HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/21/1987
"
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JAN~ARY 21", ,1987
PAGE FIVE
dously. The average customer account with the amount of sal es is no probl em
at all. It has the largest customer amounts of any in the State. As far as
the letter board being recognized, he has only been at the store for three weeks
and when he has fail~,d to put something on it he hears not only from the
employees but from the customers. They ask why there are no specials on it.
The sign was highly recognizable for Prescotts and. they passed ,it on to me. It's
worth it weight in gold.
Ms. Hintz stated that it would be valuable n~ar ,thernain Sentry sign.
Mr. Eichman replied that he thought so too.
Mr. Johnson stated that the only problem is that people would have to read the
Sentry Foods before they read the letter board; there is a time factor.
Ms. Hintz stated that once people know it is th~ Sentry grocery store they will
look at the letterbo9r:9J:QT,Ji1e:, specials. The important thing is to locate it
near the right store so that it can be identifigd.
Mr. McGee saidthey are looking at a variance for the Southland Avenue setback,
but not for Sawyer Street. In orger to. locate it~tth~25 ft.. setback, they
will locate it in the parking spaces and theywfll'navetwo'-to~three of the. spaces.
Mr. Johnson stated thCl~ il1ta~ing the measurements, he determined that they would
be 1 os i ng one ex; sting parki og sta.1l.
Ms. Hintz stated that they could have deleted all of these parking places which
are non-conforming. . The Board never'feel $ SO b4dwhen\'ll: rem'?V~}1. ~on-conformi ng
space. ; .
Ms. Hintz moved approval of the variance from Southland Avenue, for the 6 ft.
setback with the c.ondition that the letterboard sion be located at thesame
spot in conjunction with the principal Sentry FoOds-store sign. Motion seconded
by Mr. Kimberly. Motion carried 4-0.
Ms. Hintz mClved approval of the 0 ft. :front yard setback from Sawyer Street.
Motion seconded by Mr. Kimberly. .Motion deni ed 0-4.
With regard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated that it isclear that some
variance is needed forone street or the other, because otherwise the sign would
be located in the middle of the traffic area. '. Given that a variance is necessary,
this is the minimum variance that the Board can'see fit and the hardship exists
to thi s deg ree.
Mr. McGee stated that these conditions did pre-date the Ordinance causing a
hardship. "
Mr. Kimberly stated that Sawyer Street is expanding in a growing area of the City
and we won't have another Murdock Street problem.
CItern~ 3~O;OUTH KO~LLER STREET. - Landmark Ltd. III
Hr. Lamine explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow Stein
Garden Center to erect a 10 ft. hiqh fence around its outdoor aarden merchandise
display and storage al'ea. The Fences and Hedaes Section of the City of Oshkosh
Zoni~g Ordinance requires that fence height not exceed 6ft.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 21, 1987 -
PAGE SIX
Ron Detjen stated that he is a partner in Landmark Ltd. III, and that this location
is the former Spencer/Wells building. They are requesting a variance for the
fence at the Stein Garden Center. Stein is applying for the variance, and Landmark
ltd. III is the owner. The display area which will be fenced in will have a number
of plants, trees, shrubs, bark and other materials. Some of this is in paper
bags and they are not interested in havi ng the debri s and the bark movi nC] around
the facility. They want to protect that. At this time he provided a site plan
for the Board to review. Stein Garden Center has indicated that this is a large
area to control the garbage, plus the wind, and they want to maintain a clean
area. They have 15 acres of development. He didn't want the neighbors in the
residential area to object to the traffic or the litter. This would allow him to
protect the neighborhood and his property. The hardship is that a 6 ft. fence
may not protect him from theft and satisfy his needs. Six ft. doesn't do it, but
an 8 ft. does. His concern, like Menard's, is that they handle materials that are
wind driven such as fertilizer. He didn't want this to affect the condition of the
neighborhood. He owns the property and the property to the north. They want the
fence between those two si tes, they want the protection and they don I t want to take
a chance. With regard to the 5 ft. setback for the fence, he didn't disagree with
Planning but he felt that it was dangerous to provide the 5 ft. setback because it
is easy to neglect an area that is out of view. It is out of our view, but the
people who are going to see it are their neighbors. Five feet would create a
hardship for the neighbors. If they put it on the line with the trees and the _
plants in that area on the other side of the fence they won't have to worry or
concern themselves with the debris. Steins would maintain the fence between their
store and ours. The fence in itself is not unattractive. A building vacant for
.years is unattractive. They want to preserve what they have done and they don't
want the residential neighbors and the tenants in the other buildings complaininq
about the material coming in from Steins.
Mr. Lamine stated that he had mentioned the 5 ft. setback andthgt it be landscaped
and maintained. Halt/ever, maybe he was not very clear. He would be requiring that
it be maintained. - .
Larry Spellman, Spellman Building System Inc., informed the Board that they had
already poured concrete up to the property line. . Over $100,000 in concrete.
Mr. Detjen stated that he is in realty and that he has done a lot of building in
the community. The intent of the 5-ft. setback is for good reasons, but the
setback is not aesthetically appropriate here. They may in the future come back
to request a permi t to run a fence the complete 1 ength of the bac k of the bui 1 ding.
A lot of people are putting up houses in that area. It might be more attractive
to close it off completely. He wouldn't want to have a retail customer complain
about the clutter that is blowing around. He didn't want that on the property that
he owns. It would be a hardship to expect the neighbors to police the tenants and
to clean up their yards. They would like to get it closed off because it is a
windy area. Whether the fence is 8 ft. or 10 ft. is up to the Board and Mr.
Spellman. He reiterated that he has a number of concerns with protecting his
property. It is important to attend to the mai ntenance of the property.
Mr. Spellman explained that the north end of the building is all concrete. .They
had inquired about the fence height and were told that there was a ~LBft. helght
1 imitation on residential, but there was no 1 imitation on cOlJllT1ercta.l",,". ThE:Y do
have a lot of concrete in front. Setting it back the full length of" that prSPl=rty
2 to 2 1/2 sq. ft. is extreme,..
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 2,1, 1987
PAGE SEVEN
Mr. Lamine stated that there are two residential properties abutting. He had no
problems from this paint on how far they set that back. It is all the same property.
This was annexed recently and is zoned R-2. He had some concerns with the 10 ft.
high fence and the 25 ft. setback. In looking at the other businesses which are
familiar, Shopko meets the setback and K-Mart meets the setback. With no setback
a 10 ft. high fence will look less like a fence and more like a buildinq.
Ms. Hintz stated that she would only approve a 10 ft. high fence if it were located
where a building could be located.
Mr. McGee further explained that if a fence is going to exceed the 6 ft. height,
the Board I s interpretation has been that when itmeet$ the setback where you caul d
build a building, they see no reason not to allow it.
Mr. Detjen stated that regardless of the fence height, 10 ft., 12 ft., the fence
will be more attractive than the building. They have to Took at the affect it
will have on those people involved. The neighbors do have a right to expect it to
be maintained. From his standpoint he was not concerned with whether it would be
6 ft. or 8 ft. The hardship would be for them not to be able to put up the
appropriate height fence which would create a hardship for the adjoining property
owners. He repeated that he owns the building and the one to the south. If he
believed that it would be detrimental visually he would not allow him to do it.
Mr. Spellman stated that he would ask the neighbors what their preference would be.
Assuming that the Board will allow him the 10 ft.. fence as opposed to the 6 ft.
which would close their property in. They have a lot of their stores in residential
areas and it is a problem in that the debris goes from the sales yard into the
residential properties. This is their tenth store and a 10 ft. fen,ce is not some-
thing that they made up yesterday. That is what works best for them. Inas much
as there is only 100 ft. to the north, there really is no connection with the
neighbors. They plan to do whatever the neighbors wQul d 1 ile.
Mr. Lamine stated that the other problem is the future neighbors in the R-2 district.
Those li ghts have to be shi el ded.
Mr. Spellman replied that they are not opposed to slats in a 6 ft. high fence if
it is not objective. They want to get along in the community.
Mr. Detjen stated that he is a neighbor of the property and his concern is that he
wants the fence to protect the balance of his property. He spent 1.8 million in
the store. He knew from experience of owning properties that the burlap bags rip
and they are going to create a problem.
Mr. Spellman stated that with this type of an operation a lot of this is summer
help with minimum wage. These kids getting the job don1t ah/ays have common sense.
They take something apart and they let it fly. The manager cannot police these
people. They try to keep on top of things and try to do anything they can to
keep it from getting into the neighbors yards.
Mr. Detjen stated that vist,lally he did not know if that was wise to have shrubbery
with a chain link fence. Especially in the areas where they have something stacked
or stored. He suggested that they talk to the neighbors. \~here they have green
plants, Christmas trees, etc., he would rather h~ve that left open. He commented
again about the security and the tendency of thinas to disappear. The background
does (h~n~e that.
BOARD OF ZON I N G APPEALS
JANUARY 21 ~ 1987
PAGE EIGHT
Mr. Lamine stated that this is an active shoppinq area. .,~ addEd that he had
li'led in Milwaukee and that he had been to the Stein1s G2r,"r-:.i; ':enter and there is
a lot of activity. He felt that there should be some concern for the privacy of
the neighbors. They have their Christmas season, and the busy sprinq planting
season with the night lights in the area.
Mr. Spellman stated that it isa matter of talkinq to the oarticular neiqhbors.
He related a previous experience regarding a fence and added that he has gotten
into trouble both ways. If that were his home he would prefer to see through the
fence.
Ms. Hintz stated that the activity is similar within the store itself. She would
feel better if they would treat this fencedin area as an extension of the building
front with the building setback. She asked what the setback is.
Mr. Lamine replied that it is 25 ft.
Mr. Detjen replied that that is out of the question. They cannot afford to buy
land at $15 per square foot and not use it.
Mr. Spellman stated that their only access waul d be to the back of the bui ldi ng.
Mr. Detjen stated that they would have to comply with the rear access to the
building for the Fire Code. They cannot block Hoff,
Mr. McGee asked what type of access t~ey would need?
Mr. Spellman stated that that is where the merch~ndise for inside the" store comes in.
Mr. McGee stated that this would be,a loading access area.
Mr. Detjen replied that it is loading and unloading and that they need to load
behind the fenced in area.
Discussion ensued on the traffic flow for the trucks and the access for loading
merchandise.
Mr. Detjen stated that they should close it all ofL It is a neqative thing from
the way the houses are built to have the truck traffic visible.
Mr. McGee stated that their zoning is C-2. However, this is essentially an "R"
(residential) district, and it would be proper to provide a wall of evergreens
or shrubs at least "X" many feet high. It doesn't say where it should be located,
but they should screen the truck area from the neighborhood properties.
Mr. Detjen reminded the Board that this is a renovation of an existing structure
and that this'is a valid and valuable point.
Discussio,n ensued on the height of the fence. Mr. Detjen stated that he thought
that lOft. would be appropriate and that he did not want anything to schlock it
up, he wanted it to look good.
Ms. Hintz stated thatithere ar~ roads,.tobe.deve~oped to the east.
Mr. Detje~ sta~ed th~t so~e of)he lots aresubd,ivided to
O'.-illS :'~: :01:S 1n conJunctlon ',n::h SC'l12CHH; else. f-'e
'in,: ,':~ /'T.: -::0 oppose the 1 te1.
he east. George Singstock
~jtMr. Singstock was
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 21, 1 987
PAGE NINE
Ms. Hintz asked if there is a possibility that it might be reconsidered?
Mr. Detjen replied that he hoped so. The housing will help the shopping in that
area.
Ms. Hintz stated that the lots looked deep.
Mr. Lamine stated that ,a fence could be used as a buffer. .They could put a 6 ft.
fence there up to the lot line without any setback.'With a 10 ft. fence it becomes
a wall. He suggested that maybe something could be done to reduce the, impact of
the fence on the property line. Maybe it is possible thatthey could leave the
pavement because they may have a problem with meeting the setback requirements.
Just like parking, they will have to meet that setback.
Ms. Hintz asked what that strip is?
Mr. Kimberly replied that it is all concrete.
Mr. Spellman stated that he knew from past experience that 6 ft. is not high
enough. He reiterated that they are trying to work with the community.
Mr. Lamine stated th9tanother alternat,ivewguld be, to consicl~l"~clifferl:~t
material than a chain link which would bernorea~sthet;cal1ypleasing-and it would
provide more than just the fence.
Di scuss ion ensued on types of fences. Mr. Spellman stated that the. mai ntenance
problem is not logical. He noted that he has a c,hain link .fence, around his home
and the neighbors think that it is great.
Mr. Detjen stated that from the neighbors standpoint the suggested setback of 5 to
15 ft. is irregular and creates a hardshi'p. As far as visually effective, he
agreed wi th the Board. He woul d have greenery i nsi de the fence or outside, it
wouldn1t seem t9 make abig difference.
Mr. Spellman stated that the sales lot is smaller; than the 119rm. .' They are very
jealous of this space and would not grant the 5 ft. on theb'ack~ . One-half acre
is what he would like to have there. He had convinced Mr. Stein that this would
work. ' .
r~r. Detjen stated that this is the largest Stein store.
Mr. Lamine stated that this is a great idea and they are glad to have them come
into the community. The issue to be considered is how it will affect the neighbor-
hood. He noted that he is just drawing ideas out.
Mr. Spellman stated that he is willing to work with the two neighbors that he knew.
Mr. McGee stated that this is not entirely just a matter of sitting down with the
two next door neighbors. The City has standards which have to be followed, and
we cannot vary the standards because the neighbor next door says he doesn1t care.
We can only vary the standards that we decide show that you have demonstrated a
hardship. If there is no hardship, there is no variance. This is a unique circum-
stance because the Code does notaddres.s,outdqor,9arden, service areas. It does
state that for a C-2 commercial property there should be particular setbacks
provided. C-2 requires a setback especially when it abuts residential. They are
particularly concerned with what is addressed th~re. They could put up a 6 ft.
fence on the property line for 50 ft. at 25 ft. back with' no probl em. If thi s
were not a retail sales area, but a part of the parking area then only 5 ft.
\./ould be needed. Parking is allml/ed in the rear yard provided th?,"C: ::: 5 ft. land-
scaped buffer is pl'ovided.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 21,1987
PAGE TEN
Mr. Lamine stated that there is rationale for putting it up at a 5 ft. setback.
A situation like this is so unique.
Mr. McGee stated that if they are putting a parking area somewhere in between,
there are a couple of different situations. With regard to the area behind the
building, because it is existing, it may necessitate putting the fence along the
property line. If that is the case, he was not sure that there is a need for the
10 ft. height. This is something they may want to discuss. In the area not behind
the building there is no way that he could justify it. He is even having difficulty
with 5 ft. There has to besqme requirement where you will consider those residen-
tial property O\'mers. This area and the other commercial area there is not as much
of a question. There i$actually not a property line; therefore, no need for a
variance there. This isa heayily trafficked area and they need to consider the
view of the adjoining properties. Up to 6 ft. there needs to be a buffer with
some plantings between the property owners. They need to have the p1antings so
that they have some privacy.
Mr. Spellman asked if they can put a 6 ft. fence on the property line?
Mr. McGee replied yes, unless they are asking for higher than 6 ft.
Mr. Detjen stated thatif 'the 2 ftadditionisaesthetically negative, they can
check with those people to the east 'to see"H it-Cis offensive.
Mr. McGee stated that the Board does not address ,aesthetics when considering the
Question of a hardship.
'Mr. Detjen stated that in addressing the question of hardship, the question is
theft.
Mr. McGee stated that the question of tbeft is of some value. Theft can be
addressed wi th a 10ft. fence 25 ft... from the property 1 ine.
Mr. Detjen asked if the minimum variance is what they are looking for?
Mr. McGee replied yes.
Mr. Detjen stated that with the, a.dditiOn",.of2ft.thergis)ittle problem of
mobile litter. A 6 ft. fence will not protecttheproperfy. A'6 ft. fence
visually is not going to lessen the hardship. A 6 ft. fence does not remove the
hardship for him or them, or the adjoining property owners. An 8 ft. fence
probably does. Whether it is sla,tted to, stop the view or itis open is a matter
of rhetoric and preference. The 2 ft. addition ts w,hat i5.., b,E,!jng asked for. As
a property owner with tenants he is hoping to maintain the 2 ft. addition.Of the
fence to be included on his side. If he agreed that only 6 ft. was necessary,
he would not aoree with them. He wanted them to have a minimum of 8 ft. He doesn't
want problems from any material that he may own. With a 6 ft. fence the tenants
would ask, why can1t he control that situation? Too ma,ny times that has happened
in this community.
Mr. Spellman asked.wha,JthE: purpose of the 5 ft. corridor is.
Mr. McGee replied that for that,30. ft. ,a. rea. Jherg is ,an, argument for needing the
fence at a 0 ft., setback,.. But for theremaining footage of the property that
argument no longer applies. ' .. ..... ....'
i-ir. Detjen asked how they bring the truck back there.
It -,::as explained that it backs down the front of the adjoining property.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 21, 1987
PAGE ELEVEN
Mr. McGee stated that in the area where he has the building, the argument for
putting the fence on the property 1 ine is to be considered, But once north of
the store he is no longer bringing the truck through. So they cannot" consider
the same argument. He was referring to what is existing and planned to be the
green area.
Mr. Spellman stated that he could not see any logic in taking a jog in the fencing.
If the back property line has been granted a variance for 200 ft. they would be
destroying part of the sales lot for the remaining footage. He failed to see the
logic.
Mr. McGee explained that the Board needs toyary it as 1 itUe as possible if only
to the extent that the variance is needed to addr~ss the hardship.
Mr. Spellman reiterated that this is their smallest sales yard and to take 5 ft.
would render it useless.
Mr. McGee reminded him that this ,is an economic h,ardship and that they cannot
address economic things.
Mr. Spellman asked if they were considering hardship only, or does common sense
come i,n to place here?
Mr. McGee stated that conmon sense has a place, but there has to be a hardship
argument. .
Mr. Spellman stated that one person's hardship is not anothers. It comes back to
economic hardship. They could tear the back of the building off.
Mr. McGee replied that "that would be absurd.
Mr. Detjen asked why they could not have the 2 ft. addition?
Mr. McGee replied that this was answered in the Staff Report. Is there a hardship
argument to need more than a 6 ft. fence to protect the equipment? He couldn't
speak for the others present, but he agreed with the recommendation. Is it self-
crea~e~? It is the natur~ of the ~usiness and you need it. Maybe 8 ft. would be
suff1C1ent. You must dec1de what 1S needed. That is the real hang up.
Mr. Spellman stated that they have tried to explain the security of the situation
and to put the fence so that materials, trash, whatever does not blow into the
surrounding neighborhood. They are trying to be good neighbors and serve their
own end.
Mr. McGee stated that if taking this into account, to \vhat degree do they vary the
Code? If they are going to allow more than 6 ft. and less than 2~ ft, setback,
is that 5 ft. less at 20 ft.?, or 15 ft.?, 5 ft.?, or none? .
Mr. Spellman stated that they are looking at this from the opposite view. They
will provide \'Ihat you can justify to give him. A scenario would be to allow.a
6 ft. unslatted fence and the neighborhood would ask why they hadn't done it
differently. They would have to say, talk to the Zoning Board, they wouldn't
a 11 ow it.
Mr. McGee moved approval ofa variance to allow .for an8 ft. fence with aOft.
setback along the rear property line directly east of the building, and to allow
a 10 ft. fence with a 5 ft. setback along the rest of the property line, provided
~hat the lower 6 ft. of that fence be slatted and that the 5 ft. buffer strip be
1 anted in green area and j anciscaped ivi th a combi nation of shrubs, trees, ane
round cover and maintained.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 21, 1987
PAGE TWELVE
Ms. Hintz stated that that is concrete!
Mro McGee replied that he believed that it could be llunpoured"o
Mr. Lamine asked to have that clarifiedo
Mro McGee replied that the property line between the two commercial tenants is
not their property lineo
Mro Spellman replied that 8 ft. at 0 fto setback would look uglier than being
conti nuous.
Ms. Hintz stated she thought that it would look better.
Ms. Hintz seconded the motion. Motion denied ,0-,4.
Mr. Neu amended the motion to read that the height of the fence is to be uniform
at 10 ft.
Motion seconded by Ms. Hintz. Motion was laid over with a 3-1 vote.
The second motion was clarified for the benefit of theB()ard. A Oft. setback on
the east property line for the length of the bui'lding. Ala ft: fence with a 5 ft.
setback elsewhere along the property line, A 10 ft. fence would be permitted.off
the property line as well .
Mr. Kimberly asked what if he disagreed with the motion made? Personally h.e had
no prOblem with the 0 ft. setbackor the 8ft., fence on his ea.st and partial north
property line. The motion was made fo'r adS ft. ~etback. He disagreed and felt
that a 0 ft. setback is better fgrJhis piece of property. _
Mr. Kimberly moved approval to amend the motion for an 8 ft. high fence with a 0 ft.
setback on the full- east and partial north property line.
Mr. Lamine stated that they might consider adding conditions for the fence to be
an opaque material to provide a buffer which would prevent total site visibility
for the neighboring properties. Contingent that the interior afeabe only used
for the storage of materials for yards, trees, etc. He asked if this would work
for the applicant?
Mr. Spellman replied yes, if it is a requirement of the Board .to have something
between himself and the neighbors. He stated that if the neighbors perceive it to
be ugly he may have a problem with them.
Mr. Lamine stated thCit he shou1.d make it opaque. If he has a problem with working
it out he should come to him for help. He further explained the condi,tions that
have to be considered in granting a variance for a hardship.
Mr. Spellman stated that he had no problem with the slatted 6 ft. high fence portion,
but hoped he would not be in trouble with the neighbors.
Mr. Detjen stated that he didn't think that he s,hould be concerned witb that.
Mr. Spellman repl ied that he does not have to 1 ive there.
Mr. Lamine stated that the area "us.ed for storage which borders the property line
should not be used to pile fertilizer.
.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 21, 1987
PAGE THIRTEEN
Mr. Spellman replied that they may use that area.
With regard to the neighbors, Mr. Lamine suggested that they may wish to talk to the
neighbors about putting up a hedge, which would be inexpensive for Steins.
Mr. Spellman stated that he did not have a problem with that. He had just put in
$4,000 in landscaping just so that he could get an easement. Maybe for that area
he could provide a document for them. If they turn him down, they turn him down,
or they may take it. It is Jack and Vic Stein's policy to work with the neighbors.
Mr. Kimberly restated his motion to read approval on the east property line and
partial north property 1 ine, an 8 ft. high security fence with some form or opaque
screening with all attempts being made to buffer it the best way possible the
property on Witzel Avenue.
Mr. Lamine stated that they should also make a hedge available to the property owners.
It was suggested that if they don't want the property owners to come back to them,
that they suggest a reasonable height for a buffer. Discussion ensued. Mr. Lamine
suggested a minimum 2 ft. high hedge.
Mati on seconded by Ms. Hi ntz. With a vote of 3-1 the item was 1 aid over.
Mr. Detjen asked if this is just a matter of aesthetics?
Mr. McGee replied that a buffer is needed between the commercial and residential.
When you provide a 0 ft. setback because the bui 1 ding is existi ng ,the bui ldinq
creates a hardship and the buffering needs to be provided. It will 'include shrubs
on the residential side of the fence.
Mr. Detjen asked if he would need it on a'6 ft. fence?
Mr. McGee stated that he could not address the 6 ft. fence. He can put up a 6 ft.
fence on the property line. '
Mr. Spellman stated that if they are tal king about a buffer zone of any dimension,
it is acceptable to him to have a hedge one or two feet. Having to clarify this
with the client is out of the question. If they cannot come out out with a minimum
8 ft. of 8 ft. high on the property line given other stipulations; if they don't
feel that they will be changing their mind, we are wasting each others time. The
property is too expensive to give up that kind of footage. In addition, they are
talking about my going in and chopping out concrete and paying for the privilege
of doing so. This is not in my owner's best interest.
Mr. Detjen stated that he di sagreed with the 5 ft.. buffer zone. The 4 additional
feet on the fence motion limits that to 2 additional feet, creatino a buffer zone.
That is not the least, by any combination, least' variance. That much more in a
variance is less variance than the way you look at it. The 6 ft. fence with no
greenery and no wind screen on it.
With regard to findings of fact for the affirmative for the first motion, Ms. Hintz
stated that it has been agreed that due to the nature of the business a higher
than legally permissible height fence is warranted.
For the negative, Mr. Kimberly stated that the circumstances for a retail area,
this is an improvement and there is little variance from a 6 ft. fence to two
added feet at the 0 ft. property line.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
JANUARY 21, 1987
PAGE FOURTEEN
2nd motion - For the affirm(itive, Mr. Kimberly stated that if he could not prove
a hardship he could go ahead with a 0 ft. setback and increase his fence height
by 2 ft.
Mr. McGee stated for the negative that increasing the fence height needed to be
offset by additional buffering which he was unwilling to prov.ide and which the
variance did not provide. It is not the least possible variance to solve the
probl ems.
There being no further business for the good of the City, the meeting was
adjourned.
Re~~tf~lly submitted,
,/ J ./ f I-
U~Jj:r1WI:j
Chuck lamine
Associate Planner