Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/09/1985L ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 9, 1985 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 9, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Szopinski, Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson, Walker. Staff Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Roy Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 11,1985-Approved as Published The minutes of the April 11, 1985 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal No. 1621. Section 118-95(C)(4) by Mike Andrews, 215 E. Oak - Approved with conditions "---The variance would allow a 5 square foot freestanding sign to be located only 8 feet from the interior side lot line rather than the required 15 feet. The sign is for a business use in the BG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is a small lot in the old part of town. The building sits all the way forward on the lot. The only open area is between this building and the building to the west. The open area is only 17 feet wide so it is impossible to locate the historic designation for the building, and placing the sign on the building would ruin the historic character. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the variance apply only to the sign proposed. The sign is very low profile, and because the building on the adjacent lot also takes up most of the lot leaving no room for a freestanding sign near this one, the intent of the code of providing for separation of signs is almost assured. Petitioner Mike Andrews explained to the Board that his intent was to make the sign physically attractive; but he does not want to ruin the historic character of the building by hanging a sign on it. Mr. Andrews said that possibly another business would occupy the building and they would also need signage. The Board felt that the 5 square feet asked for in the variance would not be sufficient for two business signs. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the amendment that the sign be a 10 square foot freestanding sign. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. -1- Appeal No. 1622. Section 118-41(E), 118-41(F) by Warren Pederson, Contractor,, 807 Winchester Drive - Approved with condition "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet and the west side setback from 5 feet to 4 feet for a detached storage building in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: There is an existing metal shed at these setbacks. The petitioner desires to remove it and build a larger wood shed which would match the house. If it met the required 15 foot setback it would only be 8 feet from the house and be on the existing patio. They also desire to reuse the existing slab. ---Staff recommendation: The hardship is self-imposed in that the shed could be turned the other direction to allow for a greater rear yard setback. However, if there are no objections from the neighbors, staff recommends approval." The contractor Warren Pederson told the Board that the reason for wanting the shed in this position on the lot is to reuse the existing slab and if it were placed at the rear of the lot, several trees would have to be destroyed. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the shed should be constructed as the drawings submitted to the Board. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1623. Section 118-43(C), 118-43(E) by Fred Rickson, 705 Maple Street - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet and reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is platted with only a 45 foot width. There is no additional land available to buy. The house needs to be setback to the rear half of the lot because of the Arthur Ditch, therefore the request for the rear setback variance. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The Board granted similar variances for this lot on December 9, 1982." Based on the fact that changed since the last motion to approve the seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Nays: None. the conditions of the lot and neighborhood have not variance was granted, Boardmember Szopinski made a variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was Johnson. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Murphy, Dodder, -2- Appeal No. 1624. Section 1L8-43(B), 118-43(C) by Larry Michaud for Housing Rehab, 219 Buckingham - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 4050 square feet and the lot width requirement from 60 feet to 45 feet for a single family home to be moved onto a lot in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is existing and there is an existing house on the lot which is to be demolished. The moved on house will be an improvement. Staff recommendation: Approval." Petitioner Larry Michaud told the Board that this is the same type variance he usually asks for. It is an old narrow lot. The house on the lot is no longer liveable. This will be the last house they will need a variance on because the program has been terminated. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1625. Section 118-81(F) by Stu and Cynthia Haskell, 719 Blue Mesa Avenue - ADvroved "---The variance would allow a 6 foot high wood fence to be located closer than 20 feet from the front lot line. Specifically, the variance would allow a 6 foot high fence to be located right up to the front lot line on a corner lot. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is a corner lot. The legal front lot line is along Gunnison Dr., but the house faces Blue Mesa, the legal side lot line. The petitioner's desire to fence in their rear and side yard and want the fence to enclose as much of the yard as possible. Staff recommendation: Approval." Boardmember Murphy stepped down because of a conflict of interest. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that this was a typical situation in the Medema Homes subdivision, where they turned the house sideways on the lot. Mr. Barnes explained that several variances had been given in this subdivision for the same reason. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Thede, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. 182 Appeal No. 1626. Section 118-44(B), 118-44(C), 118-82(B)(3), 118-81(D)(1)(c)]3[, 118-81(D)(3)(h) by Les Kaplan, 430 W. Mountain - Approved with conditions "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 12,000 square feet to 6,720 square feet, the required lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet and the required street side setback along Sherwood from 15 feet to 11.4 feet. The variance would also reduce the amount of required parking spaces from 5 to 4 for a limited impact professional office use with 6 employees and a basement apartment in the RH zone. The variance would also allow one parking space to be located closer to the street than the building setback. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot and building are existing. The properties on either side are fully developed, allowing no opportunity for additional parking to be provided. The petitioner is willing to limit the nature of commercial use and number of employees. The building is actually located 33 feet from Sherwood so the intent of the 15 foot setback is met. The one parking stall located closer to the street than the building is behind an existing concrete wall which will hide the stall. ---Staff recommendation: Most of the variance requests are commonplace for conversions of this nature. As the Board is aware by now, there aren't many 12,000 square foot lots in the RH zone. The main concern in this case is the parking and the regulation of the use. Since no "user" is known at this time it is hard to determine the impact of only 4 parking stalls. If the Board grants the variances it should do so with strict conditions on the use such as: 1. limiting the use to professional office as defined in Sec.118-11 2. limit the number of employees in the building to 6 3. limit the primary business hours to normal, daytime business hours 4. require that any use be low visitation in its method of conducting business 5. require that the existing architectural character of the building be maintained" There were no notices or letters returned. Two letters were brought to the meeting. They are attached to the minutes. Petitioner Les Kaplan said that he would much prefer to sell his house to a family wishing to occupy it, but there doesn't seem to be a market for a single family dwelling in this price range. The house has been listed for 1-1/2 years. He said that during the past several months more people have looked at it than ever but they are all looking at it for commercial purposes, not residential. He has had a publishing company, writers and some other low visitation businesses interested. Mr. Kaplan stated that through variances all of the houses in his block have been converted to commercial properties. His is the only residential home left in that block of Mountain besides a home two doors -4- east which is not owner occupied and is being rented more as a boarding house. _ George Betz, Hanson Realty spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Betz said that there just wasn't a market for single family houses on Mountain Avenue in this price range. Tim Fouts, 125 Sherwood, spoke against the variance. Mr. Fouts said that they want to keep it a residential area. Glen Conine, 121 N. Sherwood, spoke in opposition to the variance. Mr. Conine brought in two letters from neighbors that were not in the area of adjacent property owners. The people who wrote the letters and Mr. Conine wanted the area kept residential. Ethel Taylor, a close neighbor to Mr. Kaplan, said that she thought what Mr. Kaplan has done for the neighborhood with his renovating is great and she hates to see the house turn into a commercial property. Boardmembers felt that the only thing they were hearing was a request to reduce the required lot area and width and setback, plus reduction of one parking space. The fact that a commercial use be allowed in this zone is not a question which the Board could act on. Therefore Boardmember Murphy made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the restrictions listed in staff's recommendation, numbers 1 through 5. Boardmember Murphy stated that a change should be made to number 4 adding to the definitions of low -visitation "as determined at the time of conversion by the Planning and Zoning Board." The motion was seconded by Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1627. Section 118-81(D)(3)(f), 118-43(E), 118-82(F)(1) by Bob Paterson, Realtor, 811 E.Myrtle - Approved with conditions "---The variance would allow a group home to have 27 residents instead of the permitted 15 residents. The group home will probably be for elderly residents and it is located in the RM zone. The variance would also reduce the number of required parking spaces from 9 to 2 and the rear setback from 15 feet to 4 feet. Hardship pleaded: The residents will probably not be allowed to drive cars so only the 2 employee parking stalls will be needed. The property was a nursing home licensed for around 34 residents and a number of employees, so the proposed occupant load would be considerably less than the current load. Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the group home be limited to a home for elderly people, wherein the majority of the resident do not own cars." Property purchaser, Bob Wilson, told the Board that he could easily make enough parking spaces for more cars but he would rather make a garden spot for the people that will be staying there. No cars will be allowed by the residents. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the group home house only elderly people, age 65 or over, and that no cars be allowed on the property by the -5- residents. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder. Nays: None. (Boardmember Johnson had to leave the meeting. Boardmember Thede voted in his absence.) Appeal No. 1628. Section 118-81(C)(1), 118-81(C)(6) by Jim Wirshborn, 904-904-1/2 E. Elizabeth - Approved "---The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a building other than the owners residence and would allow exterior storage of meteorological equipment for the Mountain States Weather Services business. ---Hardship pleaded: The meteorological equipment has to be located outside in order to function properly. The owner's house is small and there is no room for the necessary equipment used indoors, so the owner has his office and equipment in an adjacent building. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors. (Evidently this business has been here for a number of years already.) There were no notices returned. Two letters were received in favor of the variance. These letters are attached to the minutes. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes showed the Board slides of the property and pointed out that the equipment used by Mountain States Weather was hardly noticeable. Since there were no objections from the neighbors, Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1629. Section 118-41(F) by Gordon Hughes, Owner, 1007 W. Mountain Avenue - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required 5 foot side yard setback along the west lot line to 2.2 feet for an addition to a single family home in the RL zone. --Hardship pleaded: The lot is a narrow lot. The house already has a setback of only 2.2 feet. The petitioner would like to have his addition line up with the existing wall for aesthetic purposes to rehabilitate the 1907 character of the house. ---Staff recommendation: Approval" There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Gordon Hughes told the Board of his plans for the addition and pointed out on the slides how narrow the lot is. Boardmember Thede made a 'S-V motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1630. Section 118-93(B) by Ray Dixon, Owner, 151 S. College - ADDroved with conditions "---The variance would increase the sign allowance for "Oak Place" from 200 square feet to 468 square feet for a commercial building in the BG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The building is unique in that it is on the corner of College Avenue and Oak St. Plaza, so in essence it is a corner lot which would normally have sign allowance calculated on both streets. However, Oak St. was vacated to make room for Oak St. Plaza, but the building still has frontage and exposure on that side. Before the street was vacated the building had 468 square feet of allowance; the petitioner is now asking that the original allowance be reinstated to accommodate the signage for the multi -tenants in this remodeled building. ---Staff recommendation: Approval to increase the sign allowance for the hardship stated. However, increasing it to the original amount may not be totally justifiable since the Oak frontage has changed from vehicular to pedestrian oriented. Perhaps a compromise allowance could be worked out." There were no notices returned. One letter was received which was not in favor of the variance. The letter is attached to the minutes. Petitioner Ray Dixon said that most of the signage used would be put on the glass windows, however he did plan to install two directory signs and would like to add some signs that would be painted on the overhang. Boardmember Szopinski said that even though the street used to be open, it is now closed and has only pedestrian traffic. He felt that the signage should be restricted to the glass. Mr.Dixon said he would prefer not to have the additional signage restricted but if necessary he would restrict the signs to the glass. He would like permission to put the directory signs in the vestibules. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition that the additional signage be painted on the windows only and that two directory signs not exceeding 16 square feet each will be allowed. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Szopinski, Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1631. Section 118-81(D)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(3)(b)&(h), 118-81(E)(1) by Jeff Hale, 522 S. College - Variance Died "---The variance would eliminate the required five foot parking lot setback on both the north and south lot lines. The variance would also reduce the required number of parking spaces from 8 to 7 and eliminate the requirement to provide a loading zone for a new office/residential -7- building in the BG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is a small lot with very little room for parking. There is an existing 8 unit efficiency apartment building on the lot where a good portion of the tenants don't own automobiles. The petitioner desires to build a new building on the front of the lot which will probably be occupied by a low traffic generating office tenant. The proposed parking lot is directly contiguous to existing parking lots on both sides, so it doesn't make much sense to provide 5 feet of landscaping between parking lots. If the 5 foot setbacks were complied with, only 4 parking stalls could be provided, and parking is more important. The petitioner agrees to plant additional landscaping in the front of the lot to offset the loss of it in the 5 foot setback areas. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." The petitioner reiterated his plans for the addition. The variance request received opposition from Shelly Gock, Rocky Mountain Travel King and Bud Frick. Both are adjacent property owners and are opposed because of the parking problem in the area. The general concensus of the oppostion was that there is not enough parking as the building presently stands; with the addition there would be an even more severe problem. Tenants from the existing building are parking in Rocky Mountain Travel King's lot now and also in Mr. Frick's parking area. This is not acceptable to either property owner. Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Murphy. Yeas: Szopinski, Murphy. Nays: Lieser, Thede, Dodder. The motion died. Further discussion was held. Boardmember Murphy said that his office was in the area and there was definitely a problem with the parking. It was pointed out that a motion needed to be made, because no action had yet been taken. If a motion was made to grant the variance and failed and no additional motion was made then the variance would not have been approved or denied. Boardmember Murphy made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Thede. Nays: Lieser, Murphy, Dodder, Szopinski. The motion died. At this point in the meeting Boardmember Szopinski excused himself from the rest of the meeting and Boardmember Johnson returned to the meeting. Appeal No. 1632. Section 118-41(E) by Sue Yehle, Owner, 805 Laporte Ave. — Approved with condition "---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet and the side setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet for a new detached two —car garage in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: There is an existing sewer line which would need to be moved in order to comply with the 5 foot side setback. The petitioner's also have a large established garden which would be affected by locating the garage further east. They also desire to keep me the back yard as large as possible so the locate the garage closAer to the alley. Most are already close to the alley so this neighborhood. y would like to be able to of the garages in the block is in keeping with the ---Staff recommendation: Approval of the rear yard reduction. Denial of the side yard reduction. A zero setback would possibly create roof drainage onto the adjacent lot as well as maintenance problems (to paint the wall you'd have to be on the neighbor's lot). A side setback of 1-1/2 or 2 feet may help resolve those problems without putting the building on top of the sewer line." No notices were returned. One letter in favor of the variance was received. The letter is attached to the minutes. Mr. Miller, 813 Laporte, said that he is not opposed to the variance but does want a 2 foot setback on the side of the house so that they can maintain the building. Ms. Yehle and her husband said that wouldn't present a problem for them. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded with the condition there is a 2 foot side yard setback for maintenance on the property. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1633. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by Evan Gilmartin, 618 Maple Street - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 5600 square feet and the required lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: This same duplex can be built without a variance since the same owner owns this lot and the one adjacent. However, they would like the ability to sell off this portion of their property. Since this could be built anyway without a variance the gravity of this variance would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The hardship is self-imposed, but since this could be built anyway without a variance, granting it would not have a negative impact." After hearing Evan Gilmartin-s presentation, Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded in view of the fact that there was no negative response from the neighbors. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1634. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C), 118-43(E) by Timothy Conine, Owner, 523 Maple St. - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to -9- 4500 square feet and reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RM zone. The variance would also reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for an existing detached garage. ---Hardship pleaded: The petitioner owns thislot and the lot on appeal No.1635, so they currently make up one property large enough to allow the petitioner to build two single family dwellings without a variance. However, the petitioner desires to create two separate lots out of the existing property. This lot is the same size as the two adjacent lots to the east so it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The garage is existing and the newly created lot line would only be 5 feet from it instead of 15 feet. But since it is existing and all building codes will be met on the new dwellings this shouldn't be a problem. ---Staff recommendation: Approval." Peter Barnes indicated that the variance needed to be amended to reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet. The other variances were, no longer needed. Bo Brown represented petitioner Timothy Conine. Mr. Brown explained that Appeal No. 1635 was withdrawn and would not be a part of this variance. There were no notices or letters received on this variance. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the variance as amended for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1635. Withdrawn Appeal No. 1636. Section 118-81(D)(2)(b)16( by Ed Rhoadarmer, Lot 7, 8, 9, & 10 Prospect Industrial Park - Approved "---The variance would reduce the required amount of 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 0% for 4 new office/light industrial buildings in the IG zone. ---Hardship pleaded: Due to the amount of large semi -trailer trucks coming to the site to serve the buildings it is essential to try and maintain parking areas free of obstructions such as landscape islands. This makes for safer and more efficient circulation. The owner is providing more than the required landscaping along the streets, and lot lines and in front of the buildings to substitute for the interior islands. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The interior landscaping would be visible only to those people using the cul-de-sac roads to get into the parking lot. Visually, it is better in this case to move that landscaping to the perimeter of the property where it will be the amenity seen from the main street by everyone who drives by. The owner has done a good job in coming up with a plan which provides excellent parking lot screening and one which minimizes the impact of not having interior landscaping. The owner also agrees to landscape the City property across the street to make a park like environment along the ponds." Boardmember Lieser stepped down from this appeal because she is an adjacent property owner. She asked to speak regarding the variance. Ms. Lieser said that the property she owns has the landscape islands that were required. Most of the concrete has been broken by big trucks running over them. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship pleaded. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Thede, Murphy, Walker, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1637. Section 118-810)(2)(a), 118-81(D)(2)(b)]6[, 118-81(D)(2)(b)]1[ by Ronald Lasky for Columbine Academy, 324 N. Whitcomb - Approved with conditions "--The variance would reduce the required parking lot setback along the rear and side lot lines from 5 feet to 0 feet, would reduce the amount of interior parking lot landscaping from 6% to 3%, and eliminate the requirement to provide a 6 foot high solid fence along the south lot line, for a private, non-sectarian school in the RH zone. ---Hardship pleaded: If the 5 foot setbacks were met, 2/3 of the parking stalls would have to be eliminated to make room. The building and parking lot are already existing. The neighbor to the south has submitted a letter stating they don't want a 6 foot wood fence along the lot line. Since the tenants don't know how long they'll be there, the owner doesn't want the parking lot ripped up for landscaping because they may have to maintain it after the tenant is gone. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The petitioner will be improving the lot about to the maximum extent possible without losing most of the parking." No notices were returned. One letter was received. The letter is attached to the minutes. Petitioner Ron Lasky brought a letter from the Pastor of Holy Family Church asking that the landscaping be waived. He felt that since the school would only be there for one year, the responsibility would remain the churches to keep the landscape in good condition. Boardmember Walker felt that the purpose of the code was to rid the City of parking lots that were virtually "a sea of asphalt". Boardmember Johnson felt that this was probably a special circumstance that would not follow the code strictly. He felt they should work with the church to reduce the landscape needed. Boardmember Lieser made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that landscaping be placed in the front corners of the property and next to the front entrance stairs, eliminating the landscape islands at the rear of the lot. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas: Lieser, Thede, Walker, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. -11- Appeal No. 1638. Section 118-92(B), 118-96(A) by Jim Scavo 6 Tom Dougherty, Owners, 220 E. Mulberry - Approved with conditions "---The variance would allow an office building in the RH zone to have three identification signs rather than the one sign allowed by code. The variance would also allow one of the signs to be a projecting wall sign which is 24 square feet per face instead of the allowable 15 square feet. --Hardship pleaded: The building will have two main tenants - Scavo Realty and a Farmer's Insurance Agency. Both uses are professional offices, therefore there is only one principal use and only one sign is allowed. However, due to the nature of the offices being high visibility the petitioner's feel both separate businesses need their own signs. The existing freestanding sign is at the maximum height and size for its setback, so it can't be enlarged. The lot is across the alley from the BG zone. If this lot were in the BG zone also it would have 210 square feet of allowance. The proposal would amount to 126 square feet, considerably under what would be allowed if the property were in another zone. --Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the individual letter sign on the east wall be removed since it is behind a tree and not visible from the road anyway." There were no notices or letters received. Petitioner Tom Dougherty said that they are going to share their building with an insurance agent and the insurance agent feels that he needs signage to identify his business for out of town travelers that may have accidents. The Board asked Mr. Dougherty how he would feel about removing the signage on the east wall since it wasn't visible. Mr. Dougherty said that he has been trying to find the time to take it down and install it where it would be visible. He would like to keep it plus add the new sign at the corner. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the new sign if the wall sign is taken down and incorporated into the new corner sign. This would be a reduction of three signs to two signs. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lieser. Yeas: Lieser, Thede, Murphy, Dodder, Johnson. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. Bernard rp y, Unairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support -12-