BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Minutes
July 25, 2000

The meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Wichita, Kansas, was 
held at 1:30 p.m., on July 25, 2000, in the Planning Department Conference 
Room, Tenth Floor of City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas.
	
The following Board members were in attendance RANDY PHILLIPS, JAMES 
B. SKELTON, BRADLEY TIDEMANN, and MARY DE SENA. The following 
Board members were absent JOHN ROGERS, FLOYD PITTS, AND JAMES P. 
RUANE.

The following Planning Department staff members were present: Assistant 
Secretary, LISA VAN DE WATER. Recording Secretary, ROSE SIMMERING  
present (first part of meeting only). DALE MILLER, Secretary, absent.

Also present SHARON DICKGRAFE, Law Department, J.R.COX, Office of 
Central Inspection. 

PHILLIPS:  Calls July 25th Board of Zoning Appeals to order.  I think we 
probably need to make it clear that with four members present and three members 
absent than obviously it will take an unanimous decision to either approve or deny 
any of the requests and applications.  So on the Agenda, the first item is the 
approval of the meeting minutes.  Did everybody have a chance to review those or 
make any sort of corrections?  

SKELTON moves TIDEMANN seconds to approve the May 23, 2000 
meeting minutes.

MOTION carries 4-0.

PHILLIPS:  Next Agenda item number 2, case number BZA2000-00019.

VAN DE WATER: Agenda item number 2, BZA 2000-00019 is a request by 
Gary and Barbara Scott for a variance to reduce the rear yard building setback 
from 20 feet to 4 feet for home expansion.  The property in question is at the 
corner of 2nd Street and Crestway.  The northwest corner of Crestway and 2nd 
Street.  As you can see, it is zoned SF-6 Single-Family Residential.  This is the 
house and it might be better if we killed the lights, you might be able to see the 
slides better.  The house actually faces kind of out here to the corner of the 
property.  The boundary line is somewhat covering the west edge of the property, 
but there is a garage here and an existing two story home.  

The applicants want to expand the house on this site.  The existing home is 
actually built four-feet off of the rear property line.  This property was once 
owned by the owner of the property to the west and was later sub-divided and the 
property line placed there when that was divided after the house was built, which 
is why the four-foot separation is here.  To expand the house they want to come 
southward off of the main building.  The actual expansion would be six feet off of 
the rear property line.  This is the existing garage.  I just found out yesterday that 
this portion, the expansion of the garage, is not actually intended for this project.  
Merely, the addition of the house is to abut the existing garage.  

DESENA:  So that lower rectangle is not going to be there?

VAN DE WATER: Correct, it is actually a driveway adjacent to the existing 
garage with a wall separating the two properties here.  As mentioned in the staff 
report, Mrs. Scott has a medical condition that prevents her from direct exposure 
to the sun, which is part of the need for the connection between the garage and the 
home.  

Staff feels that this request meets the five criteria necessary for approval.  I have 
listed those criteria on page 2 of your Secretary’s Report.  Staff is recommending 
approval of this variance subject to conditions listed on page 3.  With the 
omission of condition number 2.  We don’t feel that the applicant should be 
restricted to a single-story construction after further examination of the site and 
speaking with the applicant.  Because this is a two story home, in order to 
maintain roof lines etc…this portion will be permitted to be a two story structure 
and since this isn’t actually part of the expansion project and this is setback from 
2nd Street, we feel that is viable in this situation.  

We would ask, except for this portion here, that the expansion conform to this site 
plan.  And that it be completed within one year following approval of the variance 
and if any of this is…If the applicant fails to comply with either of these 
conditions that the BZA variances becomes null and void. I will be happy to 
answer any further questions that you might have.  But, first let me run through 
the slides actually showing the property.  

This is looking from 2nd towards the property on the right here looking north.  
This is the wall between the two properties the other property driveway and 
another wall which is actually the back yard of the property to the west.  This is 
the applicants’ front yard looking out to the corner of 2nd and Crestway.  Looking 
east on 2nd and then the opposite corner across the street would be south across 
2nd.  Looking southwest down 2nd Street and the property to the west with their 
privacy wall.  Back to the property to the west and a little better picture of the 
separation here between the two properties.  

DESENA:  On the previous slide can I ask a question?

VAN DE WATER: Yes.

DESENA:  The extension of that house comes out right by the wall from there 
out?

VAN DE WATER: Correct towards you.  You can see the end of the garage here 
that would extend out to this point here and the applicant can probably better 
explain, since we weren’t provided elevations for the expansion, the applicant can 
probably explain a little bit better how they plan to tie that in together.  This is 
simply the front of the property looking from the corner of Crestway and 2nd.  I 
will answer any questions that you might have.  

PHILLIPS:  It appears there are no questions for staff then, is anybody here to 
represent the applicant?  Please come to the podium and identify yourself Sir.  

GARY (GERALD) SCOTT, 301 N. Crestway, Wichita, KS 67208, Applicant: 
I am one of the two applicants.  My wife and I own the property.  

PHILLIPS:  We have got the property address here.  We just have that for the 
record.  Thank you.

SCOTT:  What we are seeking to do is to bring the house towards the garage so 
that it comes up to the garage and then stops.  The problem arises in that the 
owner here on Belmont owned the whole half of the whole block width and he 
built our house for his daughter.  The property line was over somewhere to the 
…(in there) the owner on the Belmont side had the garage that you are looking at 
with the green roof and according to the abstractor, sometime in the 30’s our 
property deeded land over to the Belmont owner so that their garage could be on 
their property, if it had not been for that transfer in the 30’s, the house was built in 
the 20’s we would have the 20-foot setback.  Actually, I didn’t know until the 
start of this that we were a Crestway house and that was the back of our house and 
I thought it was the side of our house.  But, that is what we proposed to build, the 
two-story addition going from the existing house out to the garage.  It will be 
compatible with the same roof material and same stucco walls and compatible, 
and as the report states, it doesn’t interfere with the visual structure of the 
building in anyway, you don’t have any loss of site.  There is no site between the 
two homes anyway it is the privacy fence and then the tall shrubs so that neither 
of us get to look at the others property.  I would be happy to answer any question 
that any of you have.

PHILLIPS:  Questions to the applicant then?  Is anyone here to speak in 
opposition to the application?  It appears we have nobody to speak against the 
application so at this point we will go ahead and confine the discussion to the 
Board.

SKELTON:  My position is Mr. Chairman, I can’t see any reason why we 
shouldn’t approve this variance.  There is a sign in their front yard, as there 
should be, and there is no neighborhood opposition so my position would be to 
vote in favor.

PHILLIPS:  Any further discussion?

SKELTON moves and TIDEMANN seconds that the Board accept the 
findings of fact as set forth in the Secretary’s Report; and that all five 
conditions set out in Section 2.12.590 (b) of the City code as necessary 
for the granting of a variance have been found to exist and that the 
variance be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the 
Secretary’s Report.

MOTION CARRIES 4-0.

PHILLIPS:	We have a unanimous decision in favor of the applicant then.  Next 
on the Agenda is number three BZA 2000-00021

VAN DE WATER: This is a variance request to allow a building sign without 
150 feet of parking lot between buildings as stipulated by the Sign Code.  The 
application area here is just north of 21st Street on the eastside of Tyler.  There is a 
small strip center being developed on this lot here and the applicant in question is 
an Old Chicago Restaurant that is being built at the very south end of that small 
strip center.  

I will run through the slides real quick, which will give a better background of 
what the area actually looks like.  Obviously, this photograph was taken in 1997.  
This is Village Charters Tours at this location actually going all the way back 
here.  This is now another small strip center with a restaurant and a shoe store and 
a bank.  The request here is on this piece of property, the other small strip center.  
Obviously this whole intersection has been much more developed then when this 
picture was taken.  The restaurant in question is here and again we are at Tyler 
and 21st Street.  This is the already developed strip center, and this is the one 
currently being developed, Old Chicago here at the south end.  The applicants 
want to put a sign along this south elevation and the distance required between 
buildings would be 150 feet per the Sign Code.  They are showing 88 feet to this 
line but in actuality they have a little over 100 feet to the building, but not the 150 
feet.  This is a example of the sign.  This is the south elevation, they also have a 
sign if not identical but very similar to this, which has been approved for the west 
elevation facing Tyler and then another smaller sign over their entry door which 
actually faces southwest.  It is kind of on the corner of the building and both of 
those signs have been approved.  I apologize for these dark slides and perhaps 
some less light might help.  This is looking at the building under construction and 
the restaurant under construction looking towards the northeast and this would be 
the elevation in question where they want to put the sign.  This sign has been 
approved for this location above the doorway and a sign has been approved for 
the elevation facing Tyler.  This is looking due east between the two structures it 
is paved parking, two levels here.  Parking for this complex and then parking for 
the newer complex.  This is Semolina Restaurant looking towards the southeast.  
Looking due south at the intersection of 21st and Tyler across the street 
Commerce Bank and directly across the street several smaller retail office tenants 
in here, as well as Timberline Steakhouse on the far north on that smaller 
complex.  Then looking North along Tyler.  The front of the site in questions, 
again this area right here has been approved for a sign of similar size and style 
that is being applied for here.  

The building sign being proposed in this variance is a 128 square foot sign on the 
south elevation of the building.  The applicant has been approved for 136 square 
feet and the other 34 square feet sign on the west and southwest elevations.  In 
addition, there is a Tenant Board or sign that would be placed, or has been 
approved, for the entire strip development here that measure 200 square feet and 
will have space for all of those tenants. 

Staff has an opinion that the site has ample signage per the existing Sign Code 
and that granting this variance should be DENIED for that south elevation.  The 
primary criteria, I have listed on page 2 and page 3 which speaks to each of the 
uniqueness, adjacent property, hardship and public interest and spirit and intent 
criteria.  In every case staff feels that none of these criteria have been met, by the 
applicant or by this request.  And that adding another sign on that south elevation 
would add to signage clutter along Tyler and would actually not improve the 
visibility of what already exist per the Sign Code.  

If the Board feels that these criteria are met then there are several conditions that 
we would like to stipulate for the Board decides to approve this.  I have listed 
those on page 3.  If indeed, the sign variance is approved for that south elevation, 
staff would recommend that either the building sign on the west elevation be 
reduced or the Tenant Board signage be reduced in size.  Of course they would 
have to gain all the necessary permits and be a non-flashing, internally 
illuminated sign and that the sign be installed within one year.  I will answer any 
questions that you have I have gone through all of the slides.

PHILLIPS:  Any questions for staff at the point?  We can hear from the applicant 
if anybody is here to represent the applicant.

JERRY TREAT, SALESPERSON FOR RON’S SIGN COMPANY,1329 S. 
HANDLEY, Wichita, KS 67213:  What we are wanting to do is to outline the 
five points here and if it is okay I would like to go one by one through them.  
Point one talks about uniqueness, Old Chicago is not the builder of this location. 
Paul Hoover is the one building the building.  They could not have possibly 
foreseen about the building being without 150 feet between the bank or whatever 
the mall next to it, so by not knowing about that, they may have changed their 
mind and they not have wanted to put their Restaurant at this location.  So I think 
that, in a way, this is unique.  

Point B talks about the granting of the variance would adversely affect the rights 
of adjacent property owners, their sign is going to back up basically to the back of 
a building, which is like a alley for parking at the mall directly south of it.  If 
anything, this should increase some traffic going into that side of the restaurant 
and really promote safety for the people that are actually parking back behind the 
bank or the other mall.  So I don’t see anyway this could adversely affect the 
rights at all and right behind it is for Village Charters.  

Strict application of the zoning, they would like to have the sign on the south side 
of the façade because the 21st Street traffic, if you look at this, this should give 
them about a 50-degree angle here as opposed to 10 percent, 10 degree.  So by 
going to the south they should have a better line of site for people going down 21st 
Street eastbound so I think they will be able to pick up more traffic that way.  So, 
I think the strict application will hurt them a little bit. 

Again on the granting of this variance, it should be a public thing here.  There 
should be some extra lighting and some extra traffic on the south side of the 
building, which I think will improve the safety to the people that are parking back 
there.  
The general spirit of the code, I think it is meant to keep light from additional 
signs and lighting going into neighborhoods and producing light clutter and 
clutter, I don’t see how this sign will do that in anyway.  If anything it should 
lighten up the south side of the building.  

We think they should get the sign and they are investing a lot of money in this 
sign and if all of these points were true that staff had commented on why would 
Old Chicago want to spend all the money on the sign?  They are putting a 4 X 32 
foot neon sign.  It is real expensive and if there is no benefit for them why have 
it?  You guys have any questions?

PHILLIPS:  Any questions from the Board then? 

TIDEMANN:  How big of a sign will they have on the front on Tyler?

TRENT:  It is a matching size 4 X 32.

PHILLIPS:  You mentioned, one of the things you said was that there was no 
way of knowing that you would be less than 150 foot separation you said who?

TRENT:  When Old Chicago signed the agreement with Paul Hoover, they were 
not aware of the 150 feet of required parking space.

PHILLIPS:  Who is, the owner and developer of the adjacent property?

TRENT:  Paul Hoover, the adjacent property? Paul Hoover owns the building 
that is going up.

PHILLIPS:  Who owns the building where the shoe store and restaurant is?

TRENT:  I don’t know who owns that.

PHILLIPS:  I believe Mr. Hoover owns it, so actually you are dealing with one 
owner with two adjacent properties.  

TRENT:  But, again they may not have known about the 150 feet of the Sign 
Code requirement.  I am talking about Old Chicago I am not talking about Paul 
Hoover.

PHILLIPS: You said that they would have never known that there wasn’t going 
to be a 150-foot of separation between the buildings.  My problem is that if you 
have one owner/developer who owns and develops both of these he knows exactly 
where those buildings are going because he is looking at utilization of property.  

TRENT:  You are talking about a small area of fine print in the Sign Code that he 
is probably not aware of.

PHILLIPS:  It is probably not his responsibility to be aware of it.

TRENT:  Exactly.  That is why Old Chicago was not aware of it that was my 
point.  

PHILLIPS:  Does anybody have any other comments for the applicant at all?

TIDEMANN:  They will have monument signage on this also?

TRENT:  Yes, I am not aware of the exact size they are going to have I think 
some of this is relating to and given some maximums to them but I don’t know 
exactly.  They haven’t told me.  It is a multiple tenant building.

PHILLIPS:  Since you are representing the applicant, just so that you are aware 
of the fact and I am just putting this as a point of procedure.  Four people here is a 
quorum four voting members. It has to be unanimous to either approve or deny 
any other split vote will actually bring the application back.  Is that not correct 
Sharon?

DICKGRAFE:  That is correct.

PHILLIPS:  Just so you know, and if that is any concern of yours or consequence 
I am just offering that for you.  But, do have any sort of letter or anything, you 
have made some comments on your replies to the five comments at all.

TRENT:  Another thing is Western Sign Company is the actual builder of the 
signs.  We are basically doing the installation for them.  So we are really 
representing the Western Sign Company and Old Chicago.  So there is a pretty 
big chain here.  Western Sign Company is out of Colorado and we are contracting 
the installation through them.  

PHILLIPS:  Most sign companies, aren’t they aware of the Sign Code?

TRENT:  We weren’t the original sign contractors on this, Bogg’s Sign Company 
was.

PHILLIPS:  But, you said nobody knew about the fine print of the Sign Code.  I 
guess my impression would be that being a qualified sign company that that is 
actually your responsibility or the sign companies responsibility to be aware of 
the detailed information of the Sign Code.

TRENT:  We weren’t in this initially, we were brought in after the fact.

PHILLIPS:  I am just talking about, you are talking about a hardship here and 
this is one of the things that you are addressing to the uniqueness issue.

TRENT:  To Old Chicago.

PHILLIPS:  You are saying that nobody knew about this, and that may be the 
case.  But when someone hires an professional whether it be a consultant or an 
installer and knowing the sign companies and the industries around here I think 
most of them will try to tell you that they are very familiar with the Sign Code, 
they deal with it all the time.
TRENT:  I guess I could disagree with that point because a lot of the time the 
buildings are way up and far into the progress before the sign people are brought 
into it.  A lot of times they are not brought into the preliminary building or 
planning.

PHILLIPS:  That is true.  And that is also why we have the venue here so that 
people can actually address those things.  

DESENA:  But, that is something that Old Chicago should have done.  They 
should have been farsighted enough to say, “what can we do, what is the zoning 
regulations for this?”  

TRENT:  They may have.  We are the second sign company in town to deal with 
this and we are dealing with the sign company out of Colorado so we weren’t in 
this initially either.  Obviously for some reason they are wanting to invest a lot of 
money in the sign for a reason so if it doesn’t met any of the criteria, or if it 
doesn’t do them any good why would they want to spend that money?  Most 
customers don’t want to spend the money.

PHILLIPS:  That is why we are here today, at least trying to give you some 
feedback and vote.  That is how it works.  Any other comments or questions from 
the Board?  We don’t have a clock running today but we are going to try and keep 
this thing brief.  

TIDEMANN:  Can I just look to make sure that, per the Sign Code, they are 
permitted a 30-foot tall, 200 square foot pole or monument sign.  The monument 
there is going to save three tenants in that building correct?  That’s what they are 
allowed per Code. I think if you have Old Chicago being half of the development 
or a good portion of it, I believe that with that size capability of a monument sign 
that would be good enough 50-degree angle like you said for the east traffic.  I 
don’t see that it is actually needed.  But that pole sign and monument sign I would 
agree with you.  But your having that sign already and it probably won’t be as eye 
catching but it is still going to be there.

PHILLIPS:  Point of clarification, as I read it and it has been specified, 136 
square foot of signage exactly, as we have in this drawing right here, one like that 
is going on the west side of the building facing Tyler, correct?  In addition to the 
one that is over the door, which is 34 square feet and the monument sign.  I am 
trying to clarify this so that everyone has an understanding what the actual 
allowable installation is planned for.  Any other comments at this point?  Thank 
you Mr. Trent.  Is anyone here to speak against the application?  Not seeing 
anybody then we will go ahead and confine the discussion to the Board if 
necessary.

SKELTON:  Unfortunately for the applicant I have to agree with staff in this 
case.  I feel that the five conditions here are ones that I can agree with so I am 
going to have to vote to deny.

DICKGRAFE:  Sir, are you wanting to address the Board?  I think Randy there 
was one other person that wanted to speak in favor of this variance.

PHILLIPS:  I am sorry, I should have offered that.  You are speaking in favor of 
the application then?  We will then reopen the discussion from the audience than 
and hear from anybody else that is in favor of the application.

JOHN SAINDON and I AM THE OWNER OF THE RON’S SIGN: We have 
had a handoff in this process but I don’t feel that plays a critical part in the 
importance of this sign.  A couple of things that I want to point out, one, it is 
listed as a 200 square foot sign and I am not so sure that is the case of what is 
going to take place out there as far as the monument sign goes.  Another thing that 
I don’t want to be redundant, but I do want to emphasize there are three people on 
that sign, it is not exclusive for Old Chicago.  One of the big things, talking to the 
Old Chicago people, one of the big important things of this sign on the south 
elevation was eastbound on the 21st Street, of seeing that side of the wall.  There 
is an angle there that you can see it very well, the south side of the wall, they felt 
it was very important to that drive-in business, with that sign there.  One of the 
things that they did tell me, if the size of the sign on the south elevation was going 
to be a problem we would consider having a smaller sign instead of going with a 
bare wall over there.  We didn’t want to have a complete bare wall, even though 
we are represented on the Tyler side and do have a monument sign we didn’t want 
to have a bare wall on the south side of the property.  So if the size of the sign is a 
critical issue, we would definitely look at a smaller sign before going without any.  
I think that is real important, so if that is something that can be discussed and 
maybe negotiated we certainly would be interested in that.    

PHILLIPS:  Well, I think and we have to ask Sharon about that, the variance 
here is to allow a building sign and doesn’t say or specify the size within 150 feet 
required separation.  So the variance is for basically a distance variation and not 
size.

SAINDON:  That’s correct.  We know that if it is one of the situation to where 
we need to give a little bit to get something, we are willing to do that up front.  
Another thing to consider is that it is 150 foot separation as required by the Code 
we do have 88 we are not 140, but we are not at 50 feet either.  We are almost 
dead in the middle so we would like to have something in there.  The Code does 
allow 15 square foot sign but we feel without the 150 feet separation you would 
be allowed to have a 15 square foot sign and I think J.R. might be able to attest to 
that.  We talked about that and to maybe not file the variance and go with 
something that small.  But again back to the main point, was when you are driving 
east on 21st Street will you be able to see a 15 square foot sign and the answer we 
felt was no.  So, one of the things that they wanted me to emphasize was that if 
reducing the size is something that can be considered we certainly would 
considered that.  Before going with a bare wall because that is what we would 
have we would have a bare wall on the south side.  

PHILLIPS:  Well, in light of that, I think the only thing still within the venue that 
we are allowed to do here we are allowed to rule either for or against on the 
request as submitted, which is a distance separation.  Now the option here would 
be to possibly defer this and present the proposal that you have to staff to see how 
they feel and get their judgement.  I am not trying to drag this thing out I am 
thinking that is probably the only other option you have.  Otherwise we will 
probably have to vote on it as submitted.

SAINDON:  Well, if you read in the applicant portion from their report, one of 
the things that they talked about if you were to allow it they talked about limiting 
the size of the sign, on the Tyler side.  I am not saying that we are trying to steal 
their thunder or anything but that did come across our mind, you know from what 
they recommended in a sense.  

VAN DE WATER: Actually we recommended to remove to not put up the Tyler 
side sign or reduce the monument sign.

PHILLIPS:  I guess my point is that there have been times when we have had 
some fairly clear discussions, but it sounds to me as far as options are for some of 
the cases.  My point is that if you want to enter into further discussion with staff 
then you might be better off trying to defer the application and make a 
presentation to them.  There is no guarantee that it won’t come back in the same 
form or it might be a step backwards I don’t know but I am just trying to present 
the options here as they kind of have occurred in the past.  Because I don’t think 
for this Board to stand here and negotiate, our duty is to receive the applications 
as they are review them, hear the testimony, and vote on them.  Past that, I think it 
is starting to put us in a difficult position.  

SAINDON:  I understand where you are coming from with that.  Obviously this 
is negotiation.  To some extent it can’t happen you got to go with what is on the 
application.  I understand that.  To go back I believe there is a hardship to some 
extent on the eastbound traffic on 21st Street.  We sit behind a corner lot to the 
north of it and our exposure is going to be a lot more if we are allowed to put a 
sign on the south side of the building going east on 21st Street.  There is a 
hardship there from that extent.

PHILLIPS:  You said, as written in the application, there is 200 square feet of 
pole and monument sign along Tyler, one of three tenants there, how much space 
will you be occupying on that?  Out of 200 what are you taking?  

SAINDON:  Well, the sign is going to be provided by the owner of the property.  
Neither  tenant will dictate what size they get, it will be provided by the owner of 
the property.  The sign has not been put up yet from the last I have been out there 
it was not there.  I also question the 200 square feet.  From my feed back from 
Old Chicago the sign was not going to be 200 square feet.

PHILLIPS:  It says the strip center is permitted a 30 foot tall 200 square foot 
sign, that is what the regulations allow.  

VAN DE WATER: There has been a permit pulled for 20’ X 10’ monument 
sign.

PHILLIPS:  So that has already been validated.  

SAINDON:  I don’t know from an allocation standpoint what proportion Old 
Chicago is going to get. 

PHILLIPS:  Typically if a tenant occupies a certain percentage of a building then 
things are basically divided up equitably.  If they have 50 percent a lot of times 
they will get 50 percent if there are three tenants in there and they are all equal 
then, a lot of times the exposure on the monument sign is equal.  A lot of it has to 
be negotiated, but usually that kind of stuff is pretty well spelled out.

SAINDON:  I am not sure but I think the tenant is going to be divided in three 
spaces.  I know Sherwin Williams Paints is in there and they have a pretty big 
space.  I don’t know if Old Chicago has 60 percent or I don’t believe it is anything 
that large.  I think they have maybe tops 40 percent of that building of that strip 
mall.

PHILLIPS: So, at least we know there is going to be 136 square feet plus 34 
square feet, that 170 square feet plus some portion or percentage of the 200 square 
feet on the monument sign.  So that is what we are looking at as far as total 
number for the signage areas for Old Chicago is that correct?

SAINDON:  I would say that is correct.

PHILLIPS:  So even if the worse case is that you get a smaller percentage you 
are looking at well over 200 square feet of signage and how big is the restaurant?

SAINDON:  One of the things you got to consider is you can have as big a sign 
as you want on the Tyler side, but it may not have an effect from angle standpoint.  
The whole idea and the spirit of our variance, is that we are saying that we have a 
hardship on 21st Street going east.  That we feel like by placing a sign on the south 
side of the building we can benefit from that by not having a blank wall there.

PHILLIPS:  I understand that.  How big is the restaurant?  

SAINDON:  What square footage is the restaurant?  The plan shows it being 
6,500 square feet.

PHILLIPS:  So really they got roughly 40 percent of the building there.

SAINDON:  Yes that would be probably a good estimate.  

PHILLIPS:  Any other comments then?  Thank you.

TRENT:  If we did have 150 foot separation..

PHILLIPS:  You will have to re-identify yourself.

JERRY TRENT, FROM RON’S SIGN COMPANY: If we did have the 150 
feet then we would be able to have all the square footage in signs.   So to say that 
we are not and you are allowing us enough signage, if we did have that extra feet 
we wouldn’t be here and we would be allowed all that signage to start with.

PHILLIPS:  I think your point is well taken.  If you had the 150 feet you would 
not be here.

TRENT:  Yes, but we would be able to get all the signage that we are asking for.

PHILLIPS:  Well that is why we have a Sign Code.

TRENT:  I know.

PHILLIPS:  What I have to do is offer for anybody opposing the application and 
seeing none then I will confine the discussion to the Board and based on the 
additional information that we received is there any further discussion?  At this 
point then I am willing to entertain a motion.  And again a point of clarification 
there is a minimum quorum here so anything other than a unanimous decision will 
bring the application back in some form.

SKELTON moves and TIDEMANN seconds that the Board to deny 
the variance the findings of fact as set forth in the Secretary’s Report; 
and that all five conditions set out in Section 2.12.590 (b) of the City 
code as necessary for the granting of a variance have not been found 
to exist and that the variance be denied. 

PHILLIPS:  We do have a unanimous decision and it is in support of the denial 
of the application.  There are other venues but I think you have heard the vote 
today.  Item number four on the agenda then is a report from Central Inspection 
regarding compliance from previous cases and I am sure that J.R. Cox is going to 
present that for us.

J.R. COX Office of Central Inspection: I only have two today and they are both 
in compliance.  Case 5-99, which is variance to reduce parking requirement on 
Waterman west of Circle Drive.  And case number 7-99, which was a reduction of 
compatibility setback on 21st Street northwest of Prince and as I said those are 
both in compliance.  If you have any questions I will try and answer them.

PHILLIPS:  I have a question totally relating to another case.  I have noticed that 
Lowe’s has really cleaned up their parking lot on the North.  Does that have 
anything to do with your surveillance of that area?  

COX: Not mine as related to the Office of Central Inspection.  Actually the west 
side Inspector, yes they needed some reminding of the Code.

PHILLIPS:  I go by there everyday so actually it is nice to see it clear.  I like 
having the store there, but on the other hand knowing that there had been some 
violations it is nice to see that people are paying attention down here is great.  I 
just somehow had the feeling that they did not do that voluntarily. 

COX:  No, we had to go there and apparently there had been a number of 
management changes and they had to be reminded.

PHILLIPS:  It looks as though they have done some things to try and comply 
with some of the screening.  They closed off one of the access for the trucks and 
things.  I just think they forget that it was probably in place and they need to pay 
attention to the neighbors.  Great.

DICKGRAFE:  Could I just have one report.  That the appeal in the Huang Vu 
case, regarding the residential house that was located to close to the property line.

PHILLIPS:  That was RCK homes.

DICKGRAFE:  Yes, with Ron Smith the builder.  That was appealed to District 
Court and the appeal, was ultimately dismissed by Mr. Vu.  There was an 
agreement made between Mr. Vu and the builder so it was dismissed and the 
Boards decision stands.

PHILLIPS:  We got through all of the Agenda Items so, if there is no further 
discussion we will stand adjourned.
BZA MINUTES                    JULY 25, 2000	                                          PAGE 13