Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2014 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments Zoning Board of Adjustment January 7, 2014 6:00 P.M. Regular Meeting City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Consideration of absence requests.  Josh Benn ~ December 3, 2013  Hunter Goodwin ~ January 7, 2014 3. Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustment.  13-251 (AA-Residential Dimensional Standards) 4314 Odell Lane (JPaz) 4. Consideration, possible action and discussion to approve meeting minutes.  December 3, 2013 meeting minutes. 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a variance to the minimum number of stories to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 12-5.9 – Design District Dimensional Standards, for the property located at Lot 2-R, The Ramparts, generally located at 300 Nagle Street. Case # 900269 (TR) 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 12-5.8.B.6 – Northgate District Off-Street Parking Standards, regarding ramp location on exterior of parking garage for the property located at Lots 1-5 and 16-20 and Associated BPP, Block 4, Tauber Subdivision, generally located at 601 Cross Street. Case # 9000268 (TR) 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a building setback variance to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 12-5.9 – Design District Dimensional Standards, for the property located at Lot 2-R, The Ramparts, generally located at 300 Nagle Street. Case # 900270 (TR) 8. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 9. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071; possible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this the_____day of__________, 2014 at______p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary By _____________________________ Kelly Templin, City Manager I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on___________________p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. Dated this _____ day of____________, 2014. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____ day of_______________, 2014. ______________________________ Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:_________________ This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979.764.3517 or (TDD) 800.735.2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting December 3, 2013 Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hunter Goodwin, Jim Davis, Marsha Sanford, Dick Dabney, Gary Erwin MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Benn STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Planner Jenifer Paz, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Senior Assistant City Attorney John Haislet, Action Center Representatives April Howard and Macie Quick AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goodwin called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting minutes.  September 3, 2013 meeting minutes Board Member Davis motioned to approve the September 3, 2013 meeting minutes. Board Member Erwin seconded the motion, which passed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion on a variance request to allow an additional freestanding sign for the property located at 2704 Texas Avenue South, located at the intersection of Harvey Mitchell Parkway South and Texas Avenue South. Staff Planner Paz presented the staff report and stated that the applicant was requesting an additional free standing sign. She ended her staff report by telling the Board that staff was recommending approval. Board Member Sanford arrived at the meeting. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Chairman Goodwin opened the public hearing. Stepping forward to speak in favor of the request was Adrianna Duran, 2704 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas. Ms. Duran was sworn in by Chairman Goodwin. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Chairman Goodwin closed the public hearing. Board Member Erwin motioned to approve the variance for an additional free-standing sign with the following Staff recommendations:  That the sign be located along Texas Avenue South  The sign area be limited to 75 square feet  A maximum height of 25 feet, setback in accordance to the sign ordinance in the UDO  The existing abandoned freestanding sign frame be removed Board Member Davis seconded the motion. Motion was approved (4-1), Chairman Goodwin voting against. AGENDA ITEM NO.4 : Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn. Board Member Sanford motioned to adjourn. Board Member Erwin seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 6.28 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ _________________________________ Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant Hunter Goodwin, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 January 7, 2014 VARIANCE REQUEST for Lot 2-R, The Ramparts 13-00900269 REQUEST: A variance to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 12- 5.9, Northgate Districts, Design District Dimensional Standards, to allow a single story for St. Mary’s sanctuary building. LOCATION: Lot 2-R, The Ramparts, generally located at 300 Nagle Street APPLICANT: Christopher Craig, Jackson & Ryan Architects PROPERTY OWNER: St. Mary’s Catholic Church PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner trogers@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The subject property is zoned NG-2 (Transitional Northgate) and owned by . The site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot but the owner plans to construct a new sanctuary at this location. The UDO allows churches in all zoning districts, however, the NG- 2 zoning district requires buildings to have a minimum of two stories. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to UDO Section 12-5.9, Northgate Districts, Design District Dimensional Standards, to allow the construction of a one- story sanctuary. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE: UDO Section 12-5.9, Design District Dimensional Standards ORDINANCE INTENT: The City’s Northgate dimensional standards are intended to create a unique, pedestrian-friendly, dense urban environment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that all exterior facades are a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in height and give the appearance of a two-story structure. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 January 7, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 January 7, 2014 13-269 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 January 7, 2014 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: January 7, 2014 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: N/A Property owner notices mailed: 16 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property NG-2 Transitional Northgate Surface Parking Lot North NG-2 Transitional Northgate Vacant South (across Church Avenue) NG-2 Transitional Northgate Office and Bank East NG-2 Transitional Northgate Multi-Family Residential West (across Nagle Street) NG-1 Core Northgate Place of Worship PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject property is located on Lot 2-R, The Ramparts and has approximately 340 feet of frontage along Church Avenue and approximately 440 feet along Nagle Street. 2. Access: The property takes access from Nagle Street. 3. Topography and vegetation: The site is relatively flat, with some mature trees 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant has stated the minimum height regulation requires additional stories when they are not necessary for the church’s operations. In addition, places of worship are allowed in all zoning districts within the City and churches are typically only one story. The UDO allows waiver requests for casual and fine dining restaurants and theaters in NG-2 if all facades are a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in height and all facades give Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 January 7, 2014 the appearance of a two-story structure as determined by the Design Review Board (DRB). St. Mary’s proposed use is for a Place of Worship and therefore it does not meet the criteria to be considered for a waiver through the DRB. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The subject property is allowed to develop as the church’s sanctuary under the current design district dimensional standards; however, this would require the sanctuary be a minimum of two stories. Church sanctuaries are typically only one story. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. In the NG-2 (Transitional Northgate) zoning district, casual and fine dining restaurants and theaters are allowed to seek a waiver of the two-story height requirement through the DRB. However, since the proposed use in this case is a church sanctuary, no similar option exists. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. The applicant states the hardship is requiring a second floor for a sanctuary when one is not needed. The proposed sanctuary design features exterior walls with a height that exceeds typical two-story construction and appears like a two-story structure from the outside. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 January 7, 2014 The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes the height and appearance of the proposed structure meets the intent of the urban designation in the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property as planned. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has also suggested that a partial mechanical floor above the one-story occupied space is sufficient to comply with the two-story standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that all facades are a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in height and all facades give the appearance of a two-story structure. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Proposed Elevations 3. Proposed Sanctuary Building Plan Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 January 7, 2014 VARIANCE REQUEST for Lots 1-5 and 16-20, Block 4, Tauber Subdivision 13-00900268 REQUEST: A variance to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 12- 5.8.B.6.g, Northgate Districts, Off-Street Parking Standards, to allow a ramp on the exterior of a parking garage. LOCATION: Lots 1-5 and 16-20, Block 4, Tauber Subdivision, generally located at 601 Cross Street APPLICANT: Christopher Craig, Jackson & Ryan Architects PROPERTY OWNER: St. Mary’s Catholic Church PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner trogers@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The subject property is zoned NG-2 (Transitional Northgate) and owned by St. Mary’s Catholic Church. An apartment complex currently occupies the site but the owner plans to build a structured parking garage on the site which is currently. The UDO allows structured parking in NG-2, but prohibits ramps on garage exterior facades. The applicant would like to provide an exterior ramp on the proposed parking garage, therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the UDO Section 12-5.8.B.6.g, Northgate Districts, Off-Street Parking Standards, to allow a ramp on the facade of a parking garage. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE: UDO Section 12-5.8.B.6.g, Northgate Districts, Off-Street Parking Standards ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the Northgate off-street parking regulations is intended to create a pedestrian-friendly environment which minimizes the visual impact of parking areas and encourages pedestrian movement through the district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 January 7, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 January 7, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 January 7, 2014 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: January 7, 2014 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: N/A Property owner notices mailed: 12 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property NG-2 Transitional Northgate Multi-Family Residential North NG-3 Residential Northgate Multi-Family Residential South (across Cross Street) NG-1 Core Northgate Place of Worship East (across Nagle Street) NG-2 Transitional Northgate Surface Parking Lot and Vacant West (across Stasney Street) NG-3 Residential Northgate Multi-Family Residential PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject property is located on Lots 1-5 and 16-20, Block 4, Tauber Subdivision and has approximately 300 feet of frontage on both Nagle Street and Stasney Street and approximately 210 feet along Cross Street. 2. Access: The property takes access from Nagle Street, Stasney Street, and Cross Street. 3. Topography and vegetation: The site is relatively flat, with a few mature trees 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant has stated that the exterior ramp is necessary to serve users in a safe and efficient manner and expedite the quick departure of vehicles from the garage. In Staff’s opinion, the applicant has not provided evidence that a special condition exists on the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. The master plan is proposing multiple exit drives/ramps to serve the garage and ramps are Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 January 7, 2014 allowed in structured parking garages so long as they are not located on the building façade. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The subject property is allowed to develop as a structured parking garage under the current design Northgate district standards. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. All Northgate permitted uses are required to abide by the same standards outlined in UDO Section 12-5.8.B.6.g, Northgate Districts, Off-Street Parking Standards. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. It is Staff’s opinion that a hardship does not exist on the property. The Owner is permitted to construct a structured parking garage with ramps that are enclosed within the structure. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 January 7, 2014 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. If the variance is denied, the applicant can still develop the property as a structured parking garage. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. In staff’s opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a special condition or hardship exists in this case. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Proposed Elevation Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 7 January 7, 2014 VARIANCE REQUEST for Lot 2-R, The Ramparts 13-00900270 REQUEST: A variance to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 12- 5.9, Northgate Districts, Design District Dimensional Standards, to allow a 70-foot maximum building setback for St. Mary’s sanctuary building when 75% of the building façade is adjacent to right-of- way occur within the setback. LOCATION: Lot 2-R, The Ramparts, generally located at 300 Nagle Street APPLICANT: Christopher Craig, Jackson & Ryan Architects PROPERTY OWNER: St. Mary’s Catholic Church PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner trogers@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The subject property is zoned NG-2 (Transitional Northgate) and owned by St. Mary’s Catholic Church. The site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot but the owner plans to construct a new sanctuary at this location. The UDO allows churches in all zoning districts, however, the NG-2 zoning district requires a minimum building setback of 10 feet from the back of curb and a maximum building setback of 25 feet from the back of curb. The applicant is proposing to construct a new sanctuary on the site that would be located further from the curb than allowed by the UDO. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the UDO Section 12-5.9, Northgate Districts, Design District Dimensional Standards, to allow a setback of 70 feet when 75% of the building’s perimeter facing the right-of-way occurs within this setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE: UDO Section 12-5.9, Design District Dimensional Standards ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the Northgate dimensional standards is to create a unique, pedestrian-friendly, dense urban environment in the City of College Station. One important characteristic of urban areas is Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 7 January 7, 2014 the relationship of the buildings to the right-of-way. Urban development is typically marked by buildings located close to the street. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 7 January 7, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 7 January 7, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 7 January 7, 2014 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: January 7, 2014 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: N/A Property owner notices mailed: 16 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property NG-2 Transitional Northgate Surface Parking Lot North NG-2 Transitional Northgate Vacant South (across Church Avenue) NG-2 Transitional Northgate Office and Bank East NG-2 Transitional Northgate Multi-Family Residential West (across Nagle Street) NG-1 Core Northgate Place of Worship PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject property is located on Lot 2-R, The Ramparts and has approximately 340 feet of frontage along Church Avenue and approximately 440 feet along Nagle Street. 2. Access: The property takes access from Nagle Street. 3. Topography and vegetation: The site is relatively flat, with some mature trees 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant has stated that setback criteria does not allow a church to employ a traditional cruciform plan shape. In Staff’s opinion, the applicant has not provided evidence that a special condition exists on the property such that the strict applications of the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 7 January 7, 2014 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The subject property is allowed to develop as a sanctuary under the current design district dimensional standards. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. All Northgate permitted uses are required to abide by the same standards outlined in Section 12-5.9, Northgate Districts, Design District Dimensional Standards, of the UDO. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. It is Staff’s opinion that a hardship does not exist on the property. The applicant can design and construct a sanctuary that meets the minimum and maximum setbacks provided by the UDO. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Urban and calls for developments that are built close to the street and contribute to the urban environment. The proposed sanctuary is set further back on the property and proposes a large open area between the street and the building façade, which is more suburban in character. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 7 of 7 January 7, 2014 The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. In staff’s opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a special condition or hardship exists in this case. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Proposed Site Plan