Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1998 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 7, 1998 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hollas, Happ, Warren and Alexander. MEMBERS ABSENT: Blackwelder, Alternate Members Hill & Pyrtle. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, StaffPlanner Battle, Planing Intern Nixon, Assistant City Attorney Robinson. 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 the 6-16-98 Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting. Ms. Warren asked for correction to page 3 of 4. The word voted was left out of the motion sentence. The corrected sentence will read: "Mr. Hill made the motion to table and Mr. Alexander seconded the motion. Ms. Warren and Mr. Blackwelder voted against tabling the item. (3-2)." Mr. Alexander voted to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Happ seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). On July 1, 1998 a memo was sent to all applicants for this agenda stating that as of this date there were only 4 members going to be in attendance at the July 7 ZBA Meeting. The memo stated that this will still be a quorum, and the Board will be able to hear all requests. In all variance requests, the Board mutt have 4 positive votes in order to grant a variance. Since there will only be 4 members present, the vote will have to be unanimous. The applicants were given the following two options: 1) withdraw the item from the agenda prior to the meeting. They then would have to reapply to have the item put on the next agenda. They would also have to pay the application fee again since the City will have to readvertise for the request. The next available agenda will be for a meeting on August 4th. 2) They may request that the Board defer action to the next meeting. During the meeting, after the Board has held the public hearing for the request, the Board can consider a motion to defer action to the next • meeting, when there should be S members in attendance. There is no guarantee that the Board will accept the request to defer, the decision is entirely up to the Boarcl The item would then be placed on the agenda of the next meeting AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a variance to allow a freestanding sign to be placed in front of the building at 210 Wellborn Road in a C-N Neighborhood Business Zoning • District. Applicant is Equity Real Estate, Inc. Chairman Hollas asked the applicant before the staff report was given what his option would be. The applicant stated that he wanted to have the item heard. Mr. Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant wants to construct a freestanding sign for a new building being developed on the site. This property is zoned C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) and is currently being developed as an office building. The Zoning Ordinance only allows attached signs in the C-N district. The intent of the C-N district is to provide small commercial sites for residential convenience goods and small service businesses. All uses and site plans proposed in a C-N district must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This development has been approved and is under construction. In order to preserve several large trees and maintain aesthetics, the building was placed in the rear of the property. Large trees and brush exist along each side of the property out to Wellborn Road. The building is difficult to see by traffic on Wellborn Road. Therefore, attached signs on the building are not effective. Traffic approaching the site has difficulty identifying it until the last moment, making it difficult to safely turn into the parking lot. There is considerable vegetation on each side of the development and the Varsity Apartment building on the north side reduces the visibility of the building. Also, the building is located to the rear of the lot. These conditions would make signage placed on the building mostly hidden to traffic on Wellborn Road. • There is also concern that unsafe traffic patterns would develop, such as quick stops and turns, in order for cars to enter the parking lot once the building is seen. The following alternatives have been identified: 1) The applicant could cut down the large trees to make the building more visible. This is unfavorable because it significantly reduces the aesthetics of the site. The apartment building to the north would still obstruct that view. 2) The applicant could attempt rezoning to another commercial district that allows freestanding signs. Staff would probably not support this rezoning and there would be significant opposition from the surrounding neighborhood. In June 1987 the Board denied a request for a freestanding sign in a C-N district located on Harvey Road for lack of unique special conditions and hardship. However, the Board has in the past granted variances to the size and location of signs due to special conditions related to topography and vegetation. Ms. Warren referred to the pictures presented and asked Mr. Battle if a sign was to be placed on the building would it be placed on the gray area of the building. Mr. Battle replied the city does not regulate the location of attached signs on buildings so they could place it anywhere on the building, but it could not extend above the roof line of the building. Mr. Happ asked if the present entrance is depicted on the plat and Mr. Battle replied yes. The tree on the right hand side is close to the property line and the sign would probably be placed between the property line and driveway. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of the • request. Keith Clements of Bryan, Texas P.O. Box 1499, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Clements stated that Mr. Battle summed up the case very well. Mr. Clements stated that he knew the Board had particular concerns to the hardships and one of the hardships is the • location of the trees. The distance of the property from the road would make it difficult to see the sign if it were on the building. Mr. Clements added that the property is located so close to the intersection and is hidden by the Varsity Apartments. Mr. Clements said that what he wanted to do is keep all the live oaks on both sides of the property. Mr. Clements stated that he could have set the building closer to the road and placed the parking lot in the rear, but he does not feel that would have been as aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Clements about the visibility from Wellborn Road during high traffic periods. Mr. Clements stated his observation of the situation would be when coming from the south, his building sets so far back on the lot it is hidden from the Varsity Apartments because they extend out front on their lot. When you are traveling north there is some vegetation along the road on that property and that would cause you to miss the entrance to the building unless there was a sign there. Mr. Happ stated that his only concern about a low profile sign is when trying to pull out on to Wellborn to Road, it could cause a potential safety hazard with blocking the view of what is coming down the road. Mr. Clements added that the sign would be at least 30' back from the road and once you have reached the road exiting the property, the sign is already behind you. There would be no site distance problem. Mr. Alexander asked Mr. Clements if he knew when he bought the property that he would not be able to put up a freestanding sign. Mr. Clements replied he did not know until he talked to Mr. Battle. Mr. Clements described to the Board the proposed sign would be a moderate low profile sign made of white rock. Mr. Clements stated that he does not feel the low profile sign will obstruct the view leaving the parking lot and he does feel it will help bring attention to the property before it is passed up. • Ms. Warren stated that she thinks it is really important that Mr. Clements is trying to keep the trees because the city really values that. Mr. Clements added that he has saved 9 live oaks and has spent a lot of money doing this and the trees were one of the reasons that attracted him to the property. Chairman Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition of the request. With no one stepping forward Mr. Hollas closed the public hearing. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Battle for clarification to the discussion of the freestanding sign. Chairman Hollas asked if Mr. Clements could still put a freestanding sign on the building whether or not he gets this low profile sign approved. Mr. Battle replied that was correct, Mr. Clements could have an attached sign to the building and attached signs go unregulated in the city. The low profile sign would be required to be 10' from the right-of--way to allow for adequate visibility. Chairman Hollas asked if it would be a correct statement that if this property was zoned commercial, Mr. Clements would not need to be before the Board asking for this variance. Mr. Battle replied that was correct. Ms. Warren 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 location of the existing Varsity Apartment building, the location of the proximity of the property in relation to the George Bush / Wellborn Road intersection, and the location of the existing live oak trees; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this application being: the creation of safety problems due to the difficulty of identifying an attached sign as a result of the foregoing special conditions; and such that the • spirit and intent of this ordinance shalt be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. David Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). • Agenda Item No. 4: Consideration of a variance to the side setback to allow construction of house with a driveway in side yard in the 500 Block of Gilbert. Applicant is Paul Williams. Chairman Hollas asked the applicant before the staff report was given what his options would be. The applicant stated that he wanted to have the item heard. Mr. Battle presented the staff report and stated the applicant is requesting a variance to the side setback to allow construction of a house with a driveway in the side yard. The property is the only lot that faces Gilbert Street. The side property lines to the east and west are adjacent to the rear yards of other houses. In order to save a large tree in the rear yard, the house will be built on the front setback. There is no right-of--way between the pavement and property line, so the house will be 25' from the street (in new development there is typically about 10' of ROW between the property line and street). At minimum, the driveway will have to be 18' w x 20' 1 to create two parking spaces. However, because it will be a rent house, and there will be no on-street parking allowed, the driveway will probably be at least 30' x 20' to accommodate three cars. The owner is concerned about having the cars parked that close to the street for safety reasons, both traffic related and criminal. Mr. Williams is also concerned about how much of the front yard will have to be paved, detracting from the aesthetics. Instead of placing the parking in front of the house, Mr. Willliams wants to run the driveway through the side yard, between the house and east side lot line, into the rear. The lot is 50' wide and the proposed house is 35' wide, leaving just 7.5' on each side of the house. This does meet setback requirements (7.5' side), however a driveway must be 10' wide at minimum. Therefore the applicant • wants to move the house over (to the west side) 2:5'. The applicant states that preserving the large tree in the rear will make loin build the house on the front setback, minimizing the amount of front yard and space for parking. Typically, the property adjacent to the side yard would be another side yard with a 7.5' setback. In this case, the adjacent property is a rear yard with a 25' setback, increasing the distance between structures. The applicant states the following hardships: 1) parking cars close to the street may create hazard by exposing the vehicles to possible criminal activity. 2) the driveway would cover a large amount of the front yard, diminishing the aesthetic qualities of the lot. 3) moving the house toward the rear of the lot would result in the destruction of the large tree. Staff has identified the following alternatives: 1) Change the design of the house. Reducing the width of the house by 2.5' would leave enough room to build the driveway on the side and meet the side setbacks. 2) Build the house on the front setback and place the driveway in the front yard. The property could meet all the ordinance requirements this way. 3) Move the house toward the rear of the property to make more room for parking in the front. This • would result in destruction this way. 4) Acquire property from an adjacent lot. It is unlikely that the neighboring lots would be willing to participate for construction of a rent house. Also, it has not been determined if either property has • enough rear yard to sell some and maintain their required setbacks. In the past the Board has granted variances to the side setback. Typically the cases have involved a nonconforming lot size and a hardship placed on the owner to have a safe and functional house on the lot. The Board has also granted variances where the hardship included no alternatives to the destruction of large and valuable trees. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Battle what type of tree is it in the backyard and Mr. Battle replied that it was a pecan tree. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Mr. Paul G. Williams, the applicant, of 2601 Sandlewood in College Station was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Williams handed each Board Member pictures and a plat copy of the property. Mr. Williams referred to the pictures stating that the street is actually encroaching onto the property line. Mr. William's stated that as far as parking space is concerned, if he could run a driveway down one side of the property, he could then move the parking to the rear of the building This would also allow the pecan tree to be left alone, which is 16' from the side and rear setback lines. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Williams what will be the parking dimensions in the back. Mr. Williams stated that he thought he might have space for three cars and a storage area. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Williams what the sq. ft. of the house would be. Mr. Williams replied that it • is 1365 sq. ft. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Williams if this was going to be his dwelling. Mr. Williams responded that it is going to be rental property. Ms. Warren asked if there will be adequate room for people to turn around in the back. Mr. Williams responded yes. Mr. Williams stated that it is more expensive to have the concrete surface, but at the same time the initial investment he thinks will pay off in the long run. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Williams if he purchased the design of the house or did he have it architecturally designed. Mr. Williams replied that he did it himself. Mr. Happ stated that one of the alternatives listed in the staff report was to redesign the house so that the dimensions could be changed. Mr. Williams stated that he considered it. Mr. Williams further added that he wanted the Board to know that he is also trying to enhance the appearance of the property and the neighborhood. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Williams if he thought the users of the property would park in the back. Mr. Williams stated that would be written as a condition of the lease. Chairman Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition of the variance. Onie Hon of 616 Paster approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Ms. Hon stated that the street is really an alley and it was paved to serve as a street. Ms. Hon stated that she was really • concerned about students renting because of the loud noise from parties. Ms. Hon continued by saying that there are a lot of students that live in that neighborhood and there have been numerous problems with them. Chairman Hollas replied to Ms. Hon by saying that he sympathized with her concern, but this Board can not regulate who lives in the house. • Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Battle to clarify Mr. Williams plans for parking in the rear along with the sheltered parking. Ms. Warren stated her concerns of whether there is space and would that require an additional variance. Mr. Battle replied that it was hard for him to comment on that because he had not seen a proposed plan, but the covered parking in the rear would have to meet a setback. Mr. Hollas offered this summation. If you add on 25' from the front, that gives you roughly 65' plus 10' in the rear giving you 75' and the property is 113' which gives almost 40' in the back. Mr. Battle stated that theoretically it can be done, he just does not know how you would configure it and save the tree at the same time. Mr. Battle stated that the house will take up the exact width of the buildable area. Ms. Warren stated that the house could be built smaller, but not accommodating as many people. Mr. Battle replied that if the house was 1 1/2' narrower then there would be room for the driveway without a variance. Mr. Battle further added that there would be no on-street parking allowed on this street. Ms. Warren stated that Mr. Williams is very admirable for requiring parking in the back as a condition to the lease. Mr. Happ stated he thinks it is good that the tree is also being considered. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Battle what is the current minimum lot width. Mr. Battle replied that it is 50' feet. Ms. Warren stated that she would feel better seeing a plan that demonstrated the parking capabilities in • the back of the lot. Ms. Warren added that the parking in the rear of the property adds to the quality of the area by keeping the parking out of the front. Mr. Happ asked if the driveway is planned to go down the right side of the house closest to the tree. Mr. Williams replied that was correct. Ms. Warren moved to table the item until the Board could see a full parking plan. With no one to second the motion, the item failed. Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize a variance with no limitations. With no one to second the motion, the item failed. Mr. Hollas moved to authorized a variance to the minimum setback to the 7.5' setback on the eastern side of the property from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the location of the existing large tree in the rear of the property and the proximity of the pavement of the right-of--way of Gilbert Street to the property line; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardships to this applicant being: 1) Parking cars close to the street may create a safety hazard by exposing the vehicles to possible criminal activity. 2) The driveway would cover a large amount of the front yard, diminishing the aesthetic qualities of the • lot. 3) Moving the house toward the rear of the lot would result in the destruction of the large tree. and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: 3 paved parking spaces must be provided in rear of the house. • Mr. Happ seconded the motion to approve and then made a motion for amendment to specify that the setback is to the east side and it will be a 2.5' variance. The amended motion passed unopposed (4-0). Agenda Item No 5: Consideration of a variance to the side, front, and rear setback requirements to allow the construction of a new home on lots 1 & 2 of the Pasler Addition - corner of Pasler Street and Lincoln Street. Applicant is Alberta Jerkins. Chairman Hollas asked the applicant before the staff report was given what her options would be. The applicant stated that he wanted to have the item heard. Mr. Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to the side, front, and rear setbacks to construct a house. The property is on the corner of Pasler Street and Lincoln Street. The side facing Pasler Street is considered the front of the property for setback purposes. The lot is 110' deep along Lincoln and 120' deep on the opposite side. It is 43.5' wide across the front (along Pasler) and 42.5' wide across the rear. The minimum lot size in this district is 100' deep by 50' wide. Therefore, this lot has a conforming lot depth, but anon-conforming lot width. The non- conformity is 6.5' across the front and 7.7' across the rear. The non-conformity was created in 1974 when the city acquired some property for improvements to Lincoln Street. In 1982, the property owner made claim that she was never compensated for the • "taken" property. An offer was made by the city, but is was never accepted. The property owner perceives this issue as being somewhat unresolved. The issues regarding compensation have no bearing on this variance case and should not play a role in the Board's discussions or decision. The property is required a 15' side street setback along Lincoln and a 7.5' setback on the opposite side. The applicant is requesting a 5' side street setback and a 5' side setback on the opposite this. This would total 12.5' of variance to the setbacks across the width of the lot. The non-conformity across the width is 6.5' - 7.7'. The property is also required a 25' front and rear setback. The applicant is requesting 10' front and rear setbacks. This would total 30' of variance across the depth of the lot. The property exceeds the minimum lot depth by 10' - 20' . The reduction of the lot width due to street improvements has made the lot width non-conforming. The buildable area of the lot has been reduced due to the decreased lot width. This could make it more difficult to build a typical home on this lot. Staff has identified the following alternatives to the request: 1) Grant variances only to the side setbacks which are affected by the non-conformity 2) Use a house design that would fit within the required setback. • 3) The Board can grant anything less than what is being requested. In the past the Board has granted variances to the side setback. In separate requests the Board granted side setback variances to 820 and 818 Ave. A where there was non-conforming lot sizes and a hardship • placed on the owner to have a safe and functional house on the lot. Chau-man Hollas opened the public heanng and asked if there was anyone wanting to speak in favor of the request. Mr. James Morgan of 15423 Evergreen in Cypress, Texas approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Morgan stated that the applicant is his mother-in-law. Mr. Morgan continued by saying that there is new construction in that area and larger homes are being built. Mr. Morgan stated that originally it was intended that smaller homes be built in that area and what they are wanting to do is build a home that is reputable for the neighborhood. Along with the development in the area, the streets have been widened and this has caused the hardship. Mr. Morgan stated that this could be corrected by allowing the variance. Mr. Morgan ended by saying that the only thing they have decided on so far is that the house will face Lincoln Street. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Battle if the house was oriented differently, would that require different set- backs requirements then what is being asked now. Mr. Battle replied that the house could be placed facing either street and they would still need to request a variance. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Morgan about the placement of the driveway. Mr. Morgan stated that they intend for it to be on Pasler Street. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Morgan if he was asking for permission to build the house up to the 10' setback along Lincoln. Chairman Hollas made clarification and stated that it would be a 5' side setback and it would normally be a 15' setback. Mr. Morgan replied that one of the reasons they are wanting to face the house toward Lincoln is so that there will be access to the garage on the side street. Mr. Morgan stated • that they were hesitant about asking for more from the back side where the adjacent property is. They did not want to encroach on those property owners. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Morgan how long has Ms. Jerkins owned this property. Mr. Morgan replied since 1949. Chairman Hollas stated that part of the problem was created by the city after the property was purchased. Mr. Morgan replied that was correct. Chairman Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition. LaBridgett Lewis approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Ms. Lewis stated that her grandmother lives on lot 3 right behind the proposed home and she has a concern of how far the house will be from her grandmother's. Chairman Hollas stated the rear of the house would be 5' from the property line owned by her grandmother. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. • Mr. Happ moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback on the front and rear setbacks for, 25' to 10'; the side street from 15' to 5' and the side from 7.5' to 5' from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to this public interest, due to the following special conditions: the city created a • limited building situation by improvements to Lincoln Avenue. This development is also an older development planned before new lot restrictions were required; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: it would give the applicant the ability to fully utilize this lot for building purposes; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the garage entrance shall be from Pasler Street. David Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4-0). Agenda Item N0.6: TABLED ITEM -Consideration of variance to have an off-premise monument sign to identify the location of the Hartland Bank in the Crystal Park Plaza located at 201 FM 2818. Applicant is Karbrooke, Inc. Ms. Warren made the motion to remove the agenda item from the table. Mr. Happ seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4-0). Mr. Hollas stated that this was a tabled item and the public hearing had already been closed so no one would be asked to speak on this item. The Board discussed what would happen to an off-premise sign when the vacant property developed. The Board decided the sign would take the place of the one freestanding sign that would be allowed for • that development. There was discussion centered around possible alternatives including attached signage, an alternative freestanding sign, or a replat of the property. It was questioned if a variance was granted, other tenants from Crystal Park Plaza could ask for off-premise signs. The Board discussed what kind of conditions could be placed on the variance. Legal Staff stated that case law was unclear, but that conditions should be physical and directly related to the variance. Ms. Warren expressed concern that there were still alternatives to the variance that could be considered. Mr. Alexander moved to authorized 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: common ownership of the two tracts of land and the main entrance to Crystal Park Plaza has shifted from Hwy 6 to FM 2818 via the private access easement. And because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant 15eing: the numerous trees along the western boundary (side closest to FM 2818) limit visibility from 2818 and the inability to advertise the building and tenants along the major access entry; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: the sign is constructed per specifications submitted to the Board by the applicant as to the height and area and that the sign advertises only the business owner/or tenant of Tract 49 (legal description of Crystal Park Plaza) also known as 2700 East Bypass. • Mr. Happ seconded the motion which failed (3-1). Ms. Warren voted against. Agenda Item NO. 7: Other Business • There was no other business discussed. Agenda Item NO. 8: Adjourn Mr. Alexander made the motion to adjourn. Ms. Warren seconded to adjourn which passed unopposed (4-0). APPROVED: /~ ~ Chairman, Stephen Hollas ~~~~u~ ATTEST: / tall Assistant, Deborah Grace • • Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register Date c ~ ~ ! O Name Address -~- J n P. ~ 3. ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~l~S l6h 4. ~ `1f1 n ~ ~ ~ l G~ ~a ~ C~ r u S 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. __ ZONTi~TG BOARD OF~ADJUSTMENT , 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 proions pf the ordinance w uld result u~ ~ substantial hardship to this applicant being: (.~z~-- ~ ~~ ~t d..~.~. a ~ ~-- • and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: Motion made by Motion Seconded by ~- ~- ,~ e Voting Results ~ 0 Chair Signature ~ Date ~ ~/9 • sxPtsss.DOc eqv~~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNih'NT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, 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 ~ '~ t 4 s ,k~ n s; d a 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: rv~w•~ / ~C.~~._7. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~it.r L =-~ '~ `~ ;row ~M R~-~-4 and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice nn,,~~~__d~~ons ject to the following limitations: 3 ~ ~~~~ 1~ ~~ Motion made by y~ ~ Date 7 ~ 71`~ • Seconded by ~ ~ Voting Results ~ - U Chair Signature ~~~\`~ YARP1638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNIEN'P • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yazd (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) • from the terms of this ordinance as it will the following special conditions: _ ~ ,~ ~ and because a strict enforcement of the unneces~ ds~o this applicant be: lot depth (Table A) ~ ~ minimum sgtba~ k Oh ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~° ~ 2~~` ~o o . q~ceC ,Q-c ~,~`c,~, Sf p long re ' ements (Section 9) ~~,,~~nnn ~,S ~ S ~ _. U and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed d substanti~ justice done subject to the following limitations: G~~m// ~c~7` ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ • Motion made by Seconded by _ Chair Signature . S~ec~~ c~S Date Votin esul ~' y~t~~ ZONTi~iG BOARD OF ADJCTSTMENT , • 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: b d- 1 G~ r. 2~1 i~~ /~ 1i-~ GEC. , n ,~ h T' ~ cx vt c L° ( /~ C.f~4 ( ~I < Cam. ~ c 4 ~ ~ ^ d -~: U ~~ ' ~~~ and because a stricm~ t e t~orcement of the provisions of the ordinance -would result ' ~ ~~---.~. substan~tt'al h~~h~p to ' ~ ap~licanG~b~ ~ ~.~.-~ ~~ ,~ ,.,,,,°~°'` ~`~`~' ~ `~ P ~~`^ r~b/~J, ~;,,. , ~ ~~ z~~~ r~ ~-~J and suc that the spirit and intent of this ordinance sYtall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: ' h grricc s~l~w.,'~~~e~ ~ ~~~ I3~a,,~ ~~as ~~~ ~ Q r ~ a.~ -8ti~ ~~ 1~ ~~ ~ ii~, Tea a~- 4q Qs~- &>~ ~- `~ ~ ~ ~~.Q,- P.~-~ ~~.(~SO ~~.rw .~ s Motion made by ~ ~ ~~~ Motion Seconded by ~~^ Voting Results 3 Chair Signature ~s.,~ 1.-~ kl-r 1/ Date ~ 17I9~r SRP1638.DOC • ~Gc~O.c~