Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/1995 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustmentsi• MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 20, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chairman Birdwell, Members Rife, Poston and Hollas and Alternate Member Ochoa. Member Sawtelle and Alternate Members Alexander and Blackwelder. Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Birdwell called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. • AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 6, 1995. Chairman Birdwell informed the Board that there is a change on page two of the minutes under agenda item four to change the " 26"' lot depth to "56"'. Mr. Ochoa moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 6, 1995 as amended. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a setback variance request to allow for the construction of a two car garage at 1203B Munson, lot B-12 of the College Hills Woodland Estates Subdivision. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report. Due to the property's orientation, the 275' along the access drive defines the property's front. Therefore, the proposed garage would encroach into the required rear setback. The applicant is proposing a 15' rear setback for a variance of 5'. The primary special condition found in this case is the location of a 10' utility easement which runs through the center of the lot. The area defined by the easement and the rear setback is not large enough for a two car garage, and would involve conflict with existing HVAC and mechanical equipment. Several alternatives to the variance have been identified by the applicant and staff: (1) Place the garage on the southwest corner of the lot near the existing concrete slab. This location would cover much of the existing driveway, and further restrict access to the rear yard. (2) Place the garage on the east side of the utility easement. This location would greater separate the garage from the existing house. • (3) Remove the existing power lines to allow for the applicant's desirable garage location. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Phil Springer of 1203 B Munson approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He informed the Board that the proposed addition would improve the area. Mr. Springer stated that he talked to the neighbor most effected by the variance, Mr. Casey, and he • had no problems with the proposal. He concluded that there is also a power line that runs through the middle of the property that prohibits the relocation of the addition. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollas stated that he agrees that the existing power line creates a problem developing the property. Chairman Birdwell agreed and stated that another special condition is the way the property faces. If the property faced Munson, a 7.5' setback would be required instead of a 20' setback. Mr. Rife moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of Ordinance Number 1638 as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: the location of a 10' utility easement running through the middle of the property; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: easement prevents homeowner from building the garage; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion. Mr. Rife clarified that the existing easement is a hardship and not a special condition in this particular case. Mr. Hollas seconded the clarification to the motion. The motion to authorize the variance request passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a setback variance request to allow the construction of a new home at 814 Nimitz Street, lot 4, block 6 of the D.A. Smith • Subdivision. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and informed the Board that the subject lot is located within an older, unplatted subdivision of thirteen single family lots fronting Nimrtz Street. All thirteen lots, including the subject lot, have a lot depth of 56'. In addition, approximately five existing houses encroach into the required front, rear and side setbacks. The applicant proposes to construct a new two bedroom house on lot four, requesting a front setback of 16', for a variance of 9 ; and a rear setback of 7.5' for a variance of 17.5'. The applicant stated that the primary special condition in this case is the small size of the existing lot, due to physical constraints as a result of the historical development of the neighborhood. The 56' lot depth makes the property impossible to develop as residential under current ordinance standards. Further, the buildable area relative to required setbacks is 210 square feet, which is also prohibitive of residential development. Staff has determined that the only alternative available to the applicant is to replat several of the lots in the area according to current minimum lot size standards of 50' width and 100' depth. However, on August 26, 1976, the City Council exempted this lot as well as all other lots in the D.A. Smith subdivision and several other older subdivisions from current ordinance requirements concerning minimum lot area, width and depth. On June 6, 1995, the Board granted variances to the front and rear setbacks to allow for the construction of a new residence at 824 Nimitz, which is located several lots southeast of the subject site. Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified with two inquiries. Chairman Birdwell questioned staff if they pulled the City Council minutes from 1972? At the time they exempted these lots from the depth requirements, maybe the intent was to change the setback requirements as well. Staff Planner Dunn stated that he will pull that information and report back to the Board at the • next meeting. ZBA Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 2 of 8 Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. • Applicant Charles Szabuniewicz of 3801 Fifth Street in Bryan, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that he tried to contact the owner of the lot next door to combine the two lots so that a variance would not be required; however, the Brazos County Tax Office does not have a current address for the owner so he was not able to contact them. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Ochoa moved to authorize a variance to the minimum front and rear setback requirements from the terms of Ordinance Number 1638, as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the small size of the existing lot is prohibitive to R-1 development; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: physical constraints as a result of the historical development of this area make conformance to current ordinance requirements impossible and impractical; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: all other ordinances be observed. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a special exception request to expand the existing non conforming use located at 1841 Graham Road, Dr. Jeanna Fiske's Veterinary Clinic, to allow an expansion to the building. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and informed the Board that the parking lot is non conforming in terms of design standards and landscaping. The existing building totals 2,520 square feet and the applicant is proposing an expansion of 600 square feet for a total of 23.8% increase. Seven surrounding property owners were notified with no response. • Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant, Dr. Jeanna Fiske of 1841 Graham Road, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. She informed the Board that the proposed expansion is for a larger surgery facility and intensive care unit. Dr. Fiske stated that the clinic operates on an appointment only basis so there should never be the need for additional parking. She stated that the clinic is different from other facilities in town in that they do not have walk in traffic. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Rife moved to authorize the enlargement of a building devoted to a non conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non conforming use more than 25% and does not prolong the life of the non conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a special exception request to expand the existing non conforming use located at 415 Graham Road, Soil Analytical, Inc. to allow the addition of a storage building. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and informed the Board that the subject property is non conforming in terms of current parking and landscaping standards. A portion of the parking and driveway surfaces consist of gravel without curbing, striping or landscaping. The property was annexed into the City in 1992, at which time the existing conditions and standards retained non conforming status, or were "grandfathered" until further expansion or changes were • proposed. ZBA Mrnzrtes June 20, 1995 Page 3 of 8 Staff Planner Dunn stated that on April 18, 1995, the Board granted a special exception to allow Soil Analytical to expand its non conforming facility by 18% as well as to reconstruct one of the existing buildings as long as the reconstruction did not exceed 60% of the building's appraised • value. Since that time, the applicant has determined that there is a need for a larger storage area than what was proposed in the previous request. Therefore, this special exception request would increase the total area of expansion from the previously approved 18.6% to 24.1%. Ten surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Vickie Deuel approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. She stated that the storage building was for storage only and that electrical service is not planned for the building. The additional space is needed for supplies and record keeping. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Ochoa moved to authorize the enlargement of a building devoted to a non conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non conforming use more than 25% and does not prolong the life of the non conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Consideration of a sign variance request to allow the relocation of the existing fuel price sign at 425 Texas Avenue South, Jim's Food Mart at the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and University Drive. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and informed the Board that the applicant is requesting a smaller setback distance from the curb to allow for the relocation of the existing fuel price sign. The applicant proposes to relocate the sign to the southeast corner of the lot, or to the • "right side" of the University Drive access drive. The sign relocation would decrease the setback of the existing fuel price sign from 28' to 14.5' from the curb, thereby requiring a variance of 13.5'. The main special condition in this case is the Texas Department of Transportation's (TX DOT) widening of Texas Avenue. The existing fuel price sign is located within the proposed widening area, thereby requiring relocation to another area on site. The applicant believes that gas sales would be reduced by over $20,000 per year if the fuel price sign is not visible to University Drive. The applicant and staff have determined the following alternatives to the proposed relocation: (1) Place an attached sign on the building face. This alternative would not require a variance; however, the applicant feels that this altogether prohibits the free standing sign that was granted under a previous variance request. (2) Place the sign in an existing parking island located adjacent to the building. This alternative would also not require a variance; however, the applicant feels that this location is prohibitive and would not provide any more visibility than a sign attached to the building. (3) Place the sign to the southwest or "left side" of the University Drive access drive. This alternative would require a greater setback. StaffPlanner Dunn informed the Board that in the past, the surrounding gas stations have brought similar cases before the Board. At the November 19, 1991 meeting, the Board granted a request to decrease the area of the then non conforming fuel price sign from 67 square feet to 48 square feet, which was a variance to the ordinance requirement of 16 square feet. Since that time, Exxon occupied the site and constructed a new fuel price sign of 40 square feet, located the minimum 28' • from the existing curb. Twelve surrounding property owners were notified of the public hearing with no response. ZBA Minutes Jame 20, 1995 Page 4 of 8 Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Jim Kolkhorst of 1507 Jackson Street in Brenham approached the Board and was • sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He informed the Board that the $20,000 per year figure was a rough estimate based on the number of cars that pass through that intersection and losing an average of five cars per day. The existing sign is a valuable piece of advertisement for the convenience store and. it is difficult to put a dollar amount on that signage. Mr. Kolkhorst stated that the alternative proposed by staff that places the sign in an existing island is not viable because the sign is located closer to the store. There is also a row of trees located along the adjacent bank property that would block the sign from University and the pump islands would block the sign from Texas Avenue. James Kolkhorst of Route 1, Washington, Texas approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that there is no way that the Highway Department will be able to compensate them for the loss of the subject sign. Mr. Kolkhorst explained that it is almost impossible to place a value on the existing sign and how it will impact the business. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Rife stated that he understands the applicant's concerns with respect to losing the use of the existing sign; however, in this particular case, there are several alternatives available that would not require a variance. Mr. Rife also expressed concern of the hardship in this case being financial in nature. Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that the applicant will need a variance to be allowed the use of a second freestanding sign. The only reason the request is before the Board is because the nature of the variance is changing. The Board should examine the reasonableness of the request and not solely the financial hardship. • Mr. Ochoa stated that if a low profile sign was installed so that it is visible from University Drive, the intent and spirit of the ordinance could be met. Mr. Hollas moved to deny the sign variance request to the minimum sign setback requirements 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. Rife seconded the motion which tamed (3 - 2). Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that if they intend to allow the applicant to relocate the existing sign but meet the restrictions outlined in Table 2, then a variance would need to be granted to allow the second sign. As the motion stands, the applicant cannot relocate the existing sign. Mr. Rife moved to allow the applicant to relocate the second freestanding fuel price sign subject to the requirements outlined in the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ochoa seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a setback variance request for several lots in the Eastmark Phase II Subdivision located at 812, 814 and 816 Camellia and 807, 815, 817 and 825 Azalea to allow the construction of a new home. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report for a variance request to allow for the construction of seven single family homes with garages built 15' away from the rear access easement. The setback required is 20' for a garage as measured from the rear access boundary (in these cases, the total setback from the rear property line would be 30'). The applicant is • proposing a 15' setback from the rear access boundary (m these cases, the total setback will be 25' from the rear property line if approved). ZBA Minutes June 20, 1995 Page S of 8 Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the request is for permission to measure the setbacks from the actual pavement edge of the rear alley rather than the platted boundary. The requirement that the • rear setback be measured from the alley rather than the rear property line has not been well enforced in this particular subdivision. Due to oversight on the part of both the City and builders, many of the other houses in this are encroach into the required setback. This oversight has in fact given other properties in the area more buildable area than they should have. In the past, the Zoning Board has granted variances in areas where public alleys have been platted and in some cases are no longer in use. Thirty-six surrounding property owners were notified with two inquiries. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. John Craig of 818 Camellia approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that he is not opposed to the variance request as long as a minimum parking pad of 20' in length is provided. Mr. Craig stated that he is concerned with providing a smaller parking area that will allow cars or trucks to extend into the driving aisle of the alley. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. He stated that he thinks the applicant's request is appropriate; however, he does not think that this situation should be addressed by granting blanket variances. The City Council should consider an ordinance amendment in this particular case that would allow the garages to be built either 20' off of the pavement or 30' off of the property line. Mr. Rife stated that he had some questions for the applicant and seeing that no one is present to represent the applicant, he moved to deny the variance request to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of Ordinance Number 1638, 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. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Chairman Birdwell requested that staff consider the ordinance amendment and present the necessary information to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. He stated that while the Board denied the variance request, the request is reasonable and should be considered further by the Commission and Council. However, this issue should be addressed in the form of an ordinance amendment and not blanket variances. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of a sign variance request to enlarge the existing marquee sign at 1055 Texas Avenue South, the ITS Tours and Travel shopping center. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and informed the Board that the variance request is in response to the Texas Avenue widening project. The sign area allowed with the existing Texas Avenue curb location is 210 square feet; however, with the widening project, only 106 square feet is allowed. The existing sign is 103 square feet and the client is requesting a sign area of 124 square feet for a total variance if 18 square feet or 17%. Due to the age of the site, it is non conforming in terms of parking and landscaping. The current sign is in compliance under both the existing location of the curb on Texas Avenue as well as the new location. However, the additional taking of the front of the property for the widening will lessen the allowable area that the sign could be by 104 square feet. The hardship in this case is inherited in that the State has actually taken the front of the property by eminent domain. The only alternative to the variance is to relocate the existing sign back 4'. There are other signs in the City that have been granted variances due to the fact that they were erected under past ordinances and are located within an area where other grandfathered higher and larger signs are or where variances have been granted on surrounding properties. Fifteen surrounding property owners were notified with one call from the owner of the adjacent flower shop who expressed concern with blocking their existing freestanding sign. ZBA Mim~tes Jzme 20, 1995 Page 6 of 8 ~• • Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Chandler Pruitt of 3602 Meadow Oaks in Bryan approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that the client's intent is to expand the existing marquee sign to make it easier to read. The existing reader board only allows one word per line. Mr. Pruitt explained that the proposed sign will be no wider than the existing Allstate sign and will be aesthetically pleasing. Owner Sabine Barszap of 1704 Todd Trail approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. She explained that the existing building has been renovated and the sign will enhance the redevelopment of the site. The only reason to widen the existing sign is to make it legible to traffic along Texas Avenue. Currently, only one word per line with a maximum of six letters can fit on the existing sign. Ms. Barszap explained that she has been planning the expansion to the sign and redevelopment of the building for three years. However, she was waiting for the Texas Avenue widening to be completed before she began the renovations. Eventually, Ms. Barszap decided to go ahead with the renovations and was unaware of the limitations on the existing sign. Ms. Barszap concluded that she has seen several locations of the proposed curb line of Texas Avenue and it is impossible to base an ordinance requirement on something that may not occur. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. He questioned staff as to when the interpretation was made to use the proposed curb line of Texas Avenue instead of the existing curb. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the policy was adopted for all new signs to comply with the ordinance using the proposed curb location when Chili's was constructed. As soon as we knew where the new curb would be located, staff began enforcing the ordinance based on the relocation. Mr. Hollas suggested that the existing marquee sign could be modified or the existing sign could be relocated to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Pruitt with Signs Now explained that in order to modify the existing sign, significantly more money would be involved because the sign would partially be destroyed due to the metal pole. The variance request is to expand the existing box. Mr. Rife stated that the applicant's options have been reduced because of the special conditions in this particular case. The existing sign is difficult to read now and the variance request is a small percentage. He moved to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from Section 12 of Ordinance Number 1638, as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: TX DOT moving the existing curb line and changing the allowable sign space the applicant will be able to obtain; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: unable to enlarge their sign that could have been enlarged prior to moving the curb; 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 limited to that proposed which is 124 square feet. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other business. There was no other business. ZBA Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 7 of 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Adjourn. • Ms. Poston moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Ochoa seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). A;. ann g echmcian, Nata ie Thomas • • ZBA Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 8 of 8 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT i FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) to 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: Motion made by ~ ~ ~ Date Seconded by Chair Signatw Vntinn RPSttlts Y.~RP1638.DOC and because a strict enforcement of the provisions or the ordunance woiua result ui unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: / / ~1'~ t)•~aQ/1 ~.av~:T,2 ~©\~~~ P n.~u.,n~,~ ~Ncrn 1 t.U.~~r~~ ...r e~ ~'~ ~/ -- ~ ~ a~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~l~t(~~uo~ J-r~n~~/ • ZONING BOARD ©F ,ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, 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 'lam T ~'°^ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~"-~G-... parking requirements (Section 9) C. from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: l ~ - ..~- i -~ --_---~ 1~.._, 1~ - Y f Yi and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: /~ ~y J ! C (~.~ I ~_tJh .~ ~s- / '+ ~l /"' f J ~ (' ~ ~! 1~ ~J Gam ~~'~ /1 Tr ~ ~c~c.-~ Q~GV-tlc/p..~.~ ~T ~hi J Cvi- c ~. /T1 G-JE~ ' G O ~r 'M mG~ ~¢. ~1o C ~i~ ~ Ord%.7s[~[~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~ it ~~ ~.: .r, 6--~ p Sl ~ ., ~-%~ Motion made by C ~- / a Ulm ~-- Date Seconded by Chair Signature ~~°~~ ~'~~5 Voting Results ~ Y.QRP1638.DOC A~~o~ ~-~~ ~s ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Special Exceptions -From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the a. substitute of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. b. enlargement of a building devoted to anon-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase t e area of the building devoted to a non- conforming a more a o and oes not pro ong e t e o t e non- conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. c. reconstruction of anon-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60% of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. Motion made by Seconded by ~ ~ 1 Voting results: l~ air Signature Date c<,.~rq.d~mo..Pnzvt • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Special Exceptions -From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the ~~ , a. substitute of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. b. enlargement of a building devoted to anon-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25% and does not prolong the life of the non- conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. • c. reconstruction of anon-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60% of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase ~~e non-conformity. <~~/~ Motion made by Seconded by Voting results: ~~~~ Chair Signature ~ ~~ Date [adplWoaiaa~p/1293 • ZONIIJG BOARD OF ADJUSTNiEN*P ~ ~ a I I~h b~s-t- FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) 3is n minimum~setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of .any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that • the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion made by 7~ ~ Date (o ~2o~gs Seconded by W {~ _ Voting Results 3~2 Chair Signature YARN1638.DOC • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the _~ ~~nlp~- ~r~ ~ ~p 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. ~' V Date _~, Q Motion made by Seconded by Voting Results sr U Chair Signature V}IRN1638.DOC • -~~No~ L ZONING BOARD OF~ADJUSTMENT n U • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1 ~~ 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: l~,KfA~r1~~ T~ ~.~~~~' ~ ~~C~ /~j~y~n~ and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the gene"rah l~i~~ interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: ._.. ~ _ _ , ~ ,t1 ~ Motion made by Motion Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature Date ~ ` • i~~- sr~issa.DOc Zoning Board of Adjustment I• n U Guest Register /~ /~ Date 4~-~ lJ "( Address ~~ G ~ ~~~~~ ~~ S~ . 77~Y0 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.