Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS ~ Zoning Board of Adjustment Tuesday, September 6, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All members present; in addition, Alternate Member Garrett & Council Liaison attended MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Member Baker STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Ree, City Attorney Locke, Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM K0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 2: Approval of ainutes - aeeting of August 2, 1988. Mr. Gentry made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to rear setback requireaent and eave height requireaent at 1119 Ashburn, to place a storage building with an eave height of 12 to 13 feet, 5 to 7 feet Eros the rear lot line on Lot 39 College Hills Woodlands subdivision. Applicant is Jia Baker. Mrs. Kee identified the applicant and located the subject building plot an an aerial map on the wall, explaining that although the Baker's residence is on one lot and the request is for a storage building to go on an adjacent lot, the adjacent lots which the Bakers own are combined to be defined as a "building plot" under the definitions of Ordinance No. 1638, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station. She went on to identify the zoning and land uses of the subject and surrounding properties, and to describe the subject lots. She also identified the applicable ordinance section as Table A, Note F of Ordinance No. 1638, which is found on page 7-30 of that ordinance. Mrs. Kee continued her report by stating that the rear setback required in an R-1 zoning district is 15 feet for an accessory building, with the eave height restricted to a maximum of 8 feet, and the request is to allow an accessory building to be placed 5 to 7 feet from the rear property line and additionally to allow that building to have an eave height of 12 to 13 feet. She explained the ordinance intent of requiring setbacks is to regulate the density of population and to provide adequate rear yard separation for privacy. • Mrs. Kee stated that since adjacent neighbors had received notification of this request, she had received several inquiries and several statements expressing opposition to the proposal. Mrs. Kee then asked the Board to read the memo submitted ,. would have to be destroyed, and one of the proposed site behind the trees. Mr. Baker offered to answer any questions, and when there were none forthcoming from the Board, • he stated that concluded his presentation. Norman Guinasso, 1112 Marstellar was sworn in and stated that he is in opposition to this request, and that he has some questions concerning what the Baker's are planning. He stated the building would be in the right-of-way of Woodland Parkway which is not legal, and then described the lot. He stated that the Baker's claim to own parts of Lots 39 & 40 is not the case, and actually was questioned by the City Council in 1986 when the question arose. He stated the application for the variance request, and the notification of the hearings refer to an address of 1117 Ashburn, and there is no such address because no one lives there, and in fact, he was told by Mrs. Kee that the entire building plot is considered 1 lot. He said the section of Woodland Parkway right-of--way which is closed belongs to Lot 41 and the park, and that the steep ditch Mr. Baker referred to is not that steep, and is full of footpaths. He passed around photos to show paths which had been used up until approximately 1985, but are now full of trash. He said the right-of-way of Woodland Parkway is actually not officially closed, since there is no official map which shows it that way, and explained the public right-of-way was shown on the plat of the subdivision, and became just that when the first lot was sold in the subdivision. He continued by stating that if the City would close the right-of- way, 1/2 would go to the Bakers and 1/2 would go to the Park. He stated that in 1986 City Councilman James Bond questioned the validity of the Baker's deed. He went on to state the unused right-of-way acts as a buffer between the houses and the park, and the proposed building would be placed on parkland boundary, and would be visible and would serve to intimidate people who considered using the park. He concluded by stating that if the Baker's actually have only one lot, there is a • si~,mificant amount of flat, treeless land which could accommodate the structure. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Guinasso if he was saying that he would not care if the structure is placed somewhere else on the property, and Mr. Guinasso replied that he would not go so far as to say he wouldn't care, but he does believe it can be done legally, and he sees no reason for putting it right up against the park. He added that if this Board allows Mr. Baker to place the building there, it might tilt any legal question of whether or not the right-of-way was abandoned. Mr. Gentry asked, if it were assumed the right-of-way lines are as they are shown with the abandoned right-of-way, is the objection that the building infringes on the park if it is placed within the 15 foot setback. Mr. Guinasso replied that his concerns and objections are that the building will be visible, that there is a question regarding right-of-way ownership and the impact on the neighborhood which could follow if granting this variance triggers other requests. Chris Kling, 1113 Ashburn was sworn in and stated there is a question regarding title to the land where the proposed building will be placed, and then gave the history of the plat dated 1940, with the street shown. He said part of the street was constructed, but part was not, and that the map on the wall in the Council Chambers shows the right-of-way to be an open street. He said the question to be answered is whether the Bakers in fact own the property. He went on to refer to an official map dated 1941 which he stated shows an open street on the property, and then referred to a review which had been made of curbing and paving records dated 1964 & 1965. Mr. Ruesink interrupted Mr. Kling's explanation to ask the City Attorney for a legal • opinion. City Attorney Locke advised that the city's position at this time is that it does not ZBA Minutes 9-6-88 Page 3 assert an interest in the Woodland Parkway "right-of-way" adjacent to Lots 26, 39 & 40. She continued by saying that in 1986, the City of College Station City Council, • by ordinance, abandoned that section of Woodland Parkway right-of-way adjacent to Lot 41, and in that ordinance, the City Council stated, "The City has determined that it has no intention of developing the existing right-of-way or condemning additional right-of-way for the extension of Woodland Parkway to Ashburn Avenue...". Mr. Ruesink stated that with that information, this Board will only be working with the variance, as requested. Mr. Kling stated that he does not agree, but he does understand, and went on to address the eave height and location proposed by the applicants. He stated the applicants can place this building on their property, and they are probably the owners of one of the largest contiguous residential lots in the city, and there are any number of locations on a tract of that size on which this building could be located without a variance to the setback requirements. He went on to state that he understands that this Body cannot make a decision based on a popular vote, but rather on some set standards that address unique and special conditions and hardship to the applicant. He said that in his estimation, any hardship to this applicant would be largely self-imposed, and especially the hardship cited concerning the amount of labor it would take to alter this building, because it is the direct result of the particular building under consideration. He said that he also questions the hardship referred to as possible interference with any additional house on the lot, because he would think if land is considered one building plot, another house would not be allowed. He then addressed the hardship of any other site making the building more visible, and stated that this proposed location is also visible. Finally he stated that he questions the necessity for a variance as well as the specific location • chosen to propose placing the building, and said he believes it is intended to insert claim or title to the right-of-way of Woodland Parkway as it pertains to other owners in the College Hills Woodlands subdivision. He said the building could be located immediately behind the house on Lot 26, and be shielded from Ashburn and also would not require a variance. He went on to say he would join the comments made earlier regarding the use of the park to the rear, explaining that this is a large, dominating structure when viewed from the park. He added that he also questions the statement from Steve Beachy regarding there "appearing to be no adverse impact on park operations or maintenance relating to the request, and questioned as to whether a survey of users of the park has ever been made. Mr. Gentry said that he understands the setback requirement of 15 feet as stated in the ordinance, and he also understands Mr. Kling's position, but he asked if the eave height of the building poses a problem to Mr. Kling. Mr. Kling replied that eave height is difficult to visualize because the roof is collapsed, and that he does not know if a 10-12 foot eave would be consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Gentry asked staff is there is no restriction on the height of the roof, but where the eave stops is restricted and Mrs. Kee replied that there is an overall height limit of 35 feet in an R-1 district. Mr. Kling pointed out that those historically built structures are not located so close to the property line, but rather toward the center of the lot. He added that the building is larger both in square footage and in height than normal accessory structures in the neighborhood. • Discussion followed between Mr. Kling and Mr. Gentry regarding the use of the park, with Mr. Kling implying that he thinks those people have continually tried to defeat the public's use of the park. Mr. Ruesink admonished everyone to please address only ZBA Minutes 9-6-88 Page 4 the items to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. • Jim McGuirk, formerly of 1110 Marstellar, and more recently of 1008 Arboles was sworn in and stated that in his opinion the Bakers are convinced they own the right- of-way and the neighbors are convinced they do not own it, and ownership seems to be in question. Therefore, he urged the ZBA not to take action until ownership is cleared up. He went on to state the intent of the ordinance is that a variance should not oppose the "spirit" of the ordinance, which in this case is to maintain greenspace. He said that clearly the park sits adjacent to the Baker's property and the quality of the park may be affected, and since it is one of the few wilderness park areas in the Gity, with the structure in the proposed location, the quality and environment on one side of the park would be damaged. Cathy Riedel, 1114 Marstellar was sworn in and stated her sentiments are the same as Mr. McGuirk and Mr. Kling, and she can add very little, but wanted to state that the park is not a high maintenance park, but more of a natural park, and neighbors have been told to leave the park area even in areas other than the disputed area. She stated that she believes the Bakers are trying to establish ownership of the disputed land by adverse possession, adding that their lot is large enough to place the building somewhere other than so close to the property of the park. She said placing the building in the proposed location would make the use of the park more restrictive than it has already become. Nan Mefferd, 1107 Ashburn was sworn in and stated that the Bakers do not seem to try to maintain the neighborhood. Mr. Ruesink asked for clarification as to how many structures can be placed on this • lot and Mrs. Kee replied that the Bakers property is defined as a building plot by ordinance, but Lot 39 could also have a separate residential structure, as long as all ordinance requirements can be met. Mr. Henry said this case is not concerned with whether or not the Bakers own the right-of-way or not. Mr. Gentry said the request is to place a structure as an accessory to the structure on Lot 26, and there is no way this Board can determine ownership of the right-of-way, and additionally, the Board can only take the information on the application as presented to it by the City staff. He said the City has expressed no interest in the property, so he sees no reason why this Board should not take action on the request as submitted. Mr. Gilmore agreed. Mr. Gilmore went on to say there may be alternative locations to place the building. Mr. Gentry said that he has no problem with the eave height of the requested structure. He continued stating that he does have a problem with the proposed placement of the structure, and would be against that part of the request because the 2 lots are of considerable size and appear to have alternate locations, which may require removing of a few trees, but because this is a very heavily wooded lot, he sees no problem doing that. He went on to say that although the proposed encroachment on the park has not been objected to by the City, the people who actually use the park have objected, and he thinks that moving the building away to comply with the ordinance requirement of a 15 foot setback would help retain the integrity of the park. Mr. Henry pointed out that decisions regarding saving or destroying trees have never been universally made, and all decisions are made individually based on • information regarding specific lots. He said that it appears there are alternate suitable locations in this area for the building. ZBA Minutes 9-6-88 Page ~ Mr. Thompson agreed there appear to be plenty of alternate locations for the building. • Mr. Gentry said this is an interesting situation because the applicants have made an effort to move the building as far away from neighbors and streets as possible, but while doing that, would infringe on the use of the park. He said there are adequate alternative locations which meet the 15 foot setback requirement. Mr. Gentry made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) 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. Mr. Gentry then made a motion to authorize a variance to the eave height requirement from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: existing construction in the area generally shows eave heights exceeding the ordinance requirements, and the proposed structure does not vary significantly from the existing structures, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to develop the property in conformity with existing development, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: 12 foot eave height. Mr. Henry seconded both motions. Mr. Thompson asked for clarification of the motion(s). Mr. Gilmore explained that Mr. Gentry moved to deny the setback variance and to grant the eave height variance • to allow a maximum of a 12 foot eave. Mrs. Kee informed the Board the eave height requested is for 12 1/2 to 13 feet, and asked for clarification of the variance being granted. Mr. Gentry asked the Bakers how tall the eave height would be once it is set on the existing foundation and Mr. Baker replied it would be 12 1/2 to 13 feet. Mr. Gentry amended his original motion to set a limit of 12 1/2 to 13 feet for the eave height. Mr. Henry agreed. Mr. Ruesink instructed the amendment to be included in the motion. Mr. Thompson asked if a 25 foot setback is maintained, would the eave height limitation be necessary, and Mr. Henry stated that according to R-1 zoning requirements a maximum roof height is allowed if the 25 foot setback is maintained, so this rule would apply to the accessory structure as well as any other structure, and the eave height variance is only necessary if the setback being maintained is less that 25 feet. Mrs. Kee agreed that is the policy being enforced. After additional discussion and clarification to the effect that all other setbacks must be met with the variance being granted, Mr. Gentry stated that the motion as amended can stand. Votes were cast on the amended motion and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). :~ pY'a3,%~,,uy ~~"~' ZBA Minutes 9-6-88 Page 6 AaBNDA ITBM NO. 5: sign regulations at • Drive, to remove a and to add a reader Phil Springer. • Consideration of a request for a variance to the McDonald's Bestaurant at 801 University drive-thru sign from the existing pole sign board on the existing pole. Applicant is Mr. Ruesink asked Mrs. Kee if this item and the next item can be considered together, and Mrs. Kee replied that although the requests are slightly different, and are also involving 2 different pieces of property, she thinks they can be considered together if she is careful to point out the differences in the requests and properties. AaBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for a variance to sign regulations at the McDonald's Bestaurant at 2420 Texas Avenue, to add a reader board on the existing pole and to possibly remove a drive-thru sign frog the existing pole. Applicant is Phil Springer. Mrs. Kee then began her staff report covering the variance request to sign regulations at the McDonald's Restaurant at 801 University Drive by explaining the purpose of the request is to remove a "Drive-Thru" sign from the existing pole sign, and to add a reader board on that same existing pole. She described area zoning, land uses and the actual lot. She then listed the existing sign dimensions as being 65 feet 8 inches in height with a setback of approximately 20 feet and a total area of 431 square feet. She explained that the proposal is to leave the height the same, the setback the same, with the area being the only change, and that will be reduced to 430 square feet with the proposed exchange of signs, which actually is to remove a 2 foot by 18 foot sign and replace it with a 3.5 foot by 10 foot reader board. She referred the Board to the application submitted for special conditions, hardships and alternatives as listed by the applicant, and informed the Board that a variance was granted in 1977 to allow the addition of the subject "Drive-Thru" sign to an existing non-conforming sign, and a parking variance was denied in 1985 for this site. Mrs. Kee stated that 11 adjacent property owners had been sent notification of this request, and to date she had received no responses. She finalized her report by stating that both the Building Official and the Fire Marshal had been informed of this request, but neither official had offered any comments. Mrs. Kee then presented the staff report for the request for variance to the sign regulations at the Texas Avenue McDonald's restaurant, explaining that the purpose of this request also is to add a reader board on the existing pole and to possibly remove a "Drive-Thru" sign from that existing pole sign. She described adjacent land uses, as well as the specific site and sign, which is 69 feet 8 inches in height with an area of 408.5 feet, located with an approximate 138 foot setback. She stated the applicant is proposing to leave the height of the sign and the setback the same, but plans to increase the area of the sign to either 443.5 square feet if he simply makes the addition of the reader board to the sign, or to 430 square feet if he removes the existing "Drive-Thru" sign and then adds the reader board. She informed the Board that she had received no responses to notices sent either from the Fire Marshal, the Building Official or any of the 15 adjacent landowners. Mr. Gentry asked if the University Drive sign was allowed its present size as the result of a variance. Mrs. Kee replied that is correct. Mr. Gentry then asked if ZBA Minutes 9-6-88 page 7 F the sign on Texas avenue had received a variance to allow its size, and Mrs. Kee replied that it had not. • Mr. Gilmore asked how tall the sign on University Drive could be if it met the ordinance requirements and Mrs. Kee quickly calculated that with the present setback of 20 feet, the sign could be approximately 11 feet tall and have a maximum area of approximately 75 square feet. Mr. Gilmore asked how tall the sign on Texas Avenue could be if it met ordinance requirements and Mrs. Kee replied the maximum height of a sign under the current ordinance is 35 feet anywhere in the city except along the East Bypass, where 50 foot signs are allowed if they meet certain specific criteria. She pointed out the area for the Texas Avenue sign could be approximately 430 square feet, and the only problem is with the height of the existing sign. Mr. Gentry said that the height is non-conforming and Mrs. Kee replied that it is, but no change to the height is being proposed. Mr. Henry asked what the minimum height would be for a 3.5 x 10 foot sign and Mrs. Kee replied the only requirement would be that it would have to stay out of the site distance area. The applicant of both requests and owner of both sites, Phil Springer was sworn in and stated that what the proposal actually represents is a trade-out of space in that he is proposing to remove the "Drive-Thru" signs at both stores since they have become without meaning, and to put up "reader boards" at both locations. He passed around pictures of the proposed sign which were taken at other locations. • Mr. Springer went on to explain that the trade-out on University Drive would result in a sign with 1 square foot of less area than it now has, and the one on Texas Avenue would be a little over 25 square feet larger than it now is. He assured the Board that the reader boards would be placed about 12 feet up on the poles, where they could be easily read, but would not interfere with traffic in any way. He added that, in fact, these additions would make the existing signs slightly safer because of the amount of wind load on the new sign. Mr. Gentry asked if there are any alternatives to the 3.5 x 10 ft. reader board and Mr. Springer replied that of course there are alternatives, but this is the sign being used in this area at this time. Mr. Gentry stated that in one case, the proposal represents a trade-out, but in the other case it represents a significant change and he wonders if something could be done to keep the area closer to the existing square footage. Mr. Springer replied that for the sake of conformity in this major market area he would prefer to install identical signage. No one else spoke. • Mr. Gentry asked what the existing square footage of the sign on Texas & Southwest Parkway is and Mr. Thompson explained that it is approximately 13.5 feet and will be going to 35 square feet. Mr. Henry asked if this change would affect adjacent properties, and what would be blocked by the sign. Mr. Thompson said that he thinks the sign is so far out in the parking lot that it would not make a difference at Texas & Southwest Parkway. Mr. Gentry made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations for the sign on University Drive from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to ZBA Minutes 9-6-88 Page 8 the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: general commercial development and high traffic area, with • existing variance for signage, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: inadequate signage for consideration of existing use, 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: removal of existing "Drive-Thru" sign and placement of 35 square foot reader board on existing pole. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thompson and carried by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Henry then made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations for the sign on Texas Avenue & Southwest Parkway 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: general commercial development and high traffic area, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: inadequate signage for consideration of existing use, 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: Removal of the existing sign (Drive-Thru sign} and placement of the new sign (reader board} not to exceed 435 square feet. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Other business. Mr. Baker, whose variance requests were considered earlier in the meeting, asked for clarification of just what he could do. Mrs. Kee explained. Mr. Ruesink added that he could place his accessory structure anywhere on his lot, as long as he maintains a • 15 foot rear setback and a 7.5 foot side setback. Mr. Baker then thanked the Board for the time, consideration and effort given, not only to him, but to the City as well. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-O) and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Act i ng Chairman, Robert G i 1mQre ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 9-6-88 page 9 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - - • FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) NNJ ~ `________minimum setback (Table A) t, ________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: _ ~ ~ _ ~p~c_-c~_, ~ _ .,~-~"~-~. _ ~'~ mss- ,,,/Z ~- - - -' r. - - and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ... ,- ~ ~- .. ` ~ . ,~.~~ '-~ ' h-~- r'~. '" .. .. ;' .~'" ~jr- - - -- --~----~-'--~= -> -'------------ ~1 -~` '' and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: - lam- ---.-~-^=~- ~~~--~ ~--=---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion made by __~~~~~~~----------------- Date _~`~° -~~---- Seconded by __,~~~,~:,~~~ ___ Voting Results _ ~ _- ~ __ Chair signature _~ ~ ~_ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT - • FORMAT FOR Ng(iATIVB MOTIONS Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) _~__minimum setback (Table A) _______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 ~~/ tam Wit. `/`~ ------- ~---------~ ------------------------- Voting results: .S ~~ ------------ ------ Chair signature C Date .r ~~~' ~ .,~ :~ - .,;f~ -, ~~~~ r ~~ ~'~ ,~ r~ ~~~~e rL/ f' V !~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT n FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 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: ~~ ,. ~, .. ---- - ---- --- µ ~- 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: .~ ~ --- ~,-~'-r-'-' ''- ~----~-' r ~ ~.~~" Motion made by: _J!'~aL~~~` --------------------- Motion seconded by• `~' Voting resu ta: __,~_ Q _______________________ _.. _ _-- Chair signature date • 'CONING BOARD OF AUJUSTMEN7' FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 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: f.~ - - -- ------ -------- _ ..., .~ ~~ ~~ _.. - ------------------------------ -------------------------- ----~'__ ~-~ S_ --------~?~!!~----------- ----- . -------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ,,// -------- /VD!?G ------------------------- 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~Lthe following limitations: ~v±~.o~v3-~ tlt eX~~~T ~t -- - ~__ _~?la~e----nom ~ - ---------- --- ------------------------------------ Motion made by: ___~~ ~h - -r--- - ----------------- Motion seconded b Vo 'ng resin --------------- --- - Cha r signs ure----------------- -------------------- date • We, the undersigned, have no objection to Jim Baker's request for a variance to the rear setback and eve height previsions of the code in order to set down a building 7 feet from the back lot line and for that building to have an eve height of 12~ to 13 feet . DATE NAME ADDRESS LOT# fl'~3~5 / n n /o2(:b l75/lQ~v/'J~ ~~ 1 ~ ~~' ~ ~~D N~ -~ ~ ~ ~v~P~ ~ y~zs- ~"'~ ~ ~~~~ ~s~~"~ ~ ~7' a' ~6i'aQ''-' ~// Y ~j b y Gc r 1 G ~r~ ~ ~ ~- ~~~ ~~ ~~ l~,~a ~ ~ ly~~~ ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~~15~ ~~ c~~~~ ~ ,~ ~ g is~_ ~ s' ~ ~~~ i~a, ~ ~ ~~ ~ s 8~ G~ 1 ~o ~ ~~ ~k~Cit/ a-~' ~S~ ~~ ~ ~~oz hst>'~uRN ~ c7 ~ -~-$' 88 gbh- ~10~,~~ p ? ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NAME e I. 2. GUEST REGISTER DATE September 6, 1988 ADDRESS 3. ~ ~~ ~ a ,`ii~~Lwyl Qilti~ll~.~ 0 ,, Y~ ~` ; ,. 11 ~ ~. ~~~.~~_ ~~~ ~ ~ , r 9. 1 ~ _ ~; - ~ ,, ~r ~ . 10. ~ ~ ~ :~~~1 !~0 ~ ~rw/PS 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.