HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-1994 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 25, 1994
Members Present:
Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Bob Capen,
Sidney Grant, Willie Walker; Alternate Board Members
Ruben Salinas, Jim Zoller
Members Absent:
City StafT Present:
Director of Planning Charles Harrington, Assistant City
Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:05 PM.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 4, 1994, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING.
With no corrections needed, Chairman Bernay declared the minutes approved as
presented.
III. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION SE94-002, WHICH HAS BEEN
REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A
GRAVEL PARKING LOT TO BE LOCATED IN THE 500 BLOCK OF SOUTH
18TH STREET.
Mr. Lewis explained to the Board that the request was made by Highway
Transport, located in the 500 block of South 18th Street. The applicants are
seeking an exception to the Zoning Ordinance requirements for dust free parking
for the purpose of allowing construction of a gravel parking lot.
Mr. Lewis stated the applicants plan to use limestone gravel and surround the
parking lot with concrete curbing. In addition, they intend to place the gravel
over an 8" layer of lime stabilized soil.
Page 2 of 3
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of August 25, 1994
Mr. Lewis noted the existing portion of this facility is surfaced in the same fashion
and seems to have performed quite well.
Additionally, the property is zoned Light Industrial and is not in close proximity to
any non-industrial property.
Mr. Lewis stated it is staffs position that granting this exception would not be
contrary to the best public interest and recommends granting this request.
A. PROPONENTS
Chairman Bemay swore in John Payne. Mr. Payne is representing
Highway Transport. Mr. Payne told the Board their company is
expanding their facility, and in looking for a cost effective way to
expand their parking area, have put together an engineering study.
He added even though their proposal is still somewhat expensive, it
is approximately half the cost of hard surfacing.
B. OPPONENTS
There were none.
Mr. Lewis noted there were 17 public notices mailed to surrounding property
owners. One reply was received in favor of the exception; one was returned
undeliverable; and none were received in opposition.
A motion was made by Bob Capen to approve Special Exception #SE94-002.
The motion was seconded by Jim Zoller. All were in favor and the motion
passed.
IV. STAFF REPORTS
John Armstrong updated the Board on the status of the Couch/Davis lawsuit.
Page 3 of 3
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of August 25, 1994
v. ADJOURN
Chairman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:25 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Peggy Lee,
Planning Secretary
Minutes approved on the
27
day of
October
.1994.
Deborah Bernay, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
VARIANCE REQUEST #V94-008
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE REQUEST
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADolication ~lo.: '%tj; -00</
Fee: $100.00 D~te Received: 7.-'2...,11'-1
Receipt No.: 2~{'cJ5 I
Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision.
OFFICE USE ONLY:
NOTE: This Fee is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am the
/-1 t.t J'it LIZ
tc?A/At-D A/ r !f.;J.1? J)
.-"} I' J /' Name J.. {)
:)~'J... V/ I?t/- /~?.4- 1 L-~ FdK'F/l-
Address
owner of the herein described property. I
to act on my behalf in
I<OA/At.JJ A... C IJA)?~
l/ Name
1~{J.... /R&.,l,..,lA. i.-A-
,
Address
PH: /f-y 7 }-o9Sj
tu- "i7cJ- ,}<<:G 77
have authorized
this matter.
Applicant:
Owner*:
fb;q T'1l
PH :H;.Y7/"'~9S7
j,f,. - 4I7d~~ 677
I am requesting a variance to Sect. of the City Zoning
Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this variance for property located
at 1c!1I).....Vil(~: ,1/f..-o)4r- j 4?rr ~ 7) ;{?" /5tdctr ~J f1J S'AIV t/ACt'-vI'd 1..Jc>~1i:S
Street Address Legal Description
( ) Site Plan (~Minor Development Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the
information requested below on the following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he must .provide Au;~thori at;ionto
on the 9wn~'sbehalf. ~ /1
~i~e~i~Y ~~ /
Date Applicant's Sig ture
act
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meeting Date:
Applicant Notified of Date:
Notice to surrounding property owners - Date:
Board's Decision:
1\.pproved ( )
Denied (
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
PAGE 2
A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance ". The City's Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a
variance that does not meet all of the following conditions:
1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest.
2) Literal enforcement of the Zonine Ordinance must result in
a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property
in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its
unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography con-
s tit ute s the p rim a rye x amp 1 e. 0 f h a r d s hip. . H a r d s hip s t hat
are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot
be granted.
3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the
Zoning Ordinance.
!I) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the
Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance
allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allow-
able.
Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that
a variance will meet the above conditions.
If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to
list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an
additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board
should consider.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
TIN",,, 0 Ii ,'/Ai:.. i.&.4 '-IS /t,x I 'f l' ~
"LvtiYr-/);,UV1(l.. U/A~ /j' A- 7''-f.r~~ c.A./{ f)l?lv/.:. k--A-i f)1i:rt.c--l2~v li/1.It- "/yt)1'.
;f.,vj) "fI./? t"-j..I:M:;:, 3~.5' ;(IS,e)/ :.. 6S7,o Sq. P-1'.
/i.A.Jr- /J~/ vI: Lv/1.t-( /5 A.. Olt./tf.. CAI<. PI)" v~ L-f/,4j 8h'?tv {l?ii~ I'll /l. S' I'll!'! ~~
T'tI/i. J>if..clr Pd'/fCff A.-vD fHIf-li:A-.fJ-- ~/j}/l. c?lf...l'H~ ;;'"-.A.J1U/r:.,AI'-'f) /iX1'Il""pJ
r ' . (', /(17 I, (' . / 0 i lJ. ,.,
r HI!- JC?C/7-;f-. ~! Pi\... O;Z- f,) ) 7", Jt? ^ 0 ,0 ::; 7 aV,(7 Sq r/
&(.'1/1- /J!lil/~ Lu-/ll./f A/?r.. CC'PT e..j'(i:/) Oft- :;fJ.~{.,--, L./~M/i:. >J",~~tZ. f((;1c.lr. d/"-'/>
. ~ ,.
5:-'0AL-L IlM-:'v-vl'f c~ vJ~f) /l-.J'/IfJ. Li1 f)t'flil'1,vl) $r, /!,C/?v)l'/-<--il ~1fJ.Jf
f'>J:r-Lv-f[:~ {;G1!-/f- Ol<.'/v/l. 4...<AftJ1 /{' A. (-/(4)')51 4-/(Ii.4- l'tftf..r ,Ala4fuI\IlS;
/ 3~/)( 16, [; Lv- II /C!1 t"", c; li--- f)/~.f .1 A-' c> f/J.-"v P/7'c. H$' ( Lf 7't... S' q cr, ~~J
PAGE 3
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
" fo ~ (/ .
'-V{j;. ~~i"t-J) L--I /' l- 6/ .:>';'~ /x')l/l-
L<// 1'1f- ~ ~ /" /",CI+ 1'lf /,e/1 kaJ'(
0('- Cvv CfU~ f I\.. J LA- H !,CIf 0.d'v (.0(2.41-, IiI'( ~rV A Illl//- o/Z-1.' g 1 II fJ'f S'ct, r--r,
4. L-5'c>, /I. r< /lCT A,vt/: I/['(}./) PI{ ,.J./~ 11.* u.-,' 7-/+ ?I()..tll"v(/- 4--~I/L.tJ []!r- t'A-I'r,.fLL/l/J .
?_li."7 rN/l CU/"'V/llll f/t/L-. )0 r/-hf..,... ?t'lv/LL (Jiz: AI3L/l. I~ PI-?A.I/f.') '-11'/1-
. .
T'H/l. Pi0fii:n St.-cPR /-v-7'.::> tHIi Ci/L~/{.Jf r P/)/'I1:. 1'//;.1' l<-c"t,-(.[> 6;;:
r;/,.'--!t'L- i)f..!i i'c:' l' HIiJ /JR~/1/ fll"-I filii.. fff;clt<?":J .A~/) 1'H~ 0~-v 2 J. Llll)
N"&l~
H f/ I? CJ /'Z. C~ I? If' I~ ) P?'A.--fJ ~
l> ~l /'H-
O/lfr A~D t:.1bt.VA/ Oi//Z/~ Lv) l'H ?/f.,f..SJ,. 7'01'/1 L- L/i:-1/0?;-J. ': ~?.C( /?$.I: I,.
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST:
'iv-~ .4 If /5. ;: (1::' c:('(/a:JT/r--c:'- fl//J i.-!/f fli'o i.4~_~ !i:/1>T l'c> $/1.- }J.A-.-v C! ~ CJG4t.
NOM;;:' ~l'li:.A-D ,1,r..-fl 1'C' f)I?Jr~1? &(//~ O,f/v/t. Lv-4,/ ~fJ,o~/J../l.A,vG~/i:.) S'c~ 1'1r-tr
.Lv ~ ~Ao/ /-/"4 vll ~7vlf /l. f'{'/rlf j"-'?-) !c> fl? /LV/L--1/'t- Itlfi'/f/A/cr PM 711 ~
~7'A (i:/?'''' / r fJ/f 0c?i.A,j) ,;fLJ::, fA /i:&/~-c..:lf/i;~Pt..1C rl(o,A., k-d L./r'i'-<./t- /-v-
PCc-C!7!Jfe../J c::./!.;J..fJ/ '//'l'~t~ 1<A.t''''/A/?~) !;.-?/fA-J) F'/fo~ rllfC/~ AC/l'c?/lPI1;'L;C{
(/ If 0'-//: S:
u#/~ 1~(i:llL- l'fl/f k..-c"<..' 1..-/) A," t-J~., /A-l/',fc.-U/'C. till? A ff/i.If..I1~A.-CK 0(2-
7' H Ii:. "..u /l: /rf-fI /'Jc,/( /-/c?c )~
CED/1-'87
ReQuested For:
Pronerty Zonin~:
ReQuested By:
Puroose of ReQuest:
Background:
Analysis:
..::::!.:i.i.!.:....:I.!:!.::.!.:.li(J.R:.::i."~SI::iil~Iii::iiijiiiiiiiii:i:i:j:i:
.................-
... ..................
.. ..............
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .
.................
................... .
...........................
............,...........,'......................,.....
...........................
.................
..............-......................... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.........................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... ......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................
.................... ...
............. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .
................................ .
..................................
.........................
Lots 27 and 28; Block 215; San Jacinto Homes, which is further described as
being located at 302 South Virginia. (See Exhibit A)
R-1, Low Density Residential
Mr. Ronald Sharp, property owner
This variance is being sought for the purpose of allowing two existing
residential driveways to be joined and widened to form a single driveway with
a width of 49 feet.
Exhibit "A" illustrates both the configuration of the applicant's existing
driveways and configuration being requested. As noted above, the expanded
driveway as shown on Exhibit "A" would have a total width of 49 feet. Staff,
based on the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 10-605 (Figure 10-2),
is prohibited from issuing a permit for the proposed driveway.
Section 10-605 limits maximum residential driveway width to 25 feet. It also
requires a minimum separation of 10 feet between driveways (see Exhibit
"B"). Please note, these measurements are taken at the "in-turn" portion of
the driveway. The measurements are based on "throat" width and do not
include radii projections (see Exhibit "e").
Zoning Ordinance Section 11-606 defines a variance as follows:
A deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
which is granted by the Board when strict conformity to the
Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship
because of the circumstances unique to the property on which
the variance is granted.
This section further states that the Board is allowed to grant a variance only
when it finds that all of the following conditions have been met:
Page 2 of 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 10/27/94
#V94-008
.
That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the
public interest.
.
That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in
unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness,
shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or
exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of
property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean
physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished
from a hardship relating to convenience, financial
considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from
the applicant or property owner's own actions; and
.
That by granting the variance, the spirit of the Ordinance will
be observed.
Finally, the section states: "The applicant shall have the burden of proving to
the Board that the foregoing conditions have been met."
Regarding the issue of the ''best public interest", it would be useful to examine
the requirements currently found in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically those
dealing with driveway width and separation between driveways. However, as
a preface to this discussion, it should be noted that the issue in question
regards the use of public property. The driveway being requested is to be
primarily located on the street right-of-way, not on the applicant's property.
It is the City's responsibility to manage and maintain rights-of-way in a
manner that benefits both individual citizens and the community as a whole.
If there is a conflict between the desires of an individual property owner and
best interests of the community, the City must act to protect the broader
public interest.
Street rights-of-way are put to three primary uses: conduits for vehicular
traffic, stormwater drainage systems, and access to individual properties.
While the City must certainly allow reasonable access to private properties,
it must do so in a manner that facilitates safe traffic flow patterns and
adequate stormwater drainage. The driveway regulations found in the Zoning
Ordinance are intended to accomplish these ends. The standards are not a
collection of arbitrary numbers chosen at random. Rather, they are based on
sound design criteria and in the case of drainage, a hundred year's worth of
local experience coping with stormwater in La Porte.
Page 30f 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 10/27/94
#V94-008
The 25 foot maximum driveway width established by the Zoning Ordinance
is intended to provide adequate width for a two car driveway. It is also
intended to limit vehicle access to a fairly confined area thereby forcing
drivers to enter and exit driveways in a cautious and controlled manner. This
is especially important with residential drives that require vehicles to back
into traffic.
It is important to note that the ordinance does not limit properties to a single
driveway. It does mandate a minimum 10 foot separation between drives.
This helps to insure that an adequate line of sight is maintained for drivers
backing out of the driveway. The separation also allows separation between
runs of culvert.
Also to be noted, the 25 foot maximum width and 10 foot requirements are
applied at the ditch and in-turn. Once inside the ditchline, a driveway can be
widened, turned or joined with another drive to form a circular drive,
additional parking, or surfaced walkway.
In addition to traffic, another reason for limiting driveway width is drainage.
Culvert must be set in order to run a driveway across an open ditch. Ditches
in residential neighborhoods tend to be shallow. Typical diameters for
culverts in residential areas normally range from 12" to 18".
Historically, La Porte has experienced drainage problems resulting from long
runs of small culverts. For this reason, in 1982 the City instituted a
moratorium (formally ratified by City Council) prohibiting installation of
culverting across an entire property frontage. Subsequently, as directed by
Council, policies were developed and implemented limiting lengths of culvert
runs and establishing criteria for culvert sizing and placement.
City policy currently in effect establishes maximum length of culvert run at 25
feet plus four times the depth of the ditch (see Exhibit C). It will be
impossible to construct a driveway significantly wider than 25 feet without also
directly contravening City drainage policies.
In summation, City Zoning Ordinance requirements and drainage policies
have been established to serve and protect the best overall public interest.
Granting this variance would be contrary to this interest.
The second charge to be considered by the Board is that of unnecessary
hardship. As defined by the Zoning Ordinance, hardship must be related to
the property itself. Specifically, is there some feature or condition of a
Page 4 of 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 10/27/94
#V94-008
property that would prevent it from being developed and used in accordance
with zoning requirements? The defInition continues by stating that issues of
convenience, fInancial consideration, and caprice cannot be considered to
constitute a hardship.
This property can and has been developed in a manner consistent with zoning
guidelines. There is a two car driveway providing adequate access to a two
car garage. There is another existing driveway for additional parking. There
is room to widen both driveways to a degree. Once inside the ditchline, the
driveways can be joined.
There is no hardship as defIned by the Zoning Ordinance. This request is
based on convenience and, therefore, is not eligible to be considered for a
variance.
The third and fInal charge to be considered by the Board is the mandate to
protect and preserve the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on
the information in the preceding paragraphs, staff would contend that granting
this variance would directly contradict both the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Conclusion
In summary, staff in reviewing this request, fInds the following:
· Granting this request would be contrary to the best public interest for
the following reasons:
The additional driveway width would not promote traffic
safety.
The additional culverting necessary to support the requested
driveway would exceed the maximum length established by City
drainage policy.
Drainage policy has been developed and implemented III
response to a mandate from City Council.
This request does not involve a hardship as defIned by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Denying the variance will not prevent reasonable development and use
of the property.
Page 5 of 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 10/27/94
#V94-008
· Granting the variance will not uphold the spirit or intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Based on the facts and considerations noted above, staff recommends denial
of Variance Request V94-008.
Anneals: .
Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the
Board of Adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, board, or
bureau of the City of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for
a writ of certiorari, as provided by Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Local
Government Code, Section 211.011, dilly verified, setting forth that such
decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality.
Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten (10) days after the
filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment.
;" ..) 'II
,4 '""J .. ~
. " ~..\
') . ~
. ~ .
~. ~ '"
: .J
:~
-
I
.,
~ . ~
: "t.
,':-0 i/.: ....../ ,L
~..,/ 38,"'.
z,:,- .
zS
(j)
-~
-~
cl C$
~
\\)
J-
I'
. "
~":
: '11
~ " \
,'., J " '/ Jl:
" "'~ j'. . SFT' ~'8 .. I
." _. /.: 3~.o~
\ -
I-
I
i
I
I
I
"
L.---
oJ
4'..:...-,,-1::"''';'' ;:.:_~r /r"JC
'5~ r '~~~' I. I!'. .
# ;?7"/S'W - 5.cJ.OO
\.-
:c
i-
::::l
o
(j)
-
.::...~ ,."k,..}
~
~
~
l-
i:
\:
r
y
~
-
---~..
;C'-..~ ,:.."
z+.....'
i
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
\
\
\
i
\
~
~\
t\
'\
\
. \
ao' A":~. ;-Y.
\
I
\
I
l
\
"-
~
-Z
~
'(\
~
Il
.':-.G60 ;:"'::1.
8
I
W#~d
.~-~t::"
-{o
'I
>:\
. GJ'JJ~
~i i-
~i w
~I W
i'Il! a:::
.! I-
~l (f)
-"
"-
"
,
~
<\
n
'\.."
\.... \,
'.,..
~ .. ..'
'IIi
~I
~I =
\~
"
. ,
.. ......:
. ,I
, \
~;
~i
~i
l\j,
'-.!
.
\ ! ;.
~i ~
"
~t ~
~
....
~ i"
~ ....
y
\\ I~
I/) r
...
....
i"
~
~
~
" ,
.... ..
27
.... ~.II'e.'"
.. -:J'_Z"
...: ~;:\
.,."
3.'~
I
: !
- \
~l
- ,
Ic'\ "'I
'$- ~I
. . ~
I\s ~I
~ I j
( i ~
I ~
~' Cl)'I.,
d h
'-.I"
I '10..
~\ '-\.
" Ii:
~l~
I ~\ I
~1 il
\
ill I I
~\ j
~\ \
I ~\ 1
I ,
3B.O!5'1 ! !
3
.~
: ~
",.,..d p-~ ..t
.~
~
3
~
/5./ / 1
I-
(f)
<i
W
.~_C"< ....... ......."
I .J' .j:~.
I
j
I
I
I
l
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
l
I
I
L-
/- ~ 7"'<7-Y
";..,1,,.,.,-<:, :
A/& .J;' i
".c:.'~.
i
. -. I
8.1\O,'t.. J3T'~1' pcrc#
/s..-
I ;r..'
"j . \
'" : \" .
"'; , .,'
iffl
/O.Q
...\
"I
J
~
'-
\:
"
~
"
"
I'l
'it
,
')
.\
'"
f
..s 27- /5'': - ':so.Cla .
)
/
C'\ /
II /
'v
,I
:'
~
z5 .
.:Sit? PC'
5. .:-
_ . <E:. Orlu-LJL~~;;c'
-~~ Or: ~?~, ~
"Jl_
....,
t:
;
I!
I \ .-SET A!'.~ :Fp.,;,-~
'.y
\:'
,,' I
E~~i.,tr
~~~- ..
-.------.
~ '\II g:tq ll--J. I ~
'<:
o.
't
.-'~ _"'" .-:;/r-"-
--------"'- -
.::...~~
FIGURE 10-2
CURB AND DRIVEWAY CRITERIA, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
(R-1, R-2, R-3, MH)
DRIVEWAY
REOUIREMENTS
12' to 25'
2 ' to 5'
25' Min. *
10' Min.
3 ' Min.
90
5% Max.
Drive Width
CUrb Return Radius
Distance from Intersection
Spacing between Driveway
Distance from Side Lot Line
Intersecting Angle
Approach Grade
FOR CONCRETE DRIVES ONLY:
a. Material
Min. 4" thickness
wi 6X6-6/6 W.W.M.
b. Expansion Joint
At property line
c. Curb (if applicable)
Curb disappearing at
property'line
Obstruction Clearance
Min. 3' from poles,
hydrants, etc.
* This distance shall be measured from the intersection of
property lines common with street right-of-way lines.
EXERT SECTION 10-605
ORDINfu~CE 1501
- 86 -
EXHIBIT 13
,",
~
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
OPEN DITCH TYPE STREET
Surface Width
,- I'
\.
Max. 25' p. '
L -"
Open Ditch
-rof Ditch---
Open Ditch
Driveway Radi us
Min. 3:;1
Max'. 5 I
.)
Edge of Traveled. Roadway
PLAN VI8~
Surface Wi dth
Adjacent Natural 2XDepth 2XDepth
grade.
~?^';:::'~:IJfZ"'" ~~===' ~D
Profile
Diameter 'Juries
( 1 8" 1'\ i n i::1u:n \
unless SQ~cifi~ )\
approval ~y City
~)(H'B\T C
IIOTE:
Dre......i ng No:: ::;
..... -- -, .....
---.... -