, not as it stood then. So maybe some of that language needs to be changed. Maybe -- Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page35 Whitaker: We would bring it back to you first. Nickle: Yeah. I think if they can come up with some kind of suggested language and so on and so forth, that's the time for us to discuss that. If we're all comfortable with it, then we can go at it in a more formalized manner. And you have to respect their time. If we can give them a concise "Here's what we really think you need" -type deal "and this comes with staff's blessing," etcetera, "and this is what the Board of Adjustment thinks, and here, look at it, vote it up or down." I mean, if we give it to them in a simple format that doesn't take a lot of their time to consider, I think that will help too. Zant: Would it help if it went to both the Ordinance Review Committee and another copy to the Planning and Zoning Commission at about the same time and let them look at it, because they're the advisory board to the Council. Whitaker: Procedurally you would go to -- Kohler: It would really get lost then. Whitaker: -- normally you would go to Planning Commission before you even got to Ordinance Review. I'm not one to say, "Don't go to Planning Commission," but procedurally the idea had already been presented to Ordinance Review and it was just simply -- it's still pending there. Nothing has happened with it. I think it's proper at this point just to stay with that. You just have to make some more noise. There's a lot of things going on and it's easy for, like I said, the smaller items like this to kind of get brushed out to the side, because everybody's got -- I know not only does the Council have an entire idea of what they want to accomplish by the end of the year, I know that our divisions do too. Planning has put out goals and work programs as what will get passed in what order, and the big things sometimes knock the little things right off the track, and I think that's what's happened here. I wanted to say that to you because month after month I keep hearing Bob's frustration and I was becoming increasingly frustrated with the fact that nothing was still happening. I will be more than happy to sit down with whoever in your division wants to take the lead on this and get something -- I envision that it can be fairly short and sweet if it only pertains to accessory structures of a certain size and proportion to the principal structure. Kohler: I think the way we drafted it was that anything that qualifies as an accessory structure. Now, maybe we need to make it -- limit the size and the height. Maybe we need to -- but that's part of the review process. Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page36 Whitaker: Some work was already done on that with some changes to what percentage of proportion -- Kohler: 50 percent. Whitaker: You know, there was a time when accessory structures were coming in that were larger than the principal structure. Kohler: What's the criteria of that 50 percent? Is it square footage? Is it volume? It's not clear on what 50 percent means. Fulcher: I think it was -- I don't remember the exact language. Morgan: 50 percent of the size. Kohler: 50 percent of the size. Fulcher: You know, so if you have a two-story house that's 2,500 square feet, then you're limited to -- Kohler: It's not volume? It's not height? There's no height factor in there either. Morgan: Right. Build an accessory (inaudible). Nickle: Well, since our planning staff has so little to do, they can come at us with some recommendations -- Zant: Along those lines. Nickle: -- because I think, you know, those are some obvious things that we really didn't consider. Okay. Yeah, should there be a height restriction? Kohler: Accessory clock tower. Nickle: Should there be something like that? And by the same token, I hate to see the city going so far in one direction that you're going to start to eliminate some of the things that make Fayetteville unique. For instance, probably under our codes, you know, the architectural award-winning tower out there on Old Missouri Road, you talk about variance, they would have to get something about this thick full of variances to build that structure today, and yet it's unique to the city. Kohler: On the cover of Architectural Record? Board of Adjustment September 05, 2006 Page37 Nickle: Yeah. I mean, you know, it's a unique thing. I hate to see us becoming over-ordinanced to create a sameness that somebody will look around in 50 years and say, "Gee, this looks like Levittown," if you know what I mean. Which is not any of this Board's -- that was just a personal opinion. Anyway, other than that -- Zant: I don't think that will happen with these hills. Nickle: -- are we adjourned? (The meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m.)