Loading...
2003-02-18 (meeting minutes) vAGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Commission Chambers, 800 Seminole Road 1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of January 21, 2003. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. None. 5. New Business. a. ZVAR-2003-01, John Lining. Request for a Variance to reduce a required fifteen- foot side yard setback on a corner lot to ten-feet and five inches, for property in the RG-1 Zoning District and located at 1849 Ocean Grove Drive. b. ZVAR-2003-02, Hugh. and Katherine Carithers. Request for a Variance to allow an addition to an existing garage apartment, which will encroach into the required twenty-foot setback from Beach Avenue, on double frontage lots in the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 233 Ocean Boulevard. c. REZ-2003-01, Paradise Preserve PUD, Bestcon, Inc. Request to rezone approximately 10.99 acres from OR (Open Rural) and RS-1 (Residential, SingIe- family) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to permit a proposed development containing up to forty-seven (47) single-family homes, private roadways and associated amenities. d. First review of proposed changes to Chapter 24, Article IV, Subdivision Regulations. 6. Other business not requiring action. a. Report on approval of new Section 24-171,. Commercial Corridor Standards. b. Reschedule date of April Community Development Board meeting because of conflict with General Election and availability of meeting Chambers. 7. Adjournment. All information related to these applications and full legal descriptions for the subject properties are available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road; Atlantic Beach, Florida. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at the meeting, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach (904) 247-5800, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 not later than 5 days prior to the date of this meeting. MINUTES OF MEETING OF CONIIVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD February 18, 2003 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held Tuesday, February 18, 2003, in the City Hall Commission Room. Present were Chair Don Wolfson, Craig Burkhart, Robert Frohwein, Karl Grunewald, Samuel Jacobson (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Steve Jenkins, Mary Walker, City Attorney Alan Jensen, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Alle ig Wince The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of lViinutes of Meeting of the Meeting of January 21, 2003 A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, seconded by Mr. Grunewald, and unanimously carried to approve the 1Vlinutes of the Community Development Board meeting of January 21, 2003. 3. Recognition of Visitors None. 4. Old Business None. 5. New Business a. ZVAR-2003-01, John Lining. Request for a Variance to reduce a required fifteen-foot side yard setback on a corner lotto ten feet and five inches, for property in the RG-1 Zoning District and located at 1849 Ocean Grove Drive. Mr. Lining introduced himself. He stated that he was renovating 1849 Ocean Grove Drive and would like to install an entryway foyer to buffer the house from weather and activity at the beach access. He further stated that currently there is no protection from the rain or from the noise of traffic and individuals who use the beach access. A question was asked about possibly moving the location of the stairwell. Mr. Pat McCray introduced himself as Mr. Lining's contractor and advised that it was logistically impossible to move the stairwell by the garage. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Lining if he was aware that the previous owner of this property had requested a variance. Mr. Lining responded that this variance was to enclose atwo- car garage. Mr. Frohwein confirmed with Mr. Lining that he had access to his house through the garage during instances of rain. Mr. Lining stated that he did. Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Lining for clarification as to the reason for the two protrusions instead of just covering the entrance and asking for a smaller variance. Mr. Lining rLlinutes of CommunityDevefopmentBoard February 18, 2003 -Draft Page 2 advised that this entryway would allow room for asix-foot elevator to be added at a later date. A motion was made by ivTr. Jenkins and seconded by Mr. Burkhart to deny the variance request. Mr. Lining advised that he was involved in a serious wreck last year and, at some point in time, the elevator was going to be very important to him. The vote was called and Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Grunewald and Mr. Jenkins voted for the motion; Mrs. Walker voted against the motion. Tlie motion carried. (Mr. Jacobson acknowledged a conflict of interest and recused himself from voting on, the motion. Mr. Jacobson signed Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict.) Discussion was held with regard to 1VIr. Lining coming back to the Board with a change to his request. A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, seconded by Mr. Burkhart, and unanimously carried to withdraw the motion. b. ZVAR 2003-02, Hugh and Katherine Carithers. Request for a Variance to allow an addition to an existing garage apartment, which will encroach into the required twenty-foot setback from Beach Avenue, on double frontage lots in the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 233 Ocean Boulevard. 1VIr. Carithers introduced himself and Mr. Joseph Cronk. lair. Carithers stated that this property was very unique and was situated between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard at Second Street. He stated that they would like to build a house on generally the same footprint of the existing house with a slight extension and would they would also like to build athree-car garage on the footprint of the existing detached garage on Beach Avenue. He further stated that if they moved the garage they would have to remove huge palm trees over 40 feet tall. lVlr. Joe Cronk with Cronk Duch Partners introduced himself. He stated that they moving the structure north to create less tree damage. 1VIr. Grunewald asked NIr. Carithers about off-street parking. Mr. Carithers responded that off-street parking would occur on Ocean Boulevard, and they would also have a driveway off Ocean Boulevard. Mrs. Walker asked if they had considered putting the new portion of the house and a garage to the south of the existing residence. 1VIr. Cronk responded that they would like to keep the house in the same footprint. He stated that the character of the alley is very unique and keeping the garage structure close to the street is in keeping with that character. Minutes of Community Development Board February 18,2003 -Draft Page 3 1~Ir. Frohwein asked if the corner lot could be sold in the future. IVIr. Carithers advised that they did not plan on selling the corner lot but plan on building a pool, which would encroach on the third lot. Ms. Doerr advised that the Building and Planning Departments would not issue building permits for lots that do not meet the setbacks unless a variance were approved. If this project treated all three of these lots as a single development parcel, the owner could not later sell-off one of the lots as a buildable lot unless all setbacks and impervious area requirements could be met. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern that the gargage not later be converted into a garage apartment. Ms.. Doerr advised that this property was entitled to a garage apartment if the Comp Plan was met since it is a double frontage lot. Mr. Carithers advised that they were thinking about adding a bedroom on the second floor, but it would not have a kitchen and they do not intend to have a separate rental unit. A motion was made by Mr. Jacobson and seconded by Mr. Burkhart to. approve the variance request. Mr. Wolfson requested that a caveat be added that no garage apartment be allowed in the future. Mr. Jacobson expressed that this issue should was. not related to this Variance request and should be addressed at the time a garage apartment was considered. Mr. Wolfson stated that he would not be inclined to support this request without that condition being added. The vote was called and NIr. Burkhart, Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Grunewald and Mr. Jacobson voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Jenkins, Mrs. Walker and Mr. Wolfson voted against the motion. The motion passed. c. REZ-2003-01, Paradise Preserve PUD, Bestcon, Inc. Request to rezone approximately 10.99 acres to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to permit a proposed development containing up to forty-seven (47) single-family homes, private roadways and associated amenities and facilities Mr. Jacobson expressed concern to the City Attorney about a possible conflict of interest. City Attorney Alan Jensen advised that there was no conflict of interest as long as Mr. 7acobson did not receive any pecuniary gain from the granting or denial of this item. Mr. Paul Nichols introduced himself and stated that he was the president of Bestcon, Inc. He stated that this will be the third subdivision he has developed in the area, the first being Paradise Cove and the second being Hidden Paradise. He stated that these subdivisions have been built west of Mayport Road in the theoretical blighted area. He further stated that he has purchased approximately 11 acres off Dutton Island Road for this new subdivision. Mr. Burkhart asked when the setbacks would be determined and where the rear garages were going to be located. Ms. Doerr advised that the proposed setbacks set forth within the PUD text, and that the applicant has requested modifications to certain typical setbacks within the PUD application. Mr. Burkhart asked how many houses were going to require a variance. Mr. Nichols advised that he was having a difficult time locating Minutes ojCommunity Development Board February 18, 2003 -Draft Page 4 house plans to fit the lot size. He stated that he has seven plans, which they have successfully sold in Hidden Paradise, but he was looking for the opportunity to do different types of homes on some of the lots. Ms. Doerr informed the Board that Bestcon would be bound by the 50% impervious surface limit on each lot, and also the 35% maximum area occupied by buildings and structures for the entire project. She stated that in a PUD, the Board should consider the entire project and determine if it meets the low density Comprehensive Plan designation rather than consider individual lots. Mr. Grunewald asked about sidewalks and curbs. Ms. Doerr responded that curb and gutter street sections are proposed and that the regulations require sidewalks. Mr. Nichols advised that he would build sidewalks on both sides of the street and would also have a sidewalk along the Dutton Island Road frontage. He further advised that he envisioned this as a gated community with private roads and that the project would connect into city water and sewer. Mrs. Walker asked why Mr. Nichols was contemplating detached garages with family suites. Mr. Nichols responded that he had many buyers who were potentially looking to take care of their elderly parents or older children and would like mother-in-law suites that could provide for some privacy. He stated that these would not be used for rental units and could only be used by family. Mr. Wolfson expressed his concern with reducing the requirement of a 7,500 square foot lot in low density, single-family zoning district. Mr. Wolfson calculated that ' approximately 45.3 homes would fit in this acreage accounting for roads, retention ponds, etc., if the 7,500 square foot minimum were maintained. He stated that he would be more inclined to support a conventional residential neighborhood and was opposed to reducing the lot sizes and setbacks. Mr. Nichols stated that this was a peculiaz piece of property and does not lend itself to a normal layout of streets. He stated that they were being held to standards of maintaining a maximum amount of impervious area and they are not going to exceed that, and they would handle all drainage on site. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern that the plat did not contain enough information. Ms. Doerr advised that this was a just the master site plan of the entire PUD for the purpose of the rezoning application, and not a plat. If approved, the plat will come back to the Board for their review and recommendation to the City Commission. Ms. Doerr clarified that for a PUD, the master site plan, the text describing the development plan, and all the restrictions and Lot and Building Requirements contained in those documents would be part of the ordinance that creates the PUD and would be binding to the applicant, any other developer and future owners. Mr. Nichols described the lots as follows: 1) Lots 1-7 would all be front loaded garages and would get 20 feet. 2) Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have the opportunity to be rear-loaded garages and the house could be situated closer to the front with the driveway in the rear. In this case the house would be 20 feet from the rear property line. ttifinutes oJCommuniry Development 13oard Febr:~ary 18, 2003 -Draft Page 5 3) Lots 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 21, 24-47 would all be front loaded garages and would be 20 feet from the front. 4) Lots 22 and 23 have the opportunity to have side-loaded garages. Mr. Nichols advised that the average price of the 18 interior lots would be in excess of $220,000. In response to a question from Mr. Grunewald, Mr. Nichols advised that the width of the road pavement would be 20 feet and would narrow in the one-way loop down to 12 feet, but that the right-of--way for the main road would be a 50-foot wide curb and gutter design. Ms. Doerr advised that this property was designated Residential, Low density by the Comprehensive Plan, and it was her opinion that a PUD was the appropriate way to develop this property. She stated that there were provisions that can be required in a PUD that cannot be required in a normal RS-1 or RS-2 zoning district. Mr. Frohwein commended Mr. Nichols for his previous work. Mr. Frohwein expressed concern with corner.lots. Mr. Nichols stated that the corner lots were addressed on page 5, the fourth paragraph. Mr. Frohwein stated that Lots 1, 13 and 14 were not addressed, and he would request that the minimum set back be 10 feet. Mr. Burkhart asked Mr. Nichols if he would find it oppressive if the Board asked him to amend his request for a minimum five feet foot setback to provide an aggregate side setback of 15 feet. Mr. Nichols responded that this would limit him with regard to larger house plans. He stated that the extra feet allows him the opportunity to build a house that is different since he would like to be able to build a wider house on some lots. Mr. Jacobson asked who would be responsible for the lift station. Mr. Nichols responded that the City would take over the lift station, but that he would be responsible for building the lift station to the City's specifications. Mr. Wolfson again expressed concern with regard to reducing setbacks. Mr. Nichols stated that in a PUD, the rules were all the same in that one neighborhood. He further stated that this project is still held to the maximum 50 percent impervious surface on each lot. If held to that standard, then changing the setbacks should not be an issue since they will be the same throughout the community. Mr. Nichols stated that he is trying to keep it uniform, and still have some flexibility so that houses will not all look the same. Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Doerr to expound on her statement that a PUD was the preferred way to develop this property. Ms. Doerr responded that the PUD allows us to look at the whole 11-acre piece of property at one time prior to any development and apply binding standards to that entire property that would be address unique issues and result in a more unified and a better project. If you read through the various provisions in the documents, there are standards to address buffering and landscaping, wetland buffers, recreation, signs, lighting and access. The developer has proposed a gated community, and has agreed to provide a universal emergency access system. With a regular subdivision, we are looking only at streets and lots and whatever permitting the water management Mtrmtes ojCommunity Development Board February I8, 2003 -Draft Page 6 district requires. We have more ability to control future development of a piece of property in a PUD, and to determine if the overall development that is proposed is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the standards we have in our Comp Plan, I believe that it is. Ms. Doerr stated that it does not concern her to vary the setbacks with a PUD provided that we continue to limit the impervious area on individual lots to 50 percent impervious. The PUD regulations specifically allow projects to ask for different setbacks than in the regular zoning districts. She further stated that on a unified project, she did not have concerns with modified setbacks since they will be consistent for that whole project. Mr. Jenkins advised that he was in favor of this PUD and understood concerns with regard to setbacks, but that the underlying responsibility was to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meeting impervious requirements, and having a prudent builder to put forth the effort of curbs and other items. A motion was made by 1VIr. Burkhart and seconded by Mr. Wolfson to recommend to the City Commission approval of the PUD as proposed with the changes incorporated in Staff recommendations and clarification that: 1. Lots 9-13 are the only lots to leave rear-loaded garages and, therefore, the potential fora 10-foot front yard setback; and 2. Ali of the rectangular lots be held to the 5-foot minimum, 15-foot combined side yard requirements with the balance of the lots as proposed in the application. Ms. Doerr suggested that a table be placed on the master site plan indicating the requirements of each lot, and requested that the Board include the proposed findings of fact in the recommendation. Mr. Wolfson requested that, for clarification purposes the minimum side and rear yard setbacks of each lot be indicated in the rezoning application and on the site plan, and that the findings be incorporated into the motion. Ms. Doerr advised that she would ask the applicant to make these changes. The vote was called and the motion passed by unanimous approval d. First Review of proposed changes to Chapter 24, Article IV, Subdivision Regulations. Discussion was held and the Board determined that they would review the proposed changes and would address this issue at the next meeting. 6. Other Business Not Requiring Action a. Report on approval of new Section 24-171, Commercial Corridor Standards. Ms. Doerr advised that Section 24-171 was adopted in the same form as proposed by the Community Development Board. b. Reschedule date of April Community Development Board meeting because of conflict with General Election and availability of meeting Chambers. Minutes of Community Development Board February 18, 2003 -Draft Page 7 It was determined that the April meeting of the Community Development Board would be moved from April 15 to Apri122, 2003. Discussion was held with regard to establishment of a CR.A. Discussion was held with regard to permeable requirements and the use of pavers. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern regarding the lack of maintenance of landscaping at the office building located on Ocean Boulevard. 7. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. SIGNED ATTEST FORM 86 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME M1 .. ADDRESS CITY DATE ON N'HICH VOTE OCC'URREU ' ~~ b, 1 ~, z~D3 NA~hfE OF [iOARD, COUNCIL, CxxO~~MMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COA1h11TTEE THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMh11SS10N, A fHOR1TY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ~I'rY L I COUNTY ! ]OTHER LOCAL AGENCY COUNTY NAA1E OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: h1Y POSITI N !S: L.; ELECTIVE ~/APPOINTIVE ' ~ ~ WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest udder Sectiull 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making [he disclosure 'required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form.. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES EL~:CTEU OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, ~~ou should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TU THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 1S DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government ageltcy) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether -.made by the officer or at his direction. F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WI~'ICH w ~(E VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: hould complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for _ .. ~~ding the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. v of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. ~ should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. 1F YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: '; • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You should complete the form and file it within IS days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF ,LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, ~~~ Ne ~ ~ ~~1~~fl71, hereby disclose that on ~G~. ~ ~ , ~9~ ; (a) AA measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) y inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of , by whom 1 am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed ~-+ Signature V NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. ^C FAUAA YO 111 U< V~RIA:yCE WORKSHEET MEETING D~.TE: ~ r ~ ~ ~O~ :~GE~ D:1 ITEM Fes N~ 1) Special conditions and circumstances e:tist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; 2) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant; 3) :~ literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant oL rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would war's unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; ~) Will ;ranting this variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures ? • ~) Will the variance requested be the minimum necessar;~ to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure ? 61 Will the requested variance be in harmcn~- with the general intent of the Zoning Code '' 7) Will the requested variance be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare ? :k.k*:k*=k~c=K:k:k=K:k*:k*:k=k=K:k.yc:k:kyc;k:K*~c:k=k:k:k:k:k=k:k.k:k*.k:k:k:K:k:k:k:k:k:k:k:K:K~:K:K*:k :K :k :k :k :K :k :k :k Notes and Comments: ~lE~lBERS SIGN~,TURE : -~ ~ C~~(/~k] ~ I ~'v'~" /!(~ VARIANCE WORKSHEET MEETING DATE : ~- /~~ O~ AGENDA TTE~1 Yes 1) Special conditions and circumstances e:~ist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; 2) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or applicant; 3) A literal ~~interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; ~) Will ;ranting this variance confer any special privile.;e that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or structures ? o) Will the variance requested be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure ? 6) Will the requested variance be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Code ? 7) Will the requested variance be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare ? ~k~*:k:k:k**=k~:k:k*~k**~**=k~k*~k:k-k*~k:k:k;k:k~:k-k~*:k~:k:k=k~k~k~k:k:K~k~k~;k~K~k:k~*~k:k~k:k;K*:k*:k Notes and Comments: O ~ L y C.~~r~ ~ 1-/ r-t IT ~1 E ~ ~-~ ~ ~~ a ~ 2 ~ b~ C~C~ ~`l -~~' ~~ I`~'f1 ~ l..c~ ~ LL dL OT P MEMBERS SIGNATURE: JI \r soh No 1 VARIAVCc WORhSH~.ET MEETING DATE • 1~~ ~ ~GL~ DA ITE~1 ~-es Vo 1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or btiildin~s in the-same -- ~ district; 2) The specia_ conditions and circumstances . do not result from the actions of the `~ - owner or applicant; 3) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and c.;ould wor's unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; ~) Will ranting this variance confer any special privile;e that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings or ~ structures ^. ! ~) Will the variance reques~eci be the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable ~ use of the land, building or structure ? -~ 6) Will the requested variance be in harmcn~- ~~ with the ;eneral intent of the Zoning Code :' / i) Will the requested variance be in:it.irious to the area or detrimental to the public ~ welfare ~ :k:K~::k:k:K:k:k:k:k:K:k:k:k*~=k=k:k:k:k:k~:k:K*:K:k:k:k:k:k:k:K:k=k:k*:k=k:k:K:k:k:k:k:k:k:k:K:K*.k:k:k-k :k~:k:K:K:k:K:K Notes and Comments: `1E~lBER5 SIGN~ITUR 1 VARIANCa LvQRhSHGLT ~1EETING DATE : ___~~~ C' AGENDA ITEM: .S ~/ ~•es I) Special conditions and circumstances e:tist which are pecLtliar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same / district; J/ 2) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the - owner.or applicant; 1/ 3) ~ literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of ri;hts commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and cYould woes unnecessary and undue hardship on the / applicant; 1/ Vo ~k) Will ;ranting t:nis variance confer any special privilege that is denied by this / chapter to other lands, buildings or / structures --~~~ III/// ~) Will the variance reques~ed be the minimum necessar-~ to make possible the reasonable / use of the land, building o r structure ? Y 6} Will the requested variance be in harmcn with the 7eneral intent of the Zoning Code :' r) Will the requested variance be in.jtirious to the area or detrimental to the public / welfare ? ttt/// ~k=k*:k:k:k*-k:k*:K~:k:k~:k:!c:K:k:k:k:k~K:k:K:k=k:k:k:K:k:k:k-k:k:k~~c:k~k:k:K:k:k-k:K~k:k:K:K:K*:k:k~:k:k:k:k:k:K.k:k* Notes and Comments: MEMBERS SIGNATURE: