BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Minutes
February 22, 2000

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Wichita, Kansas, was held at 
1:30 p.m., on February 22, 2000, in the Planning Department Conference Room, Tenth Floor of 
City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas.
	
The following Board members were in attendance: FLOYD PITTS, JOHN ROGERS, BICKLEY 
FOSTER, DAVE BABICH, JAMES SKELTON, BRADLEY TIDEMANN, RANDY PHILLIPS 
(late), all present. 

The following Planning Department staff members were present: Secretary, DALE MILLER, 
Assistant Secretary, LISA VERTS and Recording Secretary, LISA ESTRADA. 

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

PITTS:  Call meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.  I am going to ask the recording secretary to call the 
role of the members.

ESTRADA:  (Completes task.)

PITTS:  We do have a quorum so we are now in session.  I am assuming that we have been 
asked to take up these items, the way that they appear on the agenda, if there is no problem with 
that we will go to the 1999 BZA Annual Report.  Dale did you want to address this at all?

MILLER:  No, not unless you just had questions. We do this annually for the benefit of the City 
Council so that they can see in summary form what kind of work you handle and there is a 
Financial analysis there as well that goes to the City Manager and the City Council.

PITTS:  In topic number four, evaluation, the second paragraph the last digits, 1997, is that as 
you wanted them to be?  Or as you wanted it to be?

VERTS:  No, it should be 1999.  Sorry, that correction will be made.

DICKGRAFE:  That is actually not accurate, there was one Appeal that was filed.  It was later 
dismissed, but there was an Appeal that was filed.  On the Tallgrass dumpster trash receptacle.

VERTS:  It was the Appeal of the Appeal but it was never heard.

DICKGRAFE:  It was Appealed to the District Court and was docketed in the District Court.  

PITTS:  I am sorry we can not hear.

DICKGRAFE:  I am pointing out that in the report, there was one case that was appealed from a 
BZA Decision that was appealed to the District Court.  The Appeal was ultimately dismissed 
however; it was docketed so I am not sure that it is accurate that there was no suits filed against 
the Board.

VERTS:  We can change the wording to reflect that.

FOSTER:  I think we ought to Mr. Chairman.

PITTS:  Those corrections are noted then, Mr. Foster, did you make a motion that we 
processed?

1.	FOSTER moves ROGERS seconds that the amendment to and the Annual Report 
for 1999 be approved.

MOTION carries 7-0.

PITTS:  Ok, we have got minutes to approve,  July 27, 1999, has everyone had an opportunity to 
reflect upon those and read them?  

BABICH:  On the July the 27th I am not listed as being present.  

PITTS:  And you were?

BABICH:  According to the body of the minutes I participated in the meeting.

VERTS:  I can not hear.

PITTS:  It does not say that you were present and it does not say that you were absent.

VERTS:  I will let Rose know to change that.

PITTS:  With that correction do we have a motion?

	ROGERS moves BABICH seconds to approve the minutes for July 27, 1999.

MOTION carries 7-0.

PITTS:  October 26, 1999.  

BABICH moves ROGERS seconds to approve the minutes for October 26, 1999 as 
written.

MOTION carries 7-0.

PITTS:  November 23, 1999.  

FOSTER moves ROGERS seconds to approve the minutes for November 23, 1999 
as written.
 
MOTION carries 7-0.

PITTS:  December 21, 1999.

PHILLIPS moves ROGERS seconds to approve the minutes for December 21, 1999 
as written.

MOTION carries 7-0.

PITTS:  January 25, 2000 there was no quorum and February 1, 2000.

FOSTER:  One minor correction on page 20, of the February 1, 2000, four lines from the 
bottom, I think the word (swale) would be better than swill.  Some how I think that would better 
describe the situation, although it could be both.  

PITTS:  How do you want to spell the word?

FOSTER:  With that amendment that is fine.  Mr. Chairman, since I was not there for the whole 
meeting I think someone else perhaps ought to make the motion and second.  

PITTS:  Is there a motion?

TIDEMANN moves ROGERS seconds to approve the minutes for January 25, 2000 
and February 1, 2000.

MOTION carries 7-0.

PITTS:  This case was deferred from our February 1, 2000 meeting.

VERTS:  Good Afternoon, members of the Board, I have been informed, by the applicant, that 
they wish to defer this request for one more month until the next meeting of the Board of Zoning 
Appeals.  It seems they have come to a verbal agreement between the two property owners and 
would like to get that finalized on paper before the Board makes a decision on this request.  I 
believe that both the applicant and an agent for Mr. Vu would like to speak today.  In addition, 
we have Jim Garcia from OCI here today, at Mr. Foster’s request, from the last meeting to 
answer any questions regarding the procedure of OCI with regards to building inspections.  

PITTS:  Please let the chair understand this correctly.  The applicant has requested that this be 
deferred for one more month and having made that request they are still asking someone to speak 
on this today?

VERTS:  Yes, I believe the applicant would like to be heard, or not?  I guess not, nobody wants 
to talk about this.  But, again I should say that Jim Garcia is here from OCI in case you have any 
questions that you would like to clarify from him.

FOSTER:  Mr. Chairman, since I had asked earlier, you recall last time we had a little difficulty 
in determining whether someone was available at that time. I had asked ahead of time if the 
Inspector could be available.  Now, in view of the deferral would it be the Boards opinion to wait 
and hear the Inspector at the next meeting, or would you want to hear him now?

PITTS:  I do not think it would be proper to hear the Inspector speak on this variance if we are 
going to agree to defer it.  But I will entertain the wishes of the bench on that matter.

FOSTER:  That is fine with me, just as long as he could be available next time would be fine.  

PITTS:  What is your pleasure on the deferral on BZA 01-00 until the next scheduled meeting?

FOSTER:  I just want to make sure with the staff, as we understand, I mean the variance does 
not go away by any agreement that they can make right?  This is still a variance before this 
Board.  As I understand, they understand that, correct?

MILLER:  Right.

PITTS:  I do not want to do this on concurrence.  We need a motion to defer this please.

3.	SKELTON moves TIDEMANN seconds to defer BZA 01-00 until our next regular 
scheduled meeting.

MOTION carries 7-0.

PITTS:  BZA 02-00.

PHILLIPS:  I gave staff explanation of this particular project regarding RRM Properties, I need 
to declare a conflict of interest and sit out on BZA 02-00.

PITTS:  Ok, Mr. Phillips, we respect your wishes on that.  Let the record show that Mr. Phillips 
will not join in the discussions on BZA 02-00 because of potential conflict of interest.  

4.	Case No. BZA 02-00, RRM Properties, L.L.C., c/o All Star Sports, pursuant to Section 
2.12.590B, Code of the City of Wichita, request a variance to increase the height of a sign 
from a maximum of 22 feet to 29 feet 6 inches; Variance to increase the size of a sign 
from a maximum of 32 square feet to 124 square feet; Variance to allow a message board 
with moving letters, on property zoned “GO” General Office on property legally 
described as follows:

A complete legal description is available for public inspection at the Metropolitan Area 
Planning Department, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, Kansas.  
Generally located south of 21st Street North and west of Tyler Road.

VERTS:  Present slides and staff report.

BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variances for signage for All Star Sports on 21st 
Street North, between Tyler Road and Woodchuck.  All Star Sports, a large recreational facility, 
is located on property that is zoned “GC” General Commercial.  However, the parking lot 
associated with this facility is zoned “GO” General Office.  The applicant wishes erect a pole 
sign along the 21st Street frontage, within the parking lot area and having the size, height, and 
type of sign as is permitted in the “GC” zoning district.  

Specifically, in the “GO” District, the Sign Code would permit the construction of a pole sign for 
the single tenant that is 32 square feet in area and 22 feet high.  Additionally, the Sign Code does 
not permit flashing or moving images on signs in the “GO” District.  The applicant is requesting 
a sign that is 124 square feet in area, is 29 feet 6 inches tall, and has a message board with 
moving letters and/or symbols.  

The subject property is part of the Golf Park West Community Unit Plan (DP-172).  The General 
Provisions of this C.U.P. speaks to the issue of signs.  Specifically, per General Provision #6:

One sign, advertising the recreation facility, shall be permitted along 21st Street 
North and it shall be within the “GC” zoning district of parcel 3.  The sign shall be 
no more than 150 square feet [in area] and 30 feet in height.  One (1) monument 
sign shall be permitted along 21st Street North for Parcel 1A.  The monument sign 
shall have a maximum square footage of 60 square feet and a maximum height of 
15 feet.  Advertising signs shall be in accordance with Section 24.04 of The Code 
of the City of Wichita.  No flashing lights, offsite or portable signs shall be 
allowed.

This signage requirement was made with the intent of limiting signage along a primarily 
residential portion of 21st Street North despite the more intensive use allowed for the All Star 
Sports facility.  The original zone change and C.U.P. for this property permitted the rezoning of 
this property to "GC” General Commercial (“C” at the time of rezoning), except for the north 
270 feet, which would be rezoned to “GO” General Office (“BB” at the time of rezoning) to act 
as a buffer against more intensive commercial uses and restricted to ‘parking’ uses.  
Subsequently, Parcel 1A (Lot 1 – currently Dairy Queen) was rezoned from “GO” to “GC” and 
the C.U.P. was amended to allow a restaurant and parking with further restrictions on signage as 
stipulated in the aforementioned General Provision #6.  The concern of staff at that time was 
“the continued commercial “stripping” of 21st Street North with high traffic generating uses, as 
well as the aesthetic impact of those uses along this roadway which is identified by the 
Comprehensive Plan as a major corridor for the community’s image.” (Staff Report to MAPC, 
March 23, 1995, DP-172 Amendment #2)

The surrounding uses are mixed in nature and include residential, churches, and commercial 
uses, including a fast-food restaurant, on property zoned “SF-6” and “GC”.  Across 21st Street, 
and adjacent to the east are two large churches.  Directly to the south is the All Star Sports 
facility with residential lots directly south of that facility.  Directly to the west of the parking lot 
is a Dairy Queen Restaurant.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH	“SF-6“	– Church
SOUTH	“GC“	– All Star Sports
EAST		“SF-6“	– Church
WEST		“GC“	– Dairy Queen Restaurant


The five criteria necessary for approval apply to all three variances requested.

UNIQUENESS: It is the opinion of staff that this property is not unique, inasmuch as the 
property has ample opportunity for signage within the “GC” portion of the recreation facility, 
which was permitted in the Golf Park West Community Unit Plan.

ADJACENT PROPERTY: It is the opinion of staff the granting of the variance requested 
would adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners, inasmuch as adjacent properties 
are primarily residential or church affiliated and a sign of this size and character would be 
contrary to the overall appearance of this interior portion of 21st Street North, between the 
commercial intersections of Tyler Road and Ridge Road.

HARDSHIP: It is the opinion of staff that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning 
regulation and C.U.P. does not constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, inasmuch 
as the facility is well-identified from 21st Street North and ample signage could be 
accommodated within the “GC” portion of the facility.

PUBLIC INTEREST: It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance would adversely 
affect the public interest, inasmuch as the signage would be contrary to this roadway being 
identified by the Comprehensive Plan as a major corridor deserving of special treatment 
designed to promote and enhance the community’s visual image.  The city and county have spent 
significant monies landscaping and creating medians to enhance the west 21st Street Corridor; 
signage of the scale proposed is not compatible with their objectives. 

SPIRIT AND INTENT: It is the opinion of staff that the granting of the variance requested 
would oppose the general spirit and intent of the Community Unit Plan and the original zoning 
regulation, inasmuch as reducing excessive visual clutter as a result of sign is one of the 
intentions of the Sign Code.  The intent of the C.U.P. was to provide a buffer region along 21st 
Street and relief of signs indicative of more intensive commercial uses.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff continues to take its original stance concerning the visual impact 
of commercial uses along this portion of 21st Street North.  It is staff’s opinion that the All Star 
Sports facility, with its brightly colored façade and large building sign, certainly does not suffer 
from an identity problem.  Additional signage, especially of the size, height, and type requested 
would not be appropriate for this interior portion of 21st Street North between Tyler Road and 
Ridge Road.  Monument or pole signage, as was afforded the Dairy Queen restaurant, would be 
more appropriate at this location. Should the Board determine that conditions necessary to the 
granting of the variance do not exist, then it is the recommendation of the Secretary that the 
variances to increase the size, height, and type of sign be DENIED.

VERTS:  I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have concerning the staff 
report.

PITTS:  Let me briefly start it off by asking your definition of “stripping” as you use it in your 
report.

VERTS:  “Stripping”, meaning strip development as is common along many of the streets in 
Wichita, so commercial use along the frontage of major streets.

PITTS:  Commercial versus what?

VERTS:  Residential.

PITTS:  Thanks.  Are there any additional questions of staff?

FOSTER:  Lisa, under the recommendations it mentioned that staff continues to take it original 
stance.  Would you refresh my memory, I just can’t recall cases we have had along this area of 
21st Street, in other words, west 21st Street?  I know that you have not been here long enough, but 
I am just trying to think what precedence has been set?

VERTS:  I think in reference to that statement, we are speaking more towards CUP’s and zoning 
cases that have been along 21st Street rather than BZA cases.  Staff being, staff in general.  

FOSTER:  So the position before the Planning Commission in regard to the C.U.P. cases?

VERTS:  That is my understanding.  I can’t say specifically, if there has been any BZA cases 
directly in this area.

MILLER:  No, she is accurate.  I think that is what this reflects, is the Planning Commission 
cases where staff has recommended what you are seeing today.  The Comprehensive Plan 
recommends West 21st to a visual corridor and has guidelines in there about trying to protect 
what should happen there and minimizing sign clutter and other kinds of clutter in that area, and 
that is what that refers to.

FOSTER:  On this particular C.U.P., do you recall anything about signs coming up at the case 
as to whether that was a problem for the applicant when it was approved?

VERTS:  When the Dairy Queen property was rezoned, that added sign restriction was put on 
the C.U.P., the applicant had requested a larger sign and those restrictions were placed on the 
C.U.P. Amendment and Zone change at that time.

FOSTER:  So the Planning Commission did not increase the sign on the C.U.P., is that what you 
are saying?

VERTS:  They decreased the request.  If I am saying that correctly.  They did not allow as much 
signage as the applicant had requested.  

FOSTER:  For the Dairy Queen sign?

VERTS:  Exactly.  The signage for All Star Sports remains the same.

FOSTER:  Thank you.

PITTS:  Anymore additional question for the staff from the bench?  Thank you very much, Lisa.  
Is there anyone present to speak for the applicant?

ROBERT KAPLAN, 430 N. MARKET – I represent All Star Sports.  Let me tell you first of 
all, please make a correction in your secretary’s report, it amounts to more than harmless error.  
The location of this property is not west of Tyler Road; it is west of Ridge Road.  It lies between 
Ridge and Tyler, not west of Tyler.  Now, normally I probably would not bother to point that out 
to you, but it does make a difference because when you read the staff report they talk about 
landscaping, they talk about medians, they talk about the beautification of 21st Street.  That is not 
the situation between Ridge and Tyler.  Ridge and Tyler is ribbon paving with bar ditches.  That 
is correct. 

PITTS:  Thank you for making that correction.



KAPLAN:  So we do not have the medians, we do not have the landscaping that Lisa is talking 
about.  Basically, I was a little surprised, gentlemen, I thought that staff would really embrace 
this request.  As you read the staff report, and there seems a sense against any more commercial 
development or stripping out commercial development on 21st Street, I think that is exactly what 
we are preventing by coming in and asking the BZA simply to approve a replacement sign.  

The alternative is obviously to take that 270 feet, this 500 plus feet, which is currently in the 
“GO” District.  I do not know why it is the “GO” District.  I do not know why it was not zoned 
“LC” Limited Commercial at the time, because it is basically not any good for development.  It 
is 270 feet deep and it is basically useless property except for parking, it can be used for parking, 
other than that it does not have any developmental potential.  We could come in and I do not 
believe that anyone here would suggest that the Planning Commission and ultimately the City 
Council would not approve that to a zone change to “LC” Limited Commercial.  So, I thought 
rather than come in and ask for the “LC” Limited Commercial that the BZA route was really 
cooperating with what staff foresaw for that area.  I thought I was going to be embraced and 
instead of that I got objection, so I am somewhat surprised by the staff report.

But let me address the criteria very quickly.  I want to show you some photos of that area that 
Mr. Cornejo, the owner, has taken because there is a large, large proliferation of signs.  Richard 
could you bring those up here, we have got a lot of 8 X 10’s.  There are a lot of signs out there 
far more erroneous than the sign that we are asking for.  As far as the criteria that you have to 
find, this property is unique.  I do not think anyone seems to recall why the original zoning did 
not extend to the 21st Street frontage and why we have that 270 feet in there in the first place.  
But, the property does present a unique situation, the uniqueness criteria is met under the 
ordinance because this property is commercial with a corridor in front of it of 270 feet, two 
shallow to develop and then the All Star Sports facility as you will see in your site plan sits way 
back off the road.  So we are presented with a very unique situation out there.  We have probably 
the largest facility on almost 2 acres on 21st Street and we are relegated to Office District signing.  
Even the Dairy Queen gets “LC” Light Commercial signing and every fast food restaurant out 
there gets “LC” Light Commercial signing and we are sitting here and we can only sign such as 
permitted in the Office District, even though we have got a 2 acre facility.  A very nice facility I 
might add.  So, I do not think there is any question that we are presented with a very unique site, 
with everything commercial except that front which is “GO” which we really can’t do anything 
with short of rezoning it.  That is an alternative and of course we can go that way but I do not 
think that is, I didn’t think from my conversation that that is what staff wanted, that is why I 
chose the BZA route, because they didn’t want anymore commercial. 

As far as hardship that is another criteria of your five.  The placement of signs is very, very, 
very, important, without visibility, a sign is simply not productive.  Our sign is clear down at the 
west end of the property.  

If signing is adverse to the public interest, I want you to look at these prints.  Just stand up here 
Richard, and we will get to these in a minute, will you go ahead.  Do you mind if he interrupts 
me just long enough to explain the prints, I will use it on my time?

RICHARD CORNEJO, APPLICANT- This first picture shows the All Star sign and this is 
looking west down 21st Street.  If you look, that is the Dairy Queen property line, the current All 
Star sign sits approximately 15 foot off their property line.  Back to the east of the All Star sign 
there is an excess of 500 feet of frontage that fronts All Star, so our current sign is at the far west 
end of the parking lot.

PITTS:  Are we going to be able to operate okay without them not being behind the 
microphone?

KAPLAN:  Thank you Mr. Chairman, it is probably a good idea to use the microphone so we 
can have a record.

CORNEJO:  Again, this photograph shows the All Star sign at the west property line where it is 
currently located, it is approximately 15 foot off of the Dairy Queen property line.  East of that is 
where the All Star frontage is and there is an excess of 500 feet frontage and that is why we are 
looking at wanting to relocate that sign.

BABICH:  Is that the Diary Queen sign, to the west of it?

CORNEJO:  I have another photograph here, if I can get to it, this picture is standing at Tyler 
Road looking back to the east towards All Star, so that gives you an idea.  On the report it says 
that we are proposing is contrary to the surroundings.  That is looking from the west end from 
Tyler looking back towards the east toward All Star.  So you can see there is a number of signs.

PITTS:  What side of the street is that on?

CORNEJO:  That is looking east on 21st from Tyler.

PITTS:  Is that on the north side or south side?

CORNEJO:  That is on the south side.  That is the side that All Star is located.  This picture 
here is standing at the west property line of All Star looking across the east.  I tried to get a 
picture of how much frontage we have got that you pass before you see the All Star sign.  Going 
further east after you go past the churches, again, this is what you have on 21st Street on the 
south side as you approach Ridge Road, which is a lot more signage.  This is looking north on 
Ridge Road at 21st Street, again, more signs.  This is looking north of 21st on Ridge example sign 
with a moving reader board with a house residential directly across the street.

KAPLAN:  Notice the residential directly across the street from the sign.

CORNEJO:  From where our current sign is, in relationship to the residential to the east of us, 
the housing there is in excess of a quarter of a mile.  There are residences behind the All Star 
facility that are closer in distance but not in view of the sign.

BABICH:  Do you have any pictures of the north side of 21st?

CORNEJO:  Not with me.  Directly across to the north, there is a church and then a lot of 
vacant field to the North.  

KAPLAN:  May I have another five minutes Mr. Chairman to finish the criteria?

PITTS:  Sure go ahead.



KAPLAN:  I had discussed the hardship criteria, in my opinion I am rib-rocked solid on it.  I 
discussed the uniqueness of this site, in my opinion I am solid on that.  I do not know if there are 
any folks from the neighborhood here to speak or not, whether there is anyone here in 
opposition.  I can tell you that when we took this matter over and I was involved representing, 
Cornejo, we had a very deteriorated facility out there.  It had degenerated, it was a miniature 
park, driving range, and the Cornejo’s have taken that and they have really turned that into a first 
class facility.  It is a family facility and we have been extremely well received both by the 
adjoining church and by the neighborhood, have cooperated in drainage problems and I think we 
are very, very well thought of by the folks that live out there.  As I say, we are a quarter of a mile 
away from any neighboring residence and as you can see from the pictures, there are a lot, a lot, 
a lot of large signs up and down 21st Street.  It is an arterial corridor and we ought not to expect 
anything else, it is a commercial corridor.  It is going to remain a commercial corridor and a high 
traffic street and every arterial that I am aware of in the City of Wichita generates commercial 
development because that is where the traffic is, and 21st Street is no different than 13th, or 
Central, or Kellogg, or any other high traffic arterial, Rock Road.

Public Interest, I don’t think there is any public interest that is going to suffer because we enlarge 
and move our sign.  I don’t think the public is concerned about it as you can see there is plenty, 
plenty of signs as you view those photographs.

The last criteria, spirit and intent, you know it is kind of innocuous, the spirit and intent of the 
ordinance is what you say it is.  It is so subjective, that criteria, I do not know whether Ms. 
Dickgrafe will agree with me or not.  But, that criteria, spirit and intent, gentlemen, is so darn 
subjective that you can say it complies or it doesn’t comply and nobody can argue with you.  I 
can not go to the courtroom and say, “Judge they made a mistake, on spirit and intent”.  The 
spirit and intent is all up here, I think that is criteria that if I was writing the ordinance, I would 
not even include it because it just does not really convey anything to anybody.  The uniqueness 
does, which I think we have found.  The hardship certainly does.  Public interest may, although I 
believe that it does not in this case. I think that we have clearly met the criteria, I think the 
bottom line is not so much technical compliance with the criteria or non-technical compliance.

I think it comes down to, I told Mr. Cornejo, in my opinion, I can get approval from the Planning 
Commission to rezone this 500 X 270 feet and I can take it to a “LC” Limited Commercial 
zoning. In my opinion, that is proper and appropriate, everything else out there is zoned 
commercial, why not this piece?  But, staff has indicated that they felt that they wanted to retain 
some residential character, if I can use that phraseology.  They wanted to retain some residential 
character for 21st Street.  I am not sure that you can do that, but we are certainly trying to 
cooperate by not asking for rezoning, so the alternative in order to conduct our business is to ask 
for a BZA.  We had quite a tussle on deciding whether or not you gentlemen had jurisdiction, I 
was finally successful in convincing the department that you did have jurisdiction in this case 
and I think this is what you do.  I think rather than focusing narrowly on black letter law, rather 
than having your nose in a reg. book and focusing on the words, I think you just need to look at 
the whole picture in trying to make an equitably decision and is the City’s interest better served, 
by giving us a sign or giving us a whole bunch of new commercial zoning?  We really need it, I 
just don’t think it is that onerous when you look at those picture and you see all those signs up 
and down the street.  If I rezone that and put in a Burger King, I could have my sign.  So why 
can’t I have it for my nice 2-acre family facility that is handicapped by sitting back off the street 
and simply does not have the zoning?

PITTS:  Thank you, Mr. Kaplan.  Is there anyone else in the audience to speak in favor of the 
variance?  

RICHARD CORNEJO, I represent RRM: On recommendations staff indicates that All Star 
Sports facility with its brightly colored façade and large building sign, certainly does not suffer 
from an identity problem.  I can agree with that but the facility setting back off of the road, the 
distance that it does, I look at the sign as a destination point, not an identification for people that 
are looking for our facility, going down the street, you can not see our building and its brightly 
colored façade until you are upon it.  So I look more of the sign as a destination point for people 
traveling up and down 21st.  

PITTS:  Thank you.  Is there any other persons in the audience to speak in favor of the variance?  
Is there anyone here to speak against?

BRUCE Q. GARRELS, 8402 W. 19TH STREET N., WICHITA, KS:   I am located adjacent 
the property of the All Sports, in the southwest corner along the west fence and along the south 
fence is where my property is.  I have lived there approximately 10 years.  

FOSTER:  Could you please show us on the map?

GARRELS:  I live right here on number 14.  I have been there approximately; it will be 10 years 
August of 1990.  I have seen the property and the area basically develop over the last 10 years.  
At one time my house was the last house on the left, as we called it, on 19th.  None of the 
adjacent property behind it was; the only thing was the old Golf Park and there was wheat fields 
located in the yellow, where the yellow is etc., etc.  I am not coming against the actual facility.  I 
think number one to give you more input, my son actually worked for the previous owner and 
their situation was a lot different.  I used to have pheasants in my yard and of course that is gone.  
I think the facility itself is excellent, I think they have done a wonderful job developing the 
property, I have used the property, I have used the facility, I do not have anything against that at 
all. 

One question that I had and it seems that nobody has brought it up, so I will bring it up, there is a 
little different scenario with the lightening.  As you are well aware of, or most of you are well 
aware of, the whole new lighting facility was basically incorporated to illuminate all the entire 
property and thus in the last year and half to two years, my house has from about two or three 
hours every evening has a unique candle light throughout the entire house.  I don’t really think 
that a flashing sign, one way or the other is going to influence whether people show or not.  I will 
tell you that everyone seems to know where it is, you can see the lights for approximately 2 
miles around coming in from north Ridge on the Highway.  I disagree with that point.  

As far as the new signage request goes, I don’t know, I think what you are really going to do is 
that you are just going to start precedence maybe with a moving sign.  I am sure that there will 
be ways to get around it, probably through new zoning deals, but then what are you going to do 
down the road when somebody else ask for a similar thing?  What happens when we get to the 
issue of the Warren Theatre down the road on the other side of Tyler, if they can have a flashing 
light why can’t we have a great big one?  I just think those are questions that you are going to 
have to deal with. 



Again, I am not in disagreement with the actual facility, I am just a concerned homeowner and I 
have seen the uniqueness to the area because I have seen the area develop when it was basically 
nothing and I really don’t disagree with anything that is going on along 21st.    I think it is neat for 
the area and the community but I will also tell you that there are a lot more traffic.  Especially on 
Friday nights.  Coming up Tyler and working off of 21st it is tough to make a left hand turn off of 
Tyler Street to go south because of the traffic on that particular intersection, to Ridge it is the 
same way.  So, you know, I just think that I really find it difficult to see where also that this 
signage is going to make a financial impact on the area.  I would say with the lighting there, with 
the facility there, are they going bankrupt? Do they need financial support?  Testimony says they 
are doing well, it is a good family arena, it is a nice facility, I just would disagree with it, so all I 
am doing is giving you my input as being a homeowner, residential area person, just to get 
another insight to make sure that it is all not one direction.  Thank you.

PITTS:  Are there any other persons in the audience to speak against the variance?  If not we 
will confine the discussion to the bench.

FOSTER:  We did not get a chance to ask questions of Mr. Kaplan.

PITTS:  We can certainly do that now.

FOSTER:  Mr. Kaplan, am I correct that on the staff report on page 2, that the indented material 
is what is on the C.U.P. now for this area?

KAPLAN:  I have no reason to suspect that that is inaccurate, I have not looked at the C.U.P. 
recently, since we initiated this facility out there, but I certainly would not suggest that Ms. Verts 
has cited it incorrectly.  I would add that to my understanding now with staff, that we have 
agreed that assuming BZA approval that we do not have to do anything further with the C.U.P.  
In other words that I am not required to do both a BZA and a C.U.P. Amendment.  At least that 
is the impression that I have been given, if that is incorrect I hope to hear differently today.  That 
probably is the C.U.P. language.  If I did come in for a rezoning I would be amending the C.U.P.  
But, this action, if it is favorably accomplishes that Bickley, or so I am advised.  You are the 
expert in that.

FOSTER:  This is referred to as General provisions number six.  Would you agree that this 
pertains only to the “LC” zoning in the C.U.P.?

KAPLAN:  Let me look at it Commissioner.

FOSTER:  In other words the only request for changes in signage was in the “LC” area.

KAPLAN:  Yes that is correct.  There is a little tiny ribbon of “LC” Light Commercial in here 
that you can see.  This very small area of “LC” Light Commercial, that is where the sign was 
initially located because it was light commercial and that provision six deals just with that “LC” 
Light Commercial provision, that is correct.  So, taking the favorable view of that you lead me to 
suggest that C.U.P. really does not pertain to the “GO” District.  I don’t know if you are saying 
that but I am now.

FOSTER:  Ok, now, the “GO” District you would agree is in the C.U.P.?

KAPLAN:  As far as I know, yes.

FOSTER:  Was any request made through the Planning Commission or the governing body to 
change to signage in the “GO” District at that time?

KAPLAN:  Bickley, this is an old, old, C.U.P., this is not a Community Unit Plan that I did or 
that the Cornejo’s did, this goes clear back to when Gary Carson initially started this and many, 
many, many, years ago and perhaps Dale, Lisa wouldn’t know because she hasn’t been long 
enough, Dale might remember.  I don’t honestly know.  But this is an old, old, C.U.P. it is not 
anything recent.

FOSTER:  Mr. Kaplan, I have a problem here in that I am trying to recall, I can’t recall that we 
have had a case and maybe we have, but I don’t recall have we had cases to have variances in 
CUP’s?  We have had appeals of CUP’s.  We have had two or three of those in the last four years 
or so, but, a C.U.P. is one giant variance in the first place and I am questioning why are we 
hearing this here?  I mean the Planning Commission had the opportunity, we presume to consider 
this as a integrated plan so to speak and relate the signage to the C.U.P. that is the purpose of the 
C.U.P. why are we hearing this case.

KAPLAN:  May I respond to that Mr. Chairmen?

PITTS:  Go ahead.

KAPLAN:  We discussed that whole jurisdictional issue, Bickley, and I think you are dealing 
with an issue and you are certainly entitled to your judgement and your opinion and perhaps you 
are correct I don’t know.  But, we discussed this issue before I filed this application, and staff 
and myself, whether they went to legal or not, I don’t know, we all agreed that this Board had 
jurisdiction over this matter, Had I been advised that in the opinion of the Law Department or in 
the opinion of staff that you did not have jurisdiction I perhaps would have proceeded in an 
alternative matter but I think with do respect Bickley, I think you have to accept for this hearing 
the proposition that it has been determined that you do have jurisdiction to make this decision.  
You may disagree with that, but I don’t know that it would be your function to make a legal 
determination at this meeting on that issue and we are here because I was told that I could bring 
it here.  I think that is kind of runway behind the airplane, if you don’t mind that analogy.  We 
have been through that.  You may be right but nobody has really put that to the test and they 
have agreed that jurisdiction does exist with the Board of Zoning Appeals.

PITTS:  We are told that we do have jurisdiction, if you would like to address your question to 
legal, I think you could do that.  Dale, you want to respond to it?

FOSTER:  What makes this different than other cases of C.U.P.?

MILLER:  The reason I know is because I lost the argument, so that is why I know.   I am one 
of the people that argued with Mr. Kaplan, that the Board did not have jurisdiction, but we did go 
and talk to City Law and in fact my boss even disagreed with me.  That in Law’s opinion, and 
Marvin’s opinion that the issue of a moving sign be prohibited in the “GO” District is  a 
standard.  The fact that you could have signage in the “GO” District but that it specifically 
prohibits a moving sign is a standard and therefore gives you as the BZA the right to vary that 
standard.  I was arguing that because you couldn’t have a moving sign in the “GO” District 
period, then how could how could you come to the BZA and ask for one?  But, their 
interpretation was that, that is a standard, and therefore anything that is a standard you guys have 
jurisdiction over.  

PITTS:  Makes sense.

FOSTER:  But the moving part of the sign is only one issue at this.  The bigger issue is how 
high the sign is and how big the sign is.

MILLER:  What will happen to the C.U.P. is if you approve this, then Mr. Kaplan will ask for 
an adjustment, and the Planning staff will grant an administrative adjustment to the C.U.P. to 
amend the language to reflect whatever you decide.

FOSTER:  I am concerned about setting precedence here.  The Planning Commission has 
chosen to do all the work that it wants to do on these things.  I do not think we have had anything 
like this before.  Have we had signs?

MILLER:  We have had request for increased signage in C.U.P.   One that I can think of in 
particular is the Comotara Power Center.  Where Sam’s, north of K-96 is located, and there have 
been a number of amendments there but those went to the Planning Commission and what those 
dealt with were an increase in the total square footage that was permitted in the C.U.P.

FOSTER:  I do not defer with your point that it is possible to have a provision that is a standard 
that you don’t vary.  But on the other hand, we are talking about height, and dimension, and all 
that, which is a variable type of thing.  I don’t think we should get into the habit of changing 
CUP’s.  Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of the C.U.P. to have signage set and for that reason, it 
would be my feeling that I will probably abstain from voting, because I think that this is not an 
issue before this Board.  I think it should have gone to the Planning Commission and the 
Governing Body. 

PITTS:  Any additional comments?  Or any questions for Mr. Kaplan?  Thank you, Mr. Kaplan.  
I will not pass up an opportunity to ask if there are any questions from the person who opposed.  
I am sorry Mr. Garles?  We will bring the discussion back to the Chair.  I am not sure exactly 
where we would stand, if we are told by all those persons involved including legal that we have 
got jurisidication over a case and if we feel, passionately, that we should not I do not know how 
to pass this off to some other quasi-agency or department.  So I think we are going to have to act 
on it and if there were some who feel it necessary that they must abstain from voting because of 
that passion then they would just have to do that.  Is there any other discussion from the bench?

BABICH:  My general observation here are probably three.  One is that the Comprehensive Plan 
I think is important by definition that it is a Plan.  The other thing is that a C.U.P. further refines 
that Plan so there is another degree of planning that is going into this.  And further, the staff 
report suggests that we are trying to keep the signs down and make 21st Street aesthetically 
pleasing, and I think they have done a good job of that on east 21st Street.  I would imagine the 
plan is to keep the limit on west 21st Street for the same reason.  There are no signs on the north 
side of 21st that are not on the building, as I recall.  The other thing is that there is a similar park 
on west Webb and they seem to get along with a much smaller sign than what is proposed.  So, I 
can’t find any reason to vary from staff and C.U.P, and comprehensive plan and what is existing 
in the facility.  

PITTS:  Bradley, do you have any comments?

TIDEMANN:  I just want to comment.  I took a drive just to see how everything laid out and I 
would have to agree with the applicant as far as the placement of the current sign.  I agree with 
Mr. Cornejo, that it is more of a destination more than an advertisement, I would have to agree 
with him.  On that, personally I use signs as markings basically where to turn the car into the 
entrance of the park.  Where the sign is now, it is butted up to the Dairy Queen and when you see 
the sign, and you think that is where I got to turn and you are there, you are passed it  and now 
you are causing some sort of traffic problem, and you have to go up and turn around and come 
back and go back in.  Mr. Garrels mentioned that lights come into the residences now, I do not 
see the problem is going to be, the sign with the lights down below is going to cause any more 
problems than having the lights on the range itself.  So my personal vote would be to get a 
variance.

PITTS:  Any further discussion?  I might add that we are being asked to make three separate 
votes.  One, to increase the height of the sign from 22 feet to 29 feet 6 inches.  The second 
variance would be to increase the maximum size of a sign from 32 square feet to 124 square feet.  
The third is to allow a message board with the moving letters.  So I am assuming that any one of 
these that we dwell into we are going to be discussing.  Having said that is there any further 
discussion?  If not are we prepared to vote on request number one?  Variance to increase the 
maximum height of a pole sign from 22 feet to 29 feet 6 inches?  Do we have a motion either 
way?

BABICH moves and 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 the 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 set out in 
the secretary’s report and that variance number one be granted subject to the 
conditions set out in the secretary’s report.


DICKGRAFE:  You are going to need to make a finding as to each of those.  The staff report 
indicates that the five factors are not met.  So the motion needs to address what the Board feels 
or what you feel is unique, adjacent property, hardship, public interest, etc. <TAPE CHANGE>

PITTS:  Make a declaration that we either find or do not find the, let me look at one of those, the 
situation to exist, as public interest, I do not believe that we absolutely have to give a reason why 
we find that.  You said that you feel that it is within the public interest I think that is your option.  
Are you saying something different than that legal?

DICKGRAPH:  Yes, there needs to be some statement or fact or something in the record to 
support that the property is unique, perhaps the shape of the C.U.P. the location, the fact that part 
of the C.U.P. is zoned differently than the remainder of the C.U.P.  Some finding as to that it will 
not adversely effect adjacent property owners and why.  Why is this a hardship, public interest, 
there is lots of signs out there, it is not going to detract from the area.  And spirit and intent, you 
would need to make some type of finding that the sign code either does not apply in this case or 
that it would still be within the intent of the sign code to allow this type of sign in this area.

PITTS:  I think perhaps that is setting precedence within itself.  I am not to sure that has been 
one of the stipulation for the six years that I have served on the Board, so I am prepared to except 
a motion.

BABICH:  I would be glad to elaborate on that.


BABICH moves and TIDEMANN seconds - That the Board does not accept the 
findings of fact as set forth in the secretary’s report; and that all five conditions are 
met as set out in the 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 1) Variance to increase 
the maximum height of a pole sign from 22 feet to 29 feet 6 inches be granted. I 
think it is unique that the signs boarding them call for the relative height to be 
similar to those that are surrounding it.  The adjacent property kind of speaks to 
the same thing because adjacent properties do have signs that are similarly tall.  
That it would create a hardship if there was a sign for that property that was 
smaller than those in the surrounding area.  And it is in the public interest that the 
place of business be identifiable.  It is in the spirit and intent in that we can grant 
this variance and still accomplished what the City wants to do in keeping the medic 
to enhance to the west 21st corridor.  So I think that it can met those five stipulations 
for height.  

PITTS:  You have heard the motion for the granting of variances number one.

FOSTER:  I would like to be entered as abstaining from the vote because I do not feel the Board 
has jurisdiction.  

MOTION carries 5-0-1 abstain.

PITTS:  Variance number two, to increase the maximum size of a sign from 32 square feet to 
124 square feet.  Is there any further discussion on that one or are you prepared to entertain a 
motion?  Chair can entertain a motion.

BABICH moves and PITTS seconds - That the Board accept the findings of fact as 
set forth in the secretary’s report; and that all five conditions as set out in the 
Section 2.12.590(b) of the City Code as necessary for the granting of a variance have 
been found not to exist and that the 2) Variance to increase the maximum size of a 
sign from 32 square feet to 124 square feet be denied. 

SKELTON:  Mr. Chairman, can you repeat the motion?

PITTS:  The motion was that all five conditions for the granting of the variance have not been 
found to exist and the five conditions that are stated in the secretaries report are found to exist 
and the secretary has recommended that the variance be denied.  Did I miss quote you very 
much?

BABICH:  Very good.

SKELTON:  So this a motion to deny?

PITTS:  Yes.  Any other questions.

FOSTER:  Mr. Chairman, I abstain from voting on the basis that I do not feel the Board has 
jurisidication.  

MOTION 4-1-1 the motion is passed the variance number two is denied.

PITTS: Variance number three to allow a message board with moving letters.  If there is not 
further discussion on that variance request the chair will entertain a motion.  

BABICH 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 as set out in the 
Section 2.12.590(b) of the City Code as necessary for the granting of a variance have 
been found not to exist and that the 3) Variance to allow a message board with 
moving letters be denied. 

FOSTER:  Mr. Chairman I would like to vote against this even though I have some concerns 
about jurisdiction I vote against this motion.

PITTS:  All right let’s have a show of hands 3-3.  We are at a stand still as if we did not take any 
action is that correct?

DICKGRAFE:  That is correct.

FOSTER 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 as set out in the 
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 3) Variance to allow a message board with moving 
letters be approved. Just use the same language that Babich did for the first motion 
on the variance number one.

PITTS:  Are you going to be able to track Secretary?

FOSTER:  Does staff have any questions?  In other words using the five findings that Mr. 
Babich made, it seems the fit the same characteristics for a moving sign.

VERTS:  I am thinking specifically in the uniqueness that Mr. Babich he was relating it to the 
similar height of other signs in the area.  When you are talking about a moving sign are we 
talking about other moving signs in the area?

FOSTER:  You are right about that.  Frankly, I am thinking about in order to gain any attention 
the speed limit is at least 40 there, a large amount of traffic, I would imagine that they have a 
variety items to sell that they want to indicate different types of activities so to speak.  Mr. 
Babich was the idea of voting against this, was your thought that they could use this as a reader 
board type of thing rather than a moving sign?  

BABICH:  I think the height and moving it from the edge to the center of the property would 
give it the destination qualities that they are seeking without it being large and without it being a 
marquee type sign.  

FOSTER:  May I assume then that they could still have a reader board on the 32-foot space they 
have here?

MILLER:  Whatever they could fit on there.  32 square feet.

FOSTER:  It is not prohibited?  A reader sign on the 32 square feet space?

BABICH:  And the fact the it is a destination sign the reader board would be more of the kind to 
attract sidewalk traffic.  I think this facility is more of a destination then it is one that is brought 
there by impulse.  

FOSTER:  I think you have a point Mr. Babich.  I withdraw my motion.

PITTS:  I am a little confused, we have already denied the variance to increase the size of the 
sign.  It is a good possibility that the applicant would not want to have moving letters if he did 
not have the sign increase.  I don’t know.  We have a stand still to permit the moving letters.

MILLER:  If nobody else makes a motion it fails.  It takes four votes to approve it.  If there is 
no inclinations to make a motion to approve it, it will be denied for lack of votes.

DICKGRAFE:  I don’t think so, I think it has to come back.

FOSTER:  There is no need to carry it over.

BABICH:  That is that weird rule.

PITTS:  It takes four.

BABICH:  A tie vote defers it, which does not make any sense to me.

PITTS:  In essence it says we did not take any action. 

BABICH:  And where does the applicant go from there.

PITTS:  The applicant is left in the dark without any knowledge of what they can do other than 
they can’t do anything with the moving sign.  I think perhaps in the interest of the public we 
could discuss this just a little bit more and see if we are prepared to take any positive action, 
either through a rejection or approval.

DICKGRAFE:  I might jump in here, the By-laws say, and we have a problem with how they 
read, an affirmative vote of four board members shall be necessary for any action finally 
disposing of any application.  Case of failure to reach a decision the matter shall be presented at 
the next meeting.  So, I think you have two options.  I understand that the seventh Board member 
is not going to be able to vote the next time.  But, I think the Board can have further discussion, 
there can be another motion, or absent a vote of four to either grant or deny this variance I think 
it comes back.

PITTS:  That is as I thought it would not go away in its entirety.  

BABICH:  Well, the other thing that adds confusion to this is, is that we could approve the third 
variance when in a particle matter he probably couldn’t put it on there.

DICKGRAFE:  I think absent the applicant withdrawing that variance, which I don’t think Mr. 
Kaplan probably wants to do, that the Board needs to either attempt resolution of that or have it 
come back at the next meeting.  Certainly, the applicant has the right to appeal these issues and if 
one is granted and the other two are denied or if two are granted and one is denied, he may very 
well want to pursue that remedied.  I am not speaking for Mr. Kaplan.  

KAPLAN:  Given the obvious confusion on what the net result of the action is going to be, and 
given the fact that obviously I am not going to have an opportunity to discuss this with my 
clients with one variance approved, one variance perhaps denied, and one variance no action 
taken on it.  I do not know what we can do with this sign or want to do with this sign but I would 
opt for the deferral to next month.  I think that we would all be better served if we take it up next 
month.  I have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Cornejo, and his brothers, and RRM, maybe we can 
make some revisions, I don’t know whether we will bring you the same package or different 
package.  But, I think in all fairness to the applicant that we ought to be allowed to come back 
and take another look at this.  I think you all admit that you are leaving us a little bit up in the air 
as to where we are.  I don’t want to start an appeal at this point and time.

PITTS:  Thank you very much.  That is exactly where we are now, unless we were to take 
additional action today that it will be coming back to us.

DICKGRAFE:  I think that it is real clear that the first variance was granted.  The second 
variance was denied and those issues have been finally disposed of and they are not going to 
come back and the only issue that is going to come back at the next meeting if that is how the 
Board want to handle it is the reader board or the moving portion of the sign.

FOSTER moves that we accept the request of the applicant to defer item 3 until the 
next meeting.  

PITTS:  I do not know if the Chair is order to receive that motion and may need some help here.  
It is already deferred to the next meeting in essence because of the action that we have 
previously taken the 3-3 vote.

FOSTER: You mean because of the by-laws it is automatic?

DICKGRAFE:  Unless there wants to be another motion at this point it would appear that the 
failure to reach a decision of the matter shall be presented at the next meeting.  I think the chair 
could find that if there are no other motions that the matter is deferred.

PITTS:  If there are no other motions the matter is deferred. That is no attempt to stop any 
action.

BABICH:  I would still like to pursue the idea of allowing the variance frankly and see what 
they can do with the smaller sign then to just dispose of the matter.

PITTS:  I think the Chair is in a position to retract the statement that if there are no further 
motions and if you feel you could justify the five factors the chair could entertain the motion.

BABICH:  I think the hardship is pretty obvious.

BABICH moves FOSTER - That the Board accept the findings of fact as set forth in 
the secretary’s report; and that all five conditions as set out in the 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 3) Variance to allow a message board with moving letters 
be approved. I would site the uniqueness the situation that we are in.  The adjacent 
property there is one sign that flashes the temperature in the area.  Hardship 
because this matter needs to be dealt with at this meeting and not carried on in the 
interest of the applicant and the Board.  It is in the public interest that the sign be 
moved and that the public interest is met in doing away the issue at this meeting.  It 
is in the spirit and intent for reason that Kaplan sited.

DICKGRAFE:  The findings need to be in reference to what the ordinance and the statues talks 
about and it is not hardship as to whether or not this is going to be decided today.  There could be 
facts that it is a hardship in light of the section of the C.U.P. that is zoned “GO” General Office 
at the front portion.  The fact that the business itself is setback on the parcel.  That strict 
application of the sign code in this case would constitute a hardship for the applicant.  Public 
Interest that given the signage on 21st Street that it would not be adverse to the public interest to 
approve the moving sign.  

BABICH:  Thank you.

PITTS:  Did you state all five factors?

BABICH:  Yes, with Sharon’s help.

PITTS:  Is there any questions to the motion.

BABICH moves FOSTER seconds- That the Board accept the findings of fact as set 
forth in the secretary’s report; and that all five conditions as set out in the 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 3) Variance to allow a message board with moving letters 
be approved. There could be facts that it is a hardship in light of the section of the 
C.U.P. that is zoned “GO” General Office at the front portion.  The fact that the 
business itself is setback on the parcel.  That strict application of the sign code in 
this case would constitute a hardship for the applicant.  Public Interest that given 
the signage on 21st Street that it would not be adverse to the public interest to 
approve the moving sign.  

PITTS:  It has been moved and seconded that a variance to allow a message board with moving 
letters be granted.  Any further discussion?

MOTION carries 6-0.

5. Report from Central Inspection regarding compliance with requirements of various 
cases.

COX:  I only have two variances to report on today.  The first on is variance BZA 29-98 this 
was a variance to allow carport in the front yard setback within 8 foot of the property line and it 
was in compliance.  BZA 30-98 another variance for a front yard setback, this was for an ATM 
at 21st Street and Amidion, it is in compliance.

FOSTER:  J.R.  Since you mentioned carports, was it Mr. Carpenters carport the one down 
south somewhere did he take that down?

COX:  I will have to check with the Building Inspector and I will let you know at the next 
meeting.  That was over in District Court I do not know the final outcome of that.

DICKGRAFE:  I do.  Mr. Carpenter took the roof off of the structure.  He created what he 
viewed as being two sections of a privacy fence and the District Court held that that was no 
longer a structure.  The last I saw, it had the metal framework and plywood on the two sides of 
what was the former carport and it was still like that and that has been six or eight months ago.

FOSTER:  It did not have a cover on it?

DICKGRAFE:  It did not have a cover on it so the District Court concluded that it was not a 
structure and therefore it was not in violation.  It looks terrible.

FOSTER:  I will have to go by and see that.

DICKGRAFE:  It is a fence.  According to the District Court.

PITTS:  A six foot fence is covered by the statue isn’t that right?

DICKGRAFE:  Yes.

FOSTER:  Perhaps, the other members may not be aware of this but it was a rather contentious 
one where a person built a carport out over their driveway without a permit and the Board, it was 
right on the corner and it created a site problem and they had a huge number of cars in the area 
and this was turned down.  They even came back as I recall, so you might want to see it 
sometime.

SKELTON:  Where is it?

DICKGRAFE:  27th Street South?  I would have to look.

PITTS:  Any other additional business?

MEETING ADJOURNED 3:05 p.m.
BZA MINUTES	FEBRUARY 22, 2000	PAGE 21