|
<br />to the site and see exactly what the physical circumstances were. He just gave me a little
<br />background on his involvement with the review board, the architectural review board. On
<br />Friday, I had a conversation with Paul Wood, Friday, June 7th. Paul filled me in on the
<br />background from the City's point of view and we discussed whether or not it was necessary
<br />to possibly call a preliminary meeting of all the Board where we would all just share
<br />information and we discussed, at that point, that it really wasn't necessary for us to do that.
<br />Had we decided to do so, we would have posted notice and made sure that everybody knew
<br />that we were having such a meeting. Again, we decided not to do that. Then, today, as
<br />Steve pointed out, by happenstance, we met out at the site and, just for orientation, we
<br />looked at various options. We took at look at the fence across the street, which is
<br />mentioned in the packet, which is in violation of the municipal code, and we did discuss
<br />with Mr. Campbell at that time two things. First of all, the fence across the street, how
<br />long it had been there, and why that hadn't come up for question before. Mr. Campbell
<br />pointed out that it was in existence prior to his moving there in 1987, so he really had no
<br />idea it was even in violation of municipal code until we started checking the municipal code
<br />and the covenants of the subdivision. The other issue that we talked to Mr. Campbell
<br />about, or I questioned Mr. Campbell about, was a seemingly shared landscaped area that
<br />was situated proportionally on his property, proportionally on the applicant's property. It
<br />is a triangular piece of landscaping that is bordered with landscape timbers, for your
<br />information, if you didn't see it. There are various plantings around, but, pretty much in
<br />the center was a pine tree, and we took note that the property line was located farily close
<br />to where the pine tree trunk is. It would appear that the pine tree is situatied more on the
<br />applicant's property than on Mr. Campbell's property. When I questioned Mr. Campbell
<br />about whose property it was on, he pointed out the lcoation of the pine and, also, that you
<br />have a verbal agreement with the people who were there in the house before the applicant
<br />moved in that he would provide the landscaping and the maintenance for that landscaped
<br />area. He essentially was just trying to assure himself of a good view of his house coming
<br />from the south on Cleveland. Then, as Steve mentioned, we visited the Strobel residence
<br />over on McKinley, and just observed the product, or the results, of the variance that was
<br />granted and then came back and talked with Paul Wood. Again, it was more just clarifying
<br />background to the application. It contains some items in it that needed clarification, so,
<br />we discussed that with Paul and, again, got the City's side of it. And then, tonight, I just
<br />met you and the applicant for the first time, so, that is the extent of my contact. I would
<br />say, at this point, I remain objective and I look forward to seeing what both sides have to
<br />say and making an objective decision on it tonight.
<br />
<br />Fyne: I haven't had any contact with either the applicant or the neighbors, the Campbells.
<br />I have viewed the property on two different occasions. Once, on Saturday, and once again
<br />on Sunday for a quick drive-by to take a look at some questions that I had. I have had
<br />contact with Paul Wood, basically asking questions about the statute and the ordinance in
<br />question. I don't feel like I have any preconceived notions and that we are ready to go.
<br />
<br />Tillquist: I have looked at the packet that Mr. Wood provided. There is an inclusion in
<br />there of a prior applicaiton that has been talked about and that is the Strobel residence.
<br />
<br />4
<br />
|