Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1998 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 19, 1998 6:00 P.M. • • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hollas, Blackwelder, Warren, Alexander, Alternate Member Happ. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Member Hill and Alternate Member Pyrtle. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Graduate Civil Engineer Kaspar, StaffPlanner Battle, Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Assistant City Attorney Robinson, Planning Intern Nixon, Staff Assistant Grace. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hollas called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from meeting of Apri17, 1998. Mr. Blackwelder moved to approve the minutes of April 7, 1998. Ms. Warren seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a variance to the height requirement for a new sign at 813 Texas Avenue. The applicant is Thomas Signs and Awnings for Red Lobster. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is wanting to replace the existing, nonconforming freestanding sign. The property is part of the East Gate shopping center. This center currently has a variance allowing two freestanding signs, one for Red Lobster and one for Lone Star Pavilion. The applicant wants to replace the existing pole, and it will not increase the height of the existing sign, which is 21 ft. Due to the recent widening of Texas Avenue, the sign is now closer to the street and the height of this sign is now nonconforming. Before this change, the sign could have been changed without a variance. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 13' variance to the height of a freestanding sign in order to replace the existing sign cabinet. The applicant would have to change to less visible signage. ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 1 of 11 This can be considered an inherited hardship due to the fact that the widening project was not self • imposed. Mr. Battle identified two alternatives: 1. To meet the current ordinance, the sign could be reduced to a height of 8 ft. or moved to a distance of 40 ft. from the street. However, due to adjacent development, these options could significantly reduce the visibility of the sign. 2. Not change the sign or only change the sign faces so as to maintain its nonconformity. The applicant states that a new sign cabinet would be much more aesthetically pleasing. The intent of the zoning ordinance is to limit signage in order to prevent the "proliferation of signs [that] create commercial confusion and make it difficult for travelers to locate goods and services they seek". The Board has previously granted sign variances resulting from the widening of Texas Avenue. In June of 1995 the Board granted a variance to the size of the sign at ITS Travel due to the changing curb. The Board also granted a variance to the location of a fuel price sign for Exxon on the corner of Texas and University because of forced relocation due to the Texas Avenue widening project. Ms. Warren asked if any previous requests have been denied. Mr. Battle replied there were no similar requests denied. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. General Manager of Red Lobster, Sally Ryan of 4010 Willow Oak, Bryan, Texas and Darrell with Darrell's Sign Co, 10965 Hwy 242, Conroe, Texas approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Ms. Ryan explained to the Board that they were replacing the existing sign due to a logo change. She further added that the existing sign now is not very visible due to it being in between the Texaco and On the Border signs which are significantly larger. • There were discussions with the Board members concerning the possibility of moving the sign for conformity and Darrell replied if moved it would lose visibility. Chairman Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition of the request. No one stepped forward and Mr. Hollas closed the public hearing. Mr. Alexander moved to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: The sign became nonconforming due to the widening of Texas Avenue; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship. to this applicant being: the applicant would have to change to less visible signage. This is an inherited hardship since the street widening was not self imposed; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance to the Drainage Ordinance, Section II.E., easements and right-of--way requirements for the South Hampton Subdivision. Applicant is Municipal Development Group for Phyllis Hobson. Graduate Civil Engineer Paul Kaspar presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is • proposing a 20 ft. wide drainage easement centered upon the improvement drainage channel with access being provided by means of 3 access easements. ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 2 of 11 The improved channel cross-section will have 4 to 1 side slopes and a standard concrete pilot channel. The applicant will ensure that vegetative ground cover is developed along the channel cross section. The Director of Public Works, Mark Smith, P.E. has agreed to this proposal with the above conditions • since it provides a maintainable channel with adequate access for maintenance. Staff would recommend approval of the variance request with the following conditions: 1. channel cross section will have 4 to 1 side slopes 2. concrete pilot channel be placed in the flowline of the channel 3. access to the beginning and end of the channel is provided 4. vegetative cover is established According to the Drainage Ordinance, the applicant must show that the variance being requested is: 1. the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief 2. it will not be detrimental to public health and safety 3. the variance will not increase the water surface elevations, velocities, etc., to the extent that there will be any threat to public safety 4. the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of land upstream or downstream 5. no variance shall be allowed within a floodway if any increase in water surface elevation occurs during the base flood discharge. Hardships to the applicant would be to encumber additional area on the lots. The project construction would be delayed and modifications would be required to the approved preliminary plat thereby sending it back to City Council for approval. Alternatives would be to dedicate the easement as stated in the Drainage Ordinance. • The intent of the Draina a Ordinance is to assure rotection to the g p subject property and all adjacent property owners from potential flooding risk. Specifically this section of the ordinance assures proper access to these drainage ways will be provided for maintenance. Ms. Warren asked if this request was for all seven phases of South Hampton. Mr. Kaspar responded that this variance is only for phase 1 and other variances for each phase will follow. Mr. Kaspar further added that phase one is going to the Planning and Zoning for plat review. Chairman Hollas asked if the concrete pilot channel is being used to alter the width of the easement. Mr. Kaspar responded yes. Chairman Hollas asked if this complies with the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Kaspar resounded that it does comply. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing for all those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Rabon Metcalf, on behalf of the applicant, of 1406 D Airline Drive in College Station, approached the podium and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Metcalf stated that he was available to answer any questions. • ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 3 of 11 Mr. Happ asked which direction will the water drain. Mr. Metcalf replied that it will drain toward Hwy- 6. • Chairman Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition of the request. No one stepped forward. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. There were discussions among the Board Members concerning the cross sections Mr. Blackwelder made the motion to authorize a variance from the terms of Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: the lots without the variance are unbuildable; and because either of the following criteria are met: Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land limited by: 1. channel cross section will have 4 to 1 slopes 2. concrete pilot channel be placed in the flowline of the channel 3. access to the beginning and end of the channel is provided 4. vegetative cover is established 5. and any other requirements as required by the City Engineer. Ms. Warren seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance to the minimum number of parking spaces required at 701 University Drive East, Building B. The applicant is Zee Stop Holdings • DBA the Tavern on Chimney Hill. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant wants to increase the size of the proposed nightclub for this shopping center. Nightclub parking is not a new issue in this City. How many customers a nightclub will attract is unpredictable. Some existing nightclubs meet current parking requirements, yet have overflow parking problems on weekend evenings. In the past, some nightclubs have created problems when overflow parking ran onto streets and adjacent properties. In addition, safety hazards have been created when customers parked in adjacent areas and then ran across busy streets. The subject property is part of the Chimney Hill shopping center. The parking requirement for shopping centers of this size is one space per 200 S.F. Up to 25% of the shopping center can be used for intense uses such as nightclubs, restaurants and bars. The Zoning Ordinance states that when the square footage of these intense uses exceeds 25% of the shopping center, additional parking must be provided at the ratio required for that specific use in the Zoning Ordinance, in this case 1 per 50 S.F. for nightclubs. The Center currently has 451 parking spaces, 67 more than the ordinance requires. Taking into consideration the existing Tavern Restaurant as an intense use and the extra parking spaces, the proposed nightclub could be 17,574 S.F. (23% ofthe center) and meet parking requirements. • ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 4 of 11 The applicant is proposing an additional 11,370 S.F. for the nightclub use. The nightclub would be 28,944 S.F.(38% of center). The total intense uses would occupy 44% of the shopping center. To meet the parking requirements, 228 additional parking spaces are needed. There is no available space • on the property to add new parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 228 spaces to the minimum parking spaces required. Parking in shopping centers is shared among tenants. The applicant has stated that this business will have a different time of use, mostly evenings, than most of the other businesses. If this was a stand alone nightclub (not in a shopping center), it would be required to have 579 parking spaces. This is 128 more than the existing 451 spaces in the center. The applicant states that the property is fully developed and there is no practical way to acquire additional parking or land. In addition, the nightclub would mostly operate in the evenings when the other businesses are closed, thus reducing the shared parking needs. Without a variance the business would be limited to 17,574 S.F. The following alternatives have been identified: 1. Additional parking could be leased from adjacent parking lots such as the Albertson's shopping center. However, this is not preferable because it creates a safety hazard when people try to cross the street. Valet parking my help some, but not all customers may use it. 2. Limit the size of the nightclub to meet the parking requirement. • 3. The Board can grant a variance that is less than what is being requested. The intent of the ordinance to establish guidelines for off-street parking spaces consistent with the proposed land use to: 1. Eliminate occurrence ofnom-resident on-street parking in adjoining neighborhoods. 2. Avoid the traffic congestion and public safety hazards caused by a failure to provide such parking space. 3. Expedite the movement of traffic on public thoroughfares in a safe manner, thus increasing the carrying capacity of the streets and reducing the amount of land required for streets, thereby lowering the cost to both the property owner and the City. In the past the Board has not heard any requests for parking variances for nightclubs or intense uses in shopping centers. The Board has granted parking variances for other uses where special conditions related to the land proved that a variance was appropriate. For example, the Board granted a parking variance to a retirement facility because it was shown that elderly people do not own or drive as many cars as others living in multi-family residential units. • ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 5 of 11 Mr. Happ asked what other type businesses are located in the shopping center. Mr. Battle listed those which came to mind as being a florist shop, liquor store and health care center. • Mr. Blackwelder asked about compact care parking. Ms. Kee stated that the only area where that is allowed is in the WPC zoning district. Ms. Warren questioned if a use such as Hastings is considered an intense use. Mr. Battle replied that it is not considered an intense use but is a retail use. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Neely Lewis of 120 Lee Avenue, College Station, Texas, Charles Parker & Casey White, of Zee Stop Holdings approached the podium together and were sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Lewis, a local Attorney, explained that the intentions are to have a nice restaurant/nightclub that will accommodate large receptions, banquets, etc. Mr. Lewis went over the floor plan with the Board explaining the layout. Mr. Hollas asked if they could reduce the size of the total floor space to make it work. Mr. Lewis did not offer an answer . Mr. Happ asked if a traffic study should be conducted for the area before a variance is granted. Mr. Happ went on to describe the high volume of traffic, congestion and safety factors. There were continued discussions between the Board members, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Parker & Mr. White. Mr. Parker added that there are 5 access drives to the shopping center and the night club should not add to the • congestion. Chairman Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition to the request. Hubbard Kennady of 8900 Sandstone, College Station, the manager of the Chimney Hill Business Complex and tenant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Kennedy stated that he was before the Board not against the nightclub and restaurant but against inadequate parking that could result. Mr. Kennady also stated that he was pleased with the efforts that the applicant had made in making a pleasant restaurant in town. Mr. Kennady continued in detail what he felt would happen with inadequate parking and the overflow that would result in the surrounding businesses (Albertson's and Chimney Hill Business Park parking lots). Mr. Kennedy described the trash that would result and possible property damage. Mr. Hugh Lindsey tenant at 412 Tarrow stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Lindsey went over the Zoning Ordinance intent on parking requirements and stated that due to the lack of parking the intent of the ordinance is not met. Mr. Lindsey spoke about hazards it could cause patrons crossing the streets from parking in other lots and the site distance problems from the bushes along the Chimney Hill Business Park. Mr. Lindsey continued by saying that the traffic count of Tarrow must be high since Tarrow is the only one-way street in College Station. Mr. Lindsey concluded by saying that he has spoken with tenants in his office complex and they were also in opposition to the variance being granted. • ZBA Minutes May 19. 1998 Page 6 of 11 Kim Stafford stepped before the Board on behalf of tenant Anthonette Ruffino of 414 Tarrow. Mr. • Stafford said that Ms. Ruffino was not able to make the meeting; but, asked him to attend to voice her opposition. Mr. Stafford stated that Ms. Ruffino is the owner of the Sylvan Learning Center and that it is open until 8:30 in the evenings. Mr. Stafford concluded by saying that Ms. Ruffino felt that there would be disruption of parking at that time of the evening as well as the concern of children in the parking lot being picked up from classes. There was some talk among the Board Members about a valet parking agreement between the night club and adjacent property owners. Mr. Battle added clarification to a parking agreement. Mr. Battle stated that if a parking agreement was proposed with the surrounding properties, that the agreement would only be good if the applicant could get a perpetual easement or some other permanent ownership interest in the 228 spaces. The adjacent parking lots must also have the additional parking above what is required by ordinance in order to share with the night club. With no one else approaching the Board in opposition, Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. Mr. Alexander offered the suggestion of downsizing the proposed facility to accommodate the parking requirement. Mr. Happ moved to deny a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special • conditions, as because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this application, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial~ustice done. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a variance to Section 7.21 District WPC Wolf Pen Creek Development Corridor # D Requirements for Dedication/Development of Drainage and Pedestrian Access Ways. The applicant is Clark & Wyndham Inc., for the Hartnett Group L.P. Jane Kee, City Planner presented the staff report and stated that this is a variance to the Zoning Ordinance not the Drainage Ordinance. It is a reservation requirement that is established in the Master ..Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. It requires that "the floodway and minimum reservation line as defined in the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan shall be indicated on the site plan. Upon development of the property and at the option of the developer the floodway and the minimum reservation line shall either be dedicated to the City for drainage and public open space use or be improved by the developer to conform with the standards of the Development Corridor...." The minimum reservation line is defined in the WPC Master Plan as a 20 ft. strip adjacent to the floodway. This space will permit as a minimum trails to be developed in a manner where they are not subject to constant inundation. Ms. Kee added that staff is currently in the process of revising the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan and it has gone through numerous public meetings, hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Tax Increment • Financing Board. The developer also wants to defer the decision to develop or dedicate the minimum ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 7 oj11 reservation until the site development of those pieces of properties. Ms. Kee said that there is a note added to the plat that will go to the Commission and Council. The note indicated that when these two • lots (3 &4) are actually developed and site plans are drawn up then ordinance compliance will be taken care of at that time and either of these properties will develop trails and improvements as per the plan or dedicate that property to the city. Ms. Kee further added that what is being dealt with at this meeting is simply the minimum reservation as it is defined along the main channel of WPC. The developer is proposing to dedicate the 20 ft. minimum reservation line along one portion of the floodway and 10 ft. along the main channel. Ms. Kee said her understanding from the developer is that ultimately when the Master Plan is implemented there will be additional land outside the floodway and it is actually more then what is shown on the present FEMA maps which can be used to build the improvements, trails, benches lighting, etc. Ms. Kee went on the say that this is an assumption that is based on potential changes that would occur in the floodway once certain improvements are done. There has been a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) that was approved by FEMA and it was based on the original Master Plan that had the series of lakes going through the land and that is actually the Master Plan that we have now. The whole Plan is under revision and there is some discussions of having fewer lakes or no lakes, but that has not been resolved. The report done in 1990 that was associated with the CLOMR does not show cross sections in these exact locations . Since 1990 the developer and applicant ,Paul Clarke did some more accurate calculations on the ground survey and topo work and submitted to his engineer, Nathan D. Maier, who was also the engineer who did the original work in WPC. Nathan Maier used this information to update their hydraulic model and that updated model was based on existing conditions without the lake improvements. Ms. Kee referred to it as a worse case scenario. The new model has not been submitted to FEMA nor have the HEC runs which are the engineer's analysis that is done to support the model. • Ms. Kee told the Board to keep in mind that request before the Board is to dedicate not 20 ft. but 10 ft. A separate argument would be as to where that 20 ft. actually ends up being on the ground without the engineering analysis and other information. Ms. Kee stated that staff does not feel confident in advising the Board to approve the variance. So staff can only advise the Board at this time to deny the request or table it. Ms Kee continued to say that after the packets were mailed staff did get some cross sections for two of the locations. The cross sections show a 6 ft. sidewalk in a 10 ft, reserve area. Keep in mind that Master Plan calls fora 10 ft. sidewalks. The 20 ft. is specifically so that you have room fora 10 ft. walkway which is used for pedestrians, bikes, benches, lights, and to have room for men and equipment to maintain the amenities and floodway as well. Ms. Kee further added that staff recommends denial or at least tabling the variance until sufficient information is submitted to review to show that there will indeed be enough land to provide these improvements called for in the Master Plan and enough room for maintenance or that there is sufficient evidence to show that there is a special undue hardship to justify the variance. There have been a lot of dedications that have occurred in the WPC area. The city owns a good portion of the property now between Texas Avenue and the Bypass. There are no similar cases of this type. There have not been any variances granted to the minimum reservation width this far in the WPC district. So, short of the applicant showing the Board the special conditions and undue hardships and the staff being convinced that in the future we will have enough land for the improvements, staff would recommend denial. • ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 8 ojl Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. • Mr. Taggart of 1008 Madera, College Station, Texas approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Taggart stated that the presentation by Ms. Kee was very true; however, he felt in this particular instance there are several different issues and the variance request is one that could be dealt with at this meeting with the information that is available. Mr. Taggart very briefly went back to the engineering issue being, the basic contention is when this area is developed in accordance with the Master Plan, the floodway line will move and there by allowing more dry area to build amenities and park amenities. Mr. Taggart continued by saying that that was not the point he was arguing at this meeting and it is something that he thinks will probably happen. But as Mr. Kee said Nathan Maier has not submitted to the city the necessary documentation. Mr. Taggart spoke about elements of the Master Plan, specifically Plate 15 that are incorrect. One being the extension of Stallings Street. It is shown as a collector street and it is never going to happen. Mr. Taggart stated that he felt that there are areas in the Master Plan that are obsolete. Mr. Taggart spoke of the extension of George Bush by the Taco Bell on Harvey Road. Mr. Taggart stated that what the applicant is asking for is still in the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Taggart spoke of the drawing showing sections A, B, C & D and stated that these are conceptual ways that show that they can indeed fit a 6 ft. sidewalk or 6 ft. travel way in the remaining dedication area. Mr. Taggart continued by saying that there are a number of possible design solutions. Typically what happens in order to make it developable, is that the area back to the floodplain area filled in to raise the parking and the buildings are out of the floodplain. Mr. Taggart referred to the drawing in the packet showing the cross hatched area that is going to be filled. • Mr. Taggart said that the geometry would work. The hardship is that there are people wanting to do certain kinds of development that are keeping the vision of the WPC ordinance, including high quality restaurants. Mr. Taggart further stated that he is not saying if the variance is not granted the restaurants would not develop. This is quality land and the developer has been trying for 9 years to develop it. Mr. Taggart spoke about the WPC Master Plan and what it envisioned for this property as being upscale restaurants and boutiques. Mr. Taggart further added that the real hardship is on the applicant due to the fact that he is dedicating 49% of the total 12.27 acres to the City of College Station. Mr. Taggart also stated that what they are asking for is a variance of 5100 S.F. The ordinance would then require a dedication of over 254,000 S.F. and that would be the entire green area. Mr. Hollas asked about the drainage study and if once it is done would the floodway move back and shrink giving more developable land. Mr. Taggart responded that as the channel improvements are made, as the brush is cleared and becomes a park like setting rather than the jungle that is there, it would be expected that the floodplain line would move in. The city would have more land out of the floodway. And in order to get the plat approved the developer has to dedicate it as it is now. Mr. Taggart further added that the floodway line is enshrined by ordinance and locked in place. Ms. Kee clarified that Mr. Taggart was right about the CLOMR and that it was based on the scenario of lakes if and when that occurred. Once those improvements occur, then that information along with the • engineering analysis would be sent to FEMA and the final LOMR would be issued. ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 9 oj11 Ms. Kee asked the Board to keep in mind that the ordinance gives the developer options. All the ordinance calls for is that in the minimum reservation area adjacent to the floodway, if they don't • dedicate it to the city, it has to be developed in accordance with the Master Plan. Ms. Kee pointed out that there are two references in the Master Plan that talk about the purpose of the trails system and it shows a cross section showing the 10 ft. sidewalk width and the purpose being to move people, bikes and maintenance vehicles in and out. Discussion continued between the Board members and Mr. Taggart about the cross sections and the scale of the walkways and surrounding amenities. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Taggart if they could reclaim the 20 ft. with fill and not put the sidewalk in the floodway. Mr. Taggart responded that the developer can absolutely not place any fill in the floodway but they could place a park bench or picnic table there. However they do expect at some future date the floodway may move if the city does what is contemplated and it all works out. Mr. Alexander commented that the city has a concern about getting equipment and men in that area for maintenance. Mr. Taggart suggested a similar access arrangement as Office Max and provide maintenance access walkway through a parking lot. Ms. Kee said that she was not going to venture to speak for the people who have to maintain the area, but, maintenance vehicles need to be able to access the 10 ft. walkway. Given the cross sections provided, there is no way for maintenance vehicles to get down to the proposed walkway. A 6 foot walkway is not wide enough for maintenance vehicles to drive down. Chairman Hollas asked for anyone else to speak in favor. No one stepped forward. • Chairman Hollas asked it there was an one to s eak in o osition to the r y p pp equest. No one stepped forward. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. Ms. Warren moved to table the request for a variance from Chapter 13 Ordinance 1728, Drainage Ordinance until staff has adequate time to consider the late provided information (cross sections). Mr. Happ seconded the motion to table the request which passed (4-1); Mr. Blackwelder voted in opposition to the request. Agenda Item No. 8: Other Business There was no other business • ZBA Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 10 ojll Agenda Item No. 9: Adjourn • • • Chairman Hollas moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). ST aff Assistant, Deborah Grace ZBA Minutes AP~ ChairmTan, Stephen Hollas May 19, 1998 Page 11 ojl ! ZONING BOARD OF~ADJ[TSTMEN'P , • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: h ~ WO Q O "h4n~-~ ~tJ i` Q r~. rt U.~ nS n c~ ~ S'f / " i`/~~ci.f~~ and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall b~preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: Motion made by ~ ~.~ ~ Q~~-~^ Motion Seconded by 3~. c 1 Voting Results 5 ' Chair Signature Date ~ I'~l I~ • SRP1638.DOC ~'t t y L ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1 T28, Drainage Ordinance. I move to authorize a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: .~/ and because either of the following criteria are met: 1) Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land,-te~rrit~ • J h LC 1 ~ ~~'~v -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ or 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: Motion made by ,~ L J~ Gi ~ w Seconded by l~[,( C~c/ (~;~1 Chair Signature Date ~ ~ (~ Iq Sr Voting Results ~`~ DOPI T28.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMFNP FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 18, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.~ lot width (Table A) -~ lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of. any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of • the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion made by Seconded by _ Chair Signature T, ;~ V.4RRN1638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT r J FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance'Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance. I move to deny a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will not result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: and because: 1) Special circumstances or conditions do not affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit: - c~ ~~ ~~ • or 2) The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: Motion made by Seconded by _ Chair Signature . Date Voting Results FORMSIDON17t8DOC 17J91 Zoning Board of Adjustment a • • ; Guest Register Date-~~Cx._+._A ~ , ~ ~~,~ Name 1. 2. ~~.~5 _ 3. ~Gf ~~l/L.C~= 4. ' ~ ~t._ 5. ~ 1, ' ~ G. Address .~z~ ~5~`/ ~Sr' a ~1 z ~ ot/~o P i ~ ~ Z ~e-w ~ ~ S. ~1~ ~22v--~ ~~, S , 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.