Laserfiche WebLink
replat one lot (East) to be 5,625 square feet and the other (West) to be 3,750 square feet in size. <br />Both of these lot sizes are contrary to the provisions of Section 106-333 (a), which requires single <br />family detached lots to be a minimum of 6,000 square feet in size. <br /> <br />Second by T.J. Walker. Motion Failed. <br /> <br />Ayes: Dennis Oian <br />Nays: Rod Rothermel, T.J. Walker, and Chester Pool <br /> <br />Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances: <br />Appeals from the Board of Adjustment. <br /> <br />5. A public hearing will be held to consider Variance Request 16-93000013, a request by Jose <br />Gonzalez for the tract of land located at 324 W. Main Street, legally described as Lots 11, & 12 <br />Block 58 Town of La Porte Subdivision. The applicant is seeking approval of a variance that <br />would allow his client to place a freestanding sign in the Main Street District that is 50 square <br />feet in size, and is 24 feet in height for an existing building that is not setback. This is contrary <br />to Section 106-874 (a)(4)(c) which requires that new freestanding signs can only be used when <br />the building is setback and cannot exceed 24 square feet in size or 14 feet in height <br /> <br />Chairman Rothermel opened the public hearing at 6:25. <br /> <br /> <br />a. Staff Presentation <br /> <br />Planning Tech. Cramer for variance request 16-93000013. <br /> <br />The applicant is moving into an existing building on Main St. and would like to erect a free <br />standing sign. New free standing signs in the Main Street Overlay District are only <br />permitted when the building is setback off of the road. This building is not. <br /> <br />b. Applicant Presentation <br /> <br />The applicant was not present. <br /> <br />c. Public Comments <br /> <br />There were no public comments. <br /> <br /> Chairman Rothermel closed the public hearing at 6:29 PM. <br /> <br />d. Question and Answer <br /> <br />Rod Rothermel noted that there is an existing pole but that the business address in <br />question was not on the list of previously existing poll signs along Main St. <br /> <br />Chester pool stated that he was not happy with the proposed height but was okay with <br />the proposed size of the sign cabinet. <br /> <br />