Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2000 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments11tINUTES • • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 18, 2000 6:00 P.1NI. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bond, Hill, Lewis, Shelly & Richards. (Alternate Members Corley & Goss were in the audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Toni Hynds & Dick Birdwell. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner I~uenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Laauwe, Assistant City Attorney Ladd, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock. Development Services Customer Service Representative Cruce. AGENDA ITEM NO.1: Call to order - Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Bond called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. No request forms were fumed in. AGF~~iDA ITEM NO.3: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 216 Stuttgart, lot 9, block 25, Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R Tubbs. Staff Planner Laauwe stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance for an error made during construction. This case involves a construction error made at the site plan stage. The applicant designed the home believing that the 10-foot public utility easement (PUE) line shown on the plat was the rear setback line. Unfortunately the Building Department, during the plans review process, did not catch the error. During routine inspections, an inspector did request that the setback lines be laid out with a string line. However, thinking that the PUE was the setback line, this was also done in error. The realization of the mistake was not made until the certificate of occupancy was issued. The result of the error is that a 98.80 square foot section of the back east corner of the home is encroaching into the rear setback. At its furthermost point, the corner extends to only 15.92 feet from the rear property line, thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback of 9.08 feet. The applicant offers a special condition of the error made during the construction process. In addition, the Board may consider the lot's irregular shape as a special condition. The construction of the home is complete, thus the corner of the home would have to be removed. • ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 1 of 9 The only alternative to the variance is to tear down the corner of the home that is encroaching into the setback. The City is not under the current policy of rectifying setback violations. If the variance is denied, any future seller of the home would have to obtain a letter stating that the City does not intend • to enforce the setback at that time. The applicant has stated that the backyard is large in proportion and that the encroachment will not be a problem to the safety, access or the aesthetics of the subject property or surrounding properties. Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report with pictures of the property. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Laauwe whose oversight was it that allowed this encroachment to occur. Ms. Laauwe replied that the building inspector mussed it but it is ultimately the builder's responsibility. Mr. Hill asked if the PUE was shown on the drawing indicating the rear setback when submitted for permit. Ms. Laauwe replied that it is her understanding the PLTE line was seen and it was believed to be the setback line. The inspector who inspected the slab thought it was a little off and he asked the builder to put out the string lines to pull the building setbacks, but again the builder thinking the PUE was the setback line, that was the setback line he drew. Mr. Lewis referred to the drawing that was turned in for the building permit. The drawing indicating the position of the house on the lot. It showed the i0 foot PL!E but not the rear setback line. Ms. Laauwe replied that it did not show the rear setback. Mr. Lewis stated that it is hard for him to understand if the line had been indicated, it would have been obvious that the house would not fit in that position on the lot. Ms. Laauwe explained that the PUE is located on the plat but not setbacks. Ms. Laauwe guessed that the plan reviewer saw the dash lines of the PUE and assumed it to be the rear • setback line. Mr. Richards asked what would the recourse be if the variance is denied. Ms. Laauwe replied that the home would be considered non-conforming. At this time the builder would not be required to tear down the corner of the home that is encroaching. It will make it more difficult to sell the home because each time the home sold the city would have to do a letter to the title company stating the city is aware of the encroachment but at this time are not going to enforce it. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. W. R. Tubbs, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that setback variance being requested is a mistake on his part and he takes full responsibility. Mr. Tubbs stated he submitted the application thinking the rear setback was a 15-foot setback and not a i0-foot setback. The 10-foot PUE was noticed but the slab was set up at a 15-foot setback. Mr. Tubbs explained to the Board that when construction plans were drawn the line was not drawn on the site plan. Mr. Tubbs added that he had drawn the plans himself. Mr. Tubbs stated to the Board that his construction company as well as the city missed that error. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that it was he who caught the encroachment when he submitted the plans to the city for the construction of the home next door. An architect he had hired prepared that site plan and it did show the 25-foot rear setback Mr. Tubbs ended by telling the Board that he then immediately filed for the variance. • With no one else stepping forward closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes to speak in favor or opposition of the variance, Chairman Bond July i8, 2000 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Hilt made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not 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. The nnotion failed with a leek of a second. Chairman Bond reopened the public hearing so the applicant could further be questioned. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Laauwe how could a building permit could get approved without the builder knowing what the correct setback requirement is on a lot. Ms. Laauwe replied the plan was submitted and missed by the plan reviewer. Mr. Lewis asked if rear setbacks vary in R-1 zoning. In R-1 zoning is the rear setback always a 25-foot setback. Ms. Laauwe answered yes that is correct with the exception for garages which is 20-feet. Mr. Shelly referred to the staff report concerning responses received. Mr. Shelly asked who received the phone calls. Ms. Laauwe answered that she received the calls. The concerns were from area neighbors because of this being a newly developed neighborhood. The concerns were curiosity because of the public hearing sign on the property but one caller was opposed to the variance due to concerns relating to neighboring property values. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Laauwe if the request is denied, he knows the city is not going to enforce the removal of the structure, but what will happen. Ms. Laauwe replied that a letter would be written to the mortgage and title companies stating that the home is non-conforming and the city does net have any interest in enforcing the setback encroachment. Mr. Lewis asked if a letter would have to be issued • each time the property changed ownership. Ms. Laauwe replied yes. W.R. Tubbs approached the Board. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that this home was built as a Parade Home and he was planning on moving into the home for financial purposes while waiting for his personal home to be completed in Woodcreek. Mr. Tubbs stated that when the public signs were placed on the properties the inquiries he received were what the signs were about. Most inquiries where about the property becoming commercial property. The reponses after knowing about the variances seemed to be OK. With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not 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 Mr. Lewis seconded the motion, which passed (40.1) Chairman Bond abstaining. Mr. Hill offered clarification for his denial to the applicant. Mr. Hill stated that he feels strongly that in this situation the builder has the responsibility to understand the setbacks and ordinances. Mr. Hill stated that he is sympathetic to the situation but the city should not validate this mistake. ZB~I Minutes July l8, 2000 Page 3 oj9 • AGFiNAA ITE11~„NO.4: Consideration of a side setback variance at 214 Stuttgart, lot 8, block Z5, Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W.R Tubbs. • Ms. Laauwe stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe told the Board the applicant is requesting the variance for a construction error. Aside setback of 7.5 feet is required for R-1 single family homes. A variable side setback on the northeast side from 6.5 feet to 4.0 feet. The encroaching setback is at its least at the rear of the structure and gradually increases to a maximum of 3.6 feet at the front of the home. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a side setback variance of varying length of 1.0 feet to 3.5 feet. The applicant offers a special condition of an error during the construction of the home. He states that a mistake was made when the wrong string line was pulled during the placemern of the slab. Due to the property being located on the radii of a cul-de-sac, several pins are placed in the ground during the platting process. The applicant's foundation contractor pulled the side property string line from the wrong pin, causing the entire structure to encroach into the side setback. The mistake was not caught during the building inspection process, due to the contractor and/or surveyor being held responsible for pulling the correct property lines. The construction of the home is complete, thus the northeast wall of the existing structure would have to be removed and replaced. The City currently does not have the policy of mandating such setback violations to be immediately rectified. The only alternative found is to tear down the sidewall and reconstruct the side without encroaching into the setback. The City is not under the current policy of rectifying setback violations. if the • variance is denied, any future seller of the home would have to obtain a letter stating that the City does not intend to enforce the setback at that time. Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report with pictures of the property. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Laauwe if the home at 212 Stuttgart is right on the building setback so that there is actually 11.5 feet between the houses. Ms. Laauwe answered that was correct. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Shelly moved to approved the variance of the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: due to being only 1-3 foot and still being 11.5 feet between the houses and because a strict enforcemern of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: due to having to remove a complete wall for 1-3 foot variance; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: supporting reasons are no main objections for or against by neighbors and the site of the property by myself. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. • ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 4 of 9 • Mr. Hi11 stated that this variance is not warranted for similar reasons to that of the previous variance request. Mr. Hill again stated that the mistake was made on the part of the layout of the home and it is not appropriate for this Board necessarily to validate this type of oversight that was made. Mr. Hill ended by saying that he is under whehned that the applicant did not feel it worth his time to testify in this case. Mr. Richards stated that he agreed with Mr. Hill and explained that he seconded the motion just so that it could be discussed. Mr. Lewis stated that the builder and contractor where aware of the requirement and it seems that they were making an honest effort to comply. Mr. Lewis ended by stating that he does not see any harm to the neighborhood or the city in this particular case. Mr. Hill stated that his concern is the magnitude of this size encroachment. With the discussion on Mr. Sheffy's motion completed, Chairman Bond called for a vote on the motion. The Board vote was 2-2-1 with Mr. Hill and Mr. Richards voting against and Chairman Bond abstaining. The motion to approve the variance failed. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strsct 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. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Bond called for a vote, which resulted in the motion to deny passing. The vote was 3-1-1 with Mr. Hill, Mr. Lewis .and Mr. Shelly voting for the motion to deny and Chairman Bond abstaining. The request for the variance by the applicant was therefore officially denied. AGENDA I'~'FM NO.S: Consideration of a front setback variance at 3140 Pleasant Forest Drive, lot I1, block 1, Pleasant Forest Subdivision. Applicant is Southwest Homes. Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a new home. The subject is undeveloped. A house is planned for this lot that will encroach into the required front setback. A corner of the planned garage extends approximately five feet over the front building setback fine. Thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 5-feet to the front setback to allow for the construction of the home. The ZBA could consider the 20-foot drainage and access easement along the western property line as a special condition. The property was platted with a western side setback requirement of 11.5 feet. Because of the easement, the setback requirement is increased by 8.5 feet, reducing the amount of buildable space on the lot. The ZBA could consider that the special condition of the easement creates a hardship. The easement • reduces the buildable area of the lot. In comparison to the other lots in the subdivision, this buildable area appears to be smaller. ZBA Mlnretes July 18, 2000 Page S of 9 Staff has identified the following alternatives: 1. Do not grant the variance -The stnicture is in the planning phase, so, at this time, no physical • encroachmeirts exist. A denial will require the applicant to design a home that meets the from setback requirement for the lot. 2. Move the structure to the rear setback line and grant a 3.5 feet variance -The plans show the house will be placed approximately 1.5 feet from the rear setback. If the house were moved back to the line, the front of the house would encroach 1.5 feet less into the front setback. 3. As with any case the Board my grant less than what is requested (0-5 feet). Mr. Dill asked Ms. Hitchcock does the current site plan indicate that the house is to be built 16 or 18 inches forward of the rear setback Iine. Ms. Hitchcock replied approximately 16 inches. Mr. Richards asked if the builder was aware of the 25-foot setback when the house was designed. Ms. Hitchcock replied that there was a representative in the audience and she believed they did talk to a plan designer and they have worked through several options for this lot. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that she realized 16 inches in not quite the 1-1/Z foot. The 1-1/2 foot was used to give the builder a few inches leeway. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. Walter Williams, applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. • Williams told the Board when the property owner bought the lot he was unaware of the 20-foot drainage easement. It was when the homeowner came to Southwest Homes to begin the process of designing his home he picked a plan out of a catalogue and thought it would fit on the lot. When the house was being designed to fit it was then realized that that there was a 20 foot drainage easement and there was also a sidewalk running down the easement as well. Mr. Williams ended by telling the Board they worked with the developer as well as redrawing 4 to 5 different plans trying to fit a house within the buildable property. Mr. Hill asked what is the distance between the rear of the slab and the rear setback. Mr. Williams replied it is a 1-'h foot distance but he likes to have a little leeway. With no one else stepping forward the speak in favor or opposition of the case, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be corrtrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: unusual lot shape, large drainage easement and a very small portion of the house would actually end up in front of the normal 25 foot setback; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: it would be virtually impossible to build a house to meet the minimum size requirements on this lot; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the back side of the house would be set on the rear setback line so the variance being granted would be 3 1/Z feet • to the front setback requirement. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Hill made an amendment to the motion to state a 4-foot variance instead of the 3-S~ foot variance. Mr. Lewis seconded the amended motion, which passed (4-0-1). Chairman Bond abstaining from voting. • The Board voted (4-0-1) to grant the variance. Chairman Bond abstaining from voting. AGENDA. ITEM NO.6: Consideratiod of a parking variance at ?.300 Earl Rudder Freeway, lot 2, block 1, Sutton Place Subdivision. Applicant is Tom Bevans, Jr. Staff Planner Laauwe stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe told the Board that the variance is to allow for redevelopment of a site in compliance with the Wolf Pen Creek Plan. Nightclubs are required to have one parking space for every 50 square feet. The proposed nightclub has a total of 13,171 square feet, for a total requiremern of 2b4 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide parking for cars, motorcycles and bicycles. The Zoning Ordinance, however does not consider motorcycle and bicycle parking towards the o#fstreet parking requirement. The applicant has proposed the following parking: 183 spaces for cars 1 for every 72 sq. ft. (31% variance) 33 spaces for motorcycles 10 spaces for bicycles 226 total spaces proposed 1 for every 58.27 sq. ft. (14.4% variance) While the Board may take in consideration the proposed motorcycle and bicycle parking, the variance must be based on the number of spaces for automobiles. Thus, the applicant is seeking a variance to the off-street parking regulations by the amount of 81 parking spaces (31%). • The a licant is ro o ' to redevelo the existing Wolfe Nursery site with a nightclub that will feature PP P P ~$ P dining, a sand volleyball court, bar and stage. Due to the increase in intensity of the use, the parking requirement for the site has risen substantially. The Wolf Pen Creek Corridor Design Review Board (DRB) has met regarding the Roosters' plan and has given strong opinions that they favor a parking variance that would allow for more landscape vegetation rather than the placement of additional pazking spaces. The Planning & Zoning Commission will be the approving body of the final site plan. The DRB wishes to limit the amount of surface pazking in favor of landscaping and trails that will eventually connect the various entertainmern and restauraats along the comdor. The City has hired a Code Consultant and is in the process of reviewing several sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking requirements within the zoning district is one area that may be revised. The owner also owns the abutting properties, making it possible to reconfigure the lots to add the required parking and landscaping. The Boazd may also grant a variance less than the requested amount (0-81 spaces). Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Mr. Lewis asked what is the parking ratio for a restaurant. Ms. Laauwe replied that it is 1 for 100 sq. ft. because a drive through is being proposed. • Z&4 Mirad~c July 18, 2000 Page T of 9 Ms. Kuenzel stepped before the Board and offered clarification to the parking. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that she had been working with the applicant since the beginning and she would be glad to answer any questions. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that parking for retail is 1 per 250, which is one fifth • of anightclub-parking requirement. The parking requirement for a nightclub is 1-50. It is half that for a restaurant with a drive through. Chairman Bond opened the Public Hearing. Clint Schroff, representative for the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Schroff told the Board that both the applicant and landowner where in attendance and he encouraged the Board to ask them any questions. Mr. Hill asked what the allowed occupancy of the building will be. Mr. Schroff that he could not answer that at this time. They are going specifically on square footages for parking. Paul Clarke, the landowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Clarke explained to the Board that when the application was turned into for ZBA consideration, it was prior to the DRB meeting. Since that time the site plan has changed. The phase 2 parking lot was for the adjacent property. The DRB asked that the phase 2 parking be shown now. The existing site plan shows the phase 2 parking to the west. Since then an alternative parking lot to the south side was planned which would bring the parking up to a night club ratio. The DRB asked them not to put that parking in but instead landscape it. Mr. Clarke told the Board that as a developer they did not want a "sea of concrete" at the focal intersection of Wolf Pen Creek Mr. Clarke ended by telling the Board that the surrounding property owners that were notified, are different partnerships but essentially they • are the same partners. So it would be very easy to come up with a parking agreement that all concerned parties would agree to. Mr. Richards asked how many automobile parking spaces are there in phase 2. Mr. Clarke replied that it was an additiona130 spaces to the west. There were continued discussions with the Board and Mr. Clarke concerning the parking and the hours of operation. Mr. HiII made the motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: granting this variance will allow maximum flexibility to the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor Design Review Board to develop the area in the manner that they prefer; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: more surface parking would be required which would reduce the area available for landscaping and trails which is desired by the city; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: a variance of 81 parking spaces will be granted allowing a requirement of 183 parking spaces for the proposed 13,171 square foot nightclub. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 8 oj9 Mr. Richards asked what all was planned in the 13,171 square feet of the building. Ms. Kuenzel referred to the site plan and told the Board that it would include anything enclosed in the building i.e. meeting rooms, restrooms, any kitchen space and outside serving areas. It does not include the • volleyball courts. Board voted (4-0-1). Chairman Bond abstaining from voting. AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Future Agenda Items. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. B• Adjourn The meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: • Deborah Grace, Sta ssistant Z&9 Miirutes July 18, 2040 Page 9 of 9 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMI~T FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) 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. Date - ~ 8=_~® Motion made b Seconded by ~ ~~~--;~ ~~-\ ~ _ _ Voting Results ~~ Chair Signature f ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATNE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback as+ ~ 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. ~.,~1~b4 // /I Date ~ - ~ D - ~ a Motion made by _ ~hG Votin Results s~ ~~ Seconded by _ _ S _ g Chair Signature ~ ~~` 4l S~\ t1~ .floc • ~~ ~~ 2\~e~,s~,~~ ZONING BOARD OF KDJUSTMII~P • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance IV~umber 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: ~(7!(S/k4 ~ (° ~ ~~°i~L ~Qr~j L l/('/~tiH~ sti L~J ~ha.tk I[" • _p_~ ~/ ~~) •~f'rs~4-~~ ~o~~`d.. ~ ~OCi/C !~n !1~0~~ N~ rJ~Grre~ ZS ~.rti~~lil~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~~-~c.~~~u ~~ ~ ~u -~/~ d~ ~k roe Q o~ ~ ~~ -- ~~7t ~J y~'t/n .r.Lf au~ S'~ 2 ~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~~~d~ ;-,'~s ~ ~ GIB : '~ ~/--._~r~~~ ''^ ~ ~~SK~~` / ~ .S'0 P'!"' ~ (~lI ~/G/1 cG !/ 1~r / ~• ~ ~ ~'~'.v~ ./Y~ ~r~ ~/c ~C~~f' ~Y : r~dW~t Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature F~- -mom r~-C~e~. Date 7 / ~ o d Voting Resul ~ -' V,gRp1638.DOC ~5~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMII~IT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: 9rGv~ F~n~ tG--~s Vav~,'ahc a w,'l( a~~o~,. t~rax,~rU~ ~'/e~,b; %- ty • , ~ r ~n ><~e I,~/m /~' ~cH Cree~C 1..0/^r, ~m~ des. ~ ~ Rem, eu. ~o~~ fo r p~eve~o~~ f~.e aN a ,H ~~P vYtayNer ftiaf ~tieY ~0~'e/cev~ ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Wt dr P Sc~ r~ c e ,~ar~ , `erg woa /~ be rP~ Lr! r eG~ wti, c ~ _ !d/r~lw ~/X .~Il7illf0~ /-~i P Q t~` L' q Q f/a; ~Gi ~J ~~ TDr (fit ~ G~SC G nO; vi 9 ~ln ~ra~ lS fv~1, C`1 r5 ~eSirc°d 6Y 1~Li P ~'~ !~/ ; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: GZ 1/GZr', RH C e ©~ `~~ ,PGrr~ ~, A SDG C PS LV!'~l fit 9`'9a 7~e~ a~(ow;~-g q rP~~lr~~neht~ o~ ll3 .Oark.hg SOGCPS ~~" h P .~rr~~©Se~ ~ ~ 3 . ~ 7 ~ S~ u ar e 1~0®z~ n! Motion made Date ~ - ~ ~' 00 • r- Seconded by ~ Votmg Resul Chair Signature v,~lssa.DOc 08/16/00 14:00 $409 690 5353 CIC CORP u8:18ioo 19:08 8979 7Gi x488 nFrFrnPnri;xT Stirs • pity 4f college Slaiion Abscncc RcqucstForm Fur Ele~led and Appointer O~fi~ccrs Name 2S l-f~ N•r~~ ~.. - Request Submitted on ~~' ~a 9 ~sf '~~~~ I will uat be in attendance at the maatiug of ~ ~ ~~~ us ~` •~ OC~~ f4T LhG I~aS4t1~S} Speciftet{: ~ iti) fjj/~•(f Y!C Jdt f 0~ .$fgf'C' ~l? ~jG(S' l1 ~S,Si . • ~il8f]1t1C Tliis request shall be submitted to llre Secretary of the Z~oard one-H~eek rrior to rteee6na d~t~ ~ ooi f~ OoY •