Loading...
Minutes 04-12-76MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT ~ETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976 AT 7:00 P. M. Pg~SENT Joseph Aranow, Chairman Der!e B. Bailey, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary George Ampol Alvin C. Boeltz Vernon Thompson, Jr. Foy Ward Walter Rutter, Alternate Len Schmidt, Bldg. Dept. Representative Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced Mrs. Kruse, Recording Secretary; Mm. Schmidt, Building Department Representative1 and the me~foers of the Board. Minutes of March 22..~ !976 Mx. AmpUl made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by ~. Thompson. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Ward referred to the last meeting when his hand was called regarding making motions and he stated the motion should state the reason why it is made. He informed the Board that this is required on Page 38, Paragraph 4~ which he was unable to find at that time. Public. Hearing Parcel #3 - The North 75 ft. of the West 90 ft. of the East 240 ft. of the following described parcel of land: The South 500 ft. of the North 530 ft. of the East one half (E I/2) of the Northeast one quarter (NE 1/4) lying West of the West R~ line of State Road No. 5 and East of the East R~ line of The Florida East Coast Railway excepting therefrom the North 150 feet of the East 150 feet thereof of Section 33, Twp. 45 South, Range 43 East, in the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach CoUnty, Florida. Containing 6750 sq. ft., more or less, and subject to easements and Rs~ of record Address - 568 S. E. ~Sth Avenue Request - Relief from requirements of Chapter 24-11(~) (1) of Sign Code of City of Boynton Beach - to be allowed to'erect 2 new signs on existing canopy of building Applicant - First Bank and Trust MI}CgTES BOARD OF ADJuST]'~I~T PAGE ~0 APRIL t2, 1976 M~. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested was due to the~widening of S. E. 15th Avenue, they have to remove their existing sign. The present sign is totally unsuitable to be functional at any other location on the site. Mr. Mike Sutton stated his name and informed the Board that he represented First Bank and Trust, 114 N. Federal Highway. Ehairman Aranow asked if he had ar~ better survey than the one presented to the members of the Board? He showed it to Mr. Sutton and pointed out how it was quite~iindistinguishable. M~. Sutton informed him that he had submitted a complete sur- vey to the Building Department and this was just a piece of that survey. Chairman Aranow pointed out it was quite dif- ficult to get measurements from this survey and asked if the Building Department had something better? M_~. Schmidt re- plied that he had the same copy in his folder. Chairman Aranow then asked M~. Schmidt if there was anything on the books regarding the widening of S. E. 15th Avenue and Mr. Schmidt replied: yes and he believes it would be an 80 ft. street when it was done. Chairman Aranow asked when it was passed and ~. Schmidt informed him that it was proposed some time ago. ~. Ampo! added that it was proposed about three years ago to be a four lane highway. Mr. Ward added that it has been recently surveyed and the contract has been let. Mr. Boe!tz asked if the bank knew it was an easement when they put the sign there and M~. Sutton replied: yes. Boeltz stated that it was known when putting something on an easement, you must remove it if required. He asked if they planned to use the same sign and in reply, ~. Sutton explained how the present sign would not be useable. Mr. Sutton then explained the surv'ey the Board members had further in relation to the bank's location. Chairman Aranow referred to the property being 75 x 90' and he read the legal description on the application and asked how he could find these measurements? ~ ~r. Sutton replied that he was unable to answer. He added that the surveyor, John A. Grant, is the only one who could answer that. Chairman Aranow pointed out that the drawing presented was not certified by a surveyor or architect, but he presumes it is correct. He referred to a communication from the ~t~ ~ C~y Clerk advising of a discreoancy. He would like to have a survey certified it was made by some- body for somebody, the date it was made, and oro~ght up to date if it is an old survey. He doesn't believe the one pre- sented is satisfactory. M~. Sutton replied that this was the fault of the Building Department because a complete survey was given to them. The survey was documented, sealed, and MINUTES BO~x~D OF ADJUSTM~.~'~T PAGE THeE APRIL 12, 1976 signed by john A. Grant and filed with the Building Depart- ment. Ohairman Aranow stated he believed they would have to see it. Mx. Sutton replied that he didn't think this request was fair, as it was the Building Department's fault. Chair- man Aranow stated that regardless of whose fault, they must have a survey to act. Mr. Sutton informed him that he would be more than happy to furnish as many copies of the survey that they would require. Chairman Aranow asked if the members had any questions. Mm. Ward stated he would like to ~uow where the particular papers they had came from and asked if ~. Sutton had produced them? Mr. Sutton replied: no and added that it was just part of the survey he sub~tted to the Building Department. M~. Schmidt said that he could not answer as he was not familiar with this. ~. Rutter asked if there was a reason why they could not see it all and Mr. Sutton replied: no and the rest of the survey shows the location of the shopping center. M~. Schmidt in- formed the Board that the duplicating machine is limited to size mad possibly this is why only part was done. ~. Sutton referred to there being a discrepancy noted in the legal description and informed the Board that the lease was for a 75 x 75 ft. area and that is the dimensions given on the lease. In renegotiating with the shopping center, they took a 75 x 90 ft. area which is shown oni!the survey. M~. Boeltz clarified that only one sign was allowed on a build- ing and they wanted three and ~. Sutton agreed and explained how they wanted the signs to cover the directions the existing free standing sign is doing now. ~. Boeltz remarked that they would have to give everyone else the same privilege. ~. Rutter asked if the height and width of the sign affected the merchants to the south of the bank and if it would block them out. Mr. Sutton showed what was proposed. He explained how it would not affect the merchants and also how various tries were made to use the present sign. Mr. Ward asked if they planned to utilize the same cemopy there now and }~. Sutton replied: yes. ~. Boeltz asked if the sign would extend above the camopy and ~. Sutton in- formed him that just the end' section would. ~. Boeltz asked how much and Mr. Sutton explained that the si~ was 4 ft. ~ inch and the canopy is 2 ft. from the bottom to the top. Chairman Aranow c~arified that it would extend better than 2fft. and added there was nothing showing the sign would be on the side of the canopy; the sign is drawn and could be from the roof of the canopy. ~. Ward pointed out that the drawing showed the outline of the canopy with the sign con- tained in ito Chairman Aranow continued there was no des- cription of the building, the drive-thru lanes, the base of the poles holding the canopy~ etc. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE FOUR APR iL 12, 1976 Ms. Bailey referred to the application citing Chapter 24mll (D) (9) of the Sign Code of the City of Boynton Beach and requested an explanation of this. Mr. Schmidt informed him that this permitted one free standing sign to a property. Actually one free standing sign to a shopping center, but this is removed from the rest of the shopping center and they were permitted to put their own free standing sign there and also permitted to put an additional sign on the south side. This is allowed in most cases where there is a free standing sign. He explained how the sign proposed extended above the roof of the building. He informed them that anything above the roof must be clear of the building and 5 ft. above for fire fighting purposes so the firemen on the roof can duck under the sign. it must clear the roof by 5 ft. That parti- cular part on the end of the proposed sign does not qualify.~ ~. Sutton stated that it was on the face and would not block anyone on the roof. mM~. Bailey asked if they were being blocked from getting a permit because the proposed sign extended above the roof line and Mr. Schmidt replied they were being denied a oermit because they want three signs. In this case, they have been allowed a double face sign, plus one on the building. Chairman Aranow asked if the Building Department gave this right originally and M~. Schmidt replied: yes. Bailey asked if the reason they could not get a permit to put up a sign was on account of the ordinance saying they are only allowed one sign and ~. Schmidt clarified that if they could mount the existing sign on the roof and be 5 ft. above the roof, it would be permitted. M~. Ward referred to this sign being on the side and not on top of the roof and Schmidt agreed that it did not apply to the sign as it is now. M~. Ward asked if it applied to this sign being on the side and Mr. Schmidt replied there was nothing wrong with it being on the side, except for the part extending above the roof line. He informed the Board that the north end of the sign does extend 24 to 30 inches above the roof line. ~. Bailey clarified there were two reasons blocking the permit from being issued: it extends above the roof and they want additional signs. ~. Sutton stated they were not aware of it violating a fire ordinance, but if it does, they would be more than happy to comply to meet requirements. ~. Schmidt suggested they mount the present sign 5 ft. above the roof. ~. Ward referred to this being in violation of the code and questioned if the Building Board of Adjustments & Appeals should hear this case? He believes this case is before the wrong Board. ~. Schmid~treplied that there was no violation yet. If this Board turns them down, he doesn't know if they can go to the Building Board of Adjustments & Aooeals or not. M~. Ward stated that he felt it was before the ~ong Board to begin with and Mr. Bailey agreed, as it is a violation of the MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST?~NT PAGE FIVE APRIL 12, 1976 Sign Code. Mr. Sutton informed the Board that they were questing a variance, so they won't be in violation. Boeltz informed him that there must be a hardship to get a variance and Mr. Sutton replied that the present sign was not useable. Mr. Boeltz stated that now they want three signs and M~. Sutton replied the hardship is removing the present sign from where it is. Ma. Boeltz stated that he woul~ have to move it since they put it on an easement. ~. Rutter stated that the bank did not create this and Chairman Aranow pointed out that the sign was put up on a rig~of-way. He added that when they put it up, they knew they may have to take it down. ~. ~ard agreed ~h~s~ may be true, but possibly they did not know this part of the right-of-way would be taken for a street. Chairman Aranow stated the widening of the street was proposed before the lease was entered into. At the time they entered into the lease~ they knew it was a right-of-way and knew the condition when putting up the free standing sign. He thinks they brought it upon themselves. Mr. Boeltz asked if the two faced sign could be put on the top and M~. Sutton replied that it couldn't be done under the current requirements and explained how it would only be ad- vantageous at ~oof top level. ~. AmpOl asked when the exist- ing structure was built and ~.~. Sutton replied that it will be two years this September. ~J Ampol asked if at that time they had no knowledge the County or State was going to widen 15th and ~@. Sutton replied they did not know it was going to be widened, but knew it was an easement. He then explained how the City had created some hardshios on them and how they had to have the landscape comply regarding the easements. Chairman Aranow stated they could not consider this a hard- ship and explained how when the City upgrades property~ it creates some hardships. ~. Rutter asked if the Board could rule on this and Chairmam Aranow replied that an application is being made for a vari- ance. He thinks this Board must rule on it. He doesn't think if they entertain it, there would be an appeal to the Building Board of Adjustments & Appeals, but to the Court of Appeals. ¥~!Ward referred to Chairman Arsmow having this new Board set up ~d he should know what type of cases would go before it and he believes it was strictly for code. Chair- man Aranow explained that the new Board would not be t~ing anything away from this Board and they discussed the reasons further for creating the new Board. ~. Rutter then continued that this is the first time he has ever~been confronted with such a situation such as this appli- cation. ~. Bailey agreed and stated he still did not under- stand the reason for this coming before this Bo~d for a var- iance. He explained how if they granted this variance, it would still be in violation of the Code. M~. Schmidt sug- gested that the higher part could be adjusted ~ud M~. Sutton' MIRVJTES BOARD OF A~JUST['~N z PAGE SIX APRIL t2, 1976 agreed they would do that to meet the fire code. Mr. Bailey asked if it would be reduced and Mr. Sutton replied: yes. ~. Bailey asked if they had an ordinmace regarding cornez~ buildings being allowed to have signs on both sides and ~. Schmidt agreed that on corner buildings, signs were allowed on opposite or adjacent sides, which would allow two, but this is not a corner property. ~.~. Bailey replied that he under- stood that, but this is surrounded by a parking lot. Ampol asked if the Board4granted the variance, will the Build- ing Department issue the permit and Chairman A~mow replied it was not their problem. Mr. Thompson stated that he understood that the building is not two years old and the sign is on an easement. This pre- sent sign gave light to two ways and no~ he would.only be allowed to have one. Even with the sign, you could pass by it and not see it with the service station. He belle~es con- sideration should be given that if it were not for the ease- ment, the sign would still be there. He understands how easements work, but sometimes it is not for the benefit of the person or business. Chairman Aranow then asked if anyone in the audience desired to speak?for or against this application and received no re- sponse. Mr. Thompson moved that the request be granted with the ad- justment in height to conform with the Sign Ordinance and removal of the present sign. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Under discussion, Chairman Aranow called their attention to the fact than when an application is granted for a variance, a hardship must be shown. Motion carried 6-t with Chairman Aranow voting against. Parcel #2 - Lot 52, Glen Arbor Addition #2 Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 103 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 75 ft. front requirement tO 63 ft. front platted Relief from 1500 sq. ft. floor area requirement to existing 1200 sq. ft. floor area ~oposed Improvement - Pool Address - 962 N. W. 8th Avenue Applicants - Harold J. and Catherine Baughman ~. Gordon~i~read the above application and informed the Board it was requested to construct a swimming pool for health reasons and the existing frontage and floor area are non- conforming. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~.~NT PAGE SEVEN AI~IL 12, 1976 ~s, Catherine Baughman stated her name and her address as~ 962 N. W. 8th Avenue. ~. Ward asked what the previous zoning was and ~s. Baughman informed him it was R-lA and was changed to R-I~ in June. ~',~. Gordon asked if this was the back yard where the trees were cut down and it was staked out and M~s. Baughman replied: yes. ~. Bailey asked if the pool would con- form, to all the existing requirements as far as the setbacks and ~, Schmidt replied: yes, there is plenty of room in the rear yard. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone wished to speak in favor against this application and received no response. Mr. Bailey moved that the variance be granted, seconded by M~. Ampol. Under discussion, ~!r. Bailey c~arified that the reason he made the motion is because the structure is existing. The hardship was placed on the people by the rezoning in June, J975. There is amPl~~ space to do the improvements that they would l_~e to do. MOtion carried 7-0. Parcel No. I - Lots 34 and 36, C. W. Copps Addition Recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 56 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 75 ft. lot frontage requirement to 50 ft. platted. Relief from 9000 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 6,582 sq. ft. area Proposed Improvement - Duplex Address - 407 N. E. 2nd St. 408 N. E. ~st St. Applicant - Gabriel Pica Mr. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason stated was that this was the existing lot size at the time of purchase in May, 1973. M~. Gabriel Pica appeared before the Board and ~.~. Boeltz asked if he bought this in J973 and ~. Pica replied: yes. M~. Boeltz referred to the property being zoned R-2 when he purchased it and read the old zoning requirements requiring 5000 sq. ft. and minimum 50 ft. frontage for a single family dwelling and 9000 sq. ft. and 75 ft. frontage for a two family dWelling. ~. Pica replied that when he bought it from Plum Realty, he was told it was for a duplex. M~. Boeltz informed him that a duplex would be a two family dwelling and the re- quirements were 9000 sq. ft. and 75 ft. frontage under the old zoning~and are the same under the new zoning. ~@. Pica explained that the property goes from street to street ~and he was told a duplex could be built and that is why he bought it. M~. Boeltz remarked that he had received wrong information. MIR~TES BO~D OF ADJUSTMF~NT ~AGE EIGHT APRIL 72~ 1976 ~. Ward told about the existing apartments and duplexes in the area. Chairman Aranow disagreed and referred to there being four empty lots. He asked Mr. Pica if he bought four 25 ft. lots originally and ~. Pica replied: yes. Chairman Aranow clarified the location of the lots. He then asked what he planned to build on Lots 30 and 32 and Mr. Pica re- plied that they were not his and belonged to his brother. Chairman Aranow referred to the property being purchased in the names of'Gabriel & Beatrice Pica and Albert & Faye Pica and ~. Pica informed him that he bought two lots and his brother bought two lots. Chairman Aranow referred to all four names being on the deed and asked if this had been ch~aged and Y~. Pica replied that he had gotten a survey and did change it Chairman Aranow ~ ~ - ~s~ed if he gave a deed to these properties to his brother and ~. Pica re~_med.~ · yes, they both have deeds. Chairman Aranow asked if-there was one deed withe!! four names and M~. Pica replied that he has a deed for his two lots and his brother has a deed for his two lots. Chairman Aranow stated that according to record, it shows Lots 30, 32, 34, and 36 deeded to Gabriel & Beatrice Pica and Albert & Faye Pica and he asked if this was correct? Mr. Schmidt replied that he only had a survey dated February showing Lots 34 and 36 as one parcel. Chairman Aranow asked if it showed who owned the property and Mr. no, he has no copy of the ~.e~d~ ~ . ' Chairman Aranow questioned the adjoining property and M~ Pica explained that it was his brother's two empty lots. Chairman Aranow clarified that these four lots were still vacant ,and ~. Pica replied: yes, they bought~ four lots, two for himself and two for his brother. He wants to build on his two lots. Chairman Aranow asked if his brother wanted to sell to him and M~ Pi ~ .... . ca r~plmed: no. Chairman Aranow asked if he had given ~,~deed to Lots 30 and 32 to his brother and his wife and Mr. Pica replied: yes, they each have a deed for the separate two lots. Chairman Aranow asked if he had a copy of his deed ~ud Mn~. Pica replied: no, he did not know this would be requested. Mr. _nompson stated he believed that before they act, the deed should be ~ ~-~' ~rese~.ved because they would be acting on property they would not know who owned it. There is some doubt,, There is a requirement to have a deed presented with the application. ~h~. Ampol agreed their procedure has been to have a deed accompany the application. He stated that the records show four people bought the four lots. -~'~. Pica replied that n~ owns two and his brother owns two. ~. Ampol stated that this was not stated in their information. Gordon agreed that they must have proof of ~w~ership. ~. Ampol asked if he would be out of order to table ~this until the next meeting and have the deed presented and Chair- man &ranow replied: no. Mr. Bailey suggested giving the pub- lic an opportunity to speak before tabling and Mr. Amool agreed ~nd withdrew his motion. MI!~TES BOARD OF ADJUST?~NT PAGE NINE APR IL t2, 197~. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone was in fs~¢or of this appli- cation and requested the gentleman to come forward. Mx. Jack Pica stated his name and his address as 124 S. W. 12th Avenue and informed the Board he was in favor of it. Chairman Aranow asked if he bought this property or if he and his brother bought this property in May, 1973 and ~. Pica replied that it was not his property, but his two brothers bought the property. He clarified that Gabriel bought two lots and Albert bought two lots and he is Jack. Chairman Aranow asked if he had the deed and ~. Pica replied: no. ~. Rutter asked why he was in favor and ~. Pica re- plied~that they bought the property and have an investment and have been paying taxes. ~. Boeltz informed him that a single family house could be built and Mr. Gabiel Pica re- plied that he bought it for a duplex and the other homes there are duplexes. Chairman Aranow then requested those opposed to this applica- tion to come forward. ~. William D. Cavanaugh stated his name and his address as 407 N. E. ~st Street. He referred to the change requested being for a 50 ft. lot and informed the Board that he checked this orooerty with a tape and the am3omnmno properties are both 75 ft. The two properties directly north are both 75 ft. lots. As far as he can see, the~e is only about one 50 ft. lot between 4th and 3rd Avenues. He doesn't think there should be a change from the 75 ft. frontage. He has atax card showing the duplex immediately north of Lots 34 and 36 is 75 x 132 ft. He feels it would be detrimental to the neighborhood to change it any other way~ ~s. Victoria Castei!o stated her name and her address as N. E. 4th Avenue~ She informed the Board that she feels this should be denied because the existing code dictates 75 ft. and the preceding code dictated 75 ft. When the appli- cant purchased the property, it was 75 ft. and everyone bought threeilots. There are ways to alleviate a hardship. She thinks a 5~ reduction would reduce the density and lower the quality. Mr. Jacobsen stated his name and his address as 411N. E. ~st Street. He informed the Board he was in accordance with the rest in their feelings in the matter regarding the area of structure in relation to land. He believes there should be more land and less building. ~s. Janet Northcupp stated her name and her address as 130 N. E. 4th Avenue. She stated that the codes are made with reason and should be kept. If this man builds a duplex, they will have no assurance that another duplex will not be built. There is enough traffic there now. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE TEN APRIL 12, 1976 Mr. Gordon announced that two communications had been rem ceived. He first read a memo from ~s. Padgett pertaining to a telephone call 'from Mr. Arnold Stroshein, 710 N. E. 7th Street requesting that he go on record as opposing the request of~Gabriel Pica. Mr. Stroshein had planned to at- tend the m~eting, but had to change his plans at the last minute. He feels it would downgrade the area ~ud opposes this request. ?~. Gordon then read a letter from Helen A. Glass, 517 N.E. ~st Street, advising that as a property owner at two loca- tions, she wishes to oppose M~. Gabriel Pica's request. She believes if ~. Pica is granted his request to build on a 50 ft. lot, it will open the rest of the 50 ft. lots. Chairman Aranow announced that at this time, he would enter- tain a motion to table this until the next meeting to give ~. Pica an opportunity to bring in his deed and if possible, also the deed for Lots 30 and 32. ~. Ampol replied that he made a motion to table this before and will do so again. ~. Bailey asked if they had authority to waive proof of ownership and Chairman Aranow replied that he was afraid that they could not do this. ~. Gordon then seconded the motion to table. Under discussion, ~. Thompson stated he thought the request should be for Mr. Pica to bring~oof of the lots in question. Chairman Aranow clairifed that he did not have to bring both, but he would like him to do it if he could. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Bailey voting no. Mr. Ampol added that when this application comes before the Board at the next meeting, they must consider the facts pre- sented by the opposition. ~. Thompson added that there would be no additional fee for M~. Pica with tabling. M~. Bailey suggested they set the next meeting date and M~. Ampo! suggested two weeks from today. Chairman Aranow suggested the second Monday in May. M~. Ward asked when they changed from meeting the second and fourth Mondays? He stated that this could be heard on the fourth Monday of the month. Was there any reason not to meet then? These were our regular meeting dates. Chairman Aranow stated ~ ~ that for the purpose of tabling this matter, they will meet ~/~%~ on the second Monday in May. It was discussed further whether the Board was meeting once or twice a month. Mr. Bailey moved to hear this tabled application on April 26, seconded by Mr. Ward. Under discussion, ~. Ampol stated that personally, he did not want to come here for one hear- ing. They are volunteering their time and he cannot see it for one hearing. Mr. Bailey referred to the man otherwise having to wait another month. Chairman Aranow stated that Mr. Pica could have made application two ye~s ago. Eailey replied that possibly he couldn't afford it and Chair- man Aranow replied that he had no right to guess this. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST?~NT ~GE ELEVEN ~PRIL 12, 1976 ~. Bailey stated he didn't think they should delay the ap- plicant. M~. Gordon asked if ~. Pica was a contractor and ~. Pica replied: no. ?~. Gordon asked if it would be let out and M~. Pica replied: yes. Mr. Rutter asked why it was being tabled and Chairman Aranow informed him because they wanted to give ~. Pica the opportunity to prove he owns the two lots and not four !ors. He added that maybe he wants to build on two lots and then his brother will do the same. However, he is en~it!ed to present the deeds. He thinks they should see the deed. They should not make exceptions without proof of ownership. ~. Ampol stressed again that the opposition would be considered. ~. Pica stated that he just wanted to beautify the lot. Chairman Aranow then re- quested a roll call vote and ~s. Kruse took it as follows: Mr. Boeltz - No M~. Bailey - Yes ~. Ward - Yes ~. Thompson - Yes ~@. Ampol - No Mr. Gordon - No Chairman Aranow - No Motion defeated 4-3. ~. Rutter referred to a statement made by ~. Pica during the vote that he wanted to drop the procedure. Mr. Thompson stated he didn't think it should be done that way and ~. Gordon agreed and added that it should be put in writing. Chairman Aranow announced that this matter would be tabled until May 10 and requested a vote. The vote was 5-1, with M~. Ward voting against and Mr. Bailey abstaining. M~. Ampoi stated that he didn't think ~. Pica should make a statement now. He added that if he was not at the meeting on May 10, the variance will be denied. Chairman Aranow in- for~ed the people who had stated opposition that it was not necessary for them to return on the adjourned date, as their statements will be given consideration. Parcel #4 - Lot 17, Sierra Heights Recorded in Plat Book 28, Page ~5 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 7477.6 sq, ft. platted. Relief from 25 ~ft. front setback re- quirement to 24.91 ft. front setback existing. ~oposed Improvement - Pool Address - 438 S. W. 3rd Avenue Applicant - Randy Stevens MINUTES BOARD OF ~J~T~,~E~T APRIL 12, t976 Ph~. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested was to install a pool which has been paid for with a loan,. The fence has also been paid for and the sewer line moved before being aware of this ordinance, Mr, Randy Stevens stated his name and. his address as 438 S, W, 3rd Avenue, ~, Thompson noted it was a difference of 22.4 sq, ft. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone mesmred to speak in favor or opposition to this application, ~, & Mrs, James Hackett stated their names and their address as 442 S, W, 3rd Avenue and that they were in favor, M~., ivan Trepanier stated his name and his address as 437 4th Ave~ue and that he was in favor, M~s. Helen Dunleavy ~ta~ed her name and her address as 430 S. W. 3rd Avenue and that she was in favor. Mr. Ampol moved that the variance be granted and added that the property is in nice shape. ~. Boeltz seconded the motion. Under discussion, M~. Thompson questioned the set- backs and Chairman Aranow informed him there was a difference of .09 in the front setback~ Motion carried 7-0. Other ~. Rutter referred to their discussion before the meeting was opened pertaining to the Co~m~ittee appointed by the City Council to investigate problems in the Building Department, Planning & Zoning Board and Board of Adjustment as a result of their letter. He referred to the Blue Book on Page 40 stating that the Board of Adjustment has the right to enter- tain any application in regards to any applications presented before the Board concerning anyone in the City. M~. Ward read Page 40, Paragraph C,for clarification. Chairman Aranow stated he rather not discuss it tonight and suggested that they meet ~5 minutes before the next meeting opens to dis- cuss it, ~, Bailey asked if he me~t on the record and Chairman Aranow replied: yes, ~. Ampot asked if they would be given progress reports from this Ad-Hoc Committee and Chairman Aranow replied that he did not know. They did have a meeting set for 6:15 this even- ing, but M~. Howell was unable to make it. They hope to~ meet sometime this month, ' MINUTES BOARD OF ADJU~,~?~a~LT PAGE THIRT~N APRIL 12, 1976 Aa. oou_nment ~. Ampol made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~. Gordon. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:40 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes )