HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 10/4/1993 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 4, 1993
� CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST ) Z-368
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST ) AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST
#40362 (OWNER) AND R.B. SKOKIE ) TRUST NO. 40362
CORPORATION, D/B/A/ ARBY' S ROAST ) R.B. SKOKIE CORP. (ARBY' S)
BEEF RESTAURANTS (CONTR.ACT ) CONDITIONAL USE
PURCHASER) FOR A VARIANCE PERMIT )
AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE )
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY )
COITNTY, ILLINOIS. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on October 4, 1993, Chairman Semrow called the
hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
� 1. Zoning Board Members: Richard Adamson,Randy Christensen,Wayne Dixon,Emil Kleemann, Harry
Semrow, Donna Tobeck and John Swierk.
2. Attorney for the Zoning Board: Jeannine Thomes of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle
3. Recording Secretary: Marci Geraghty
4. Director of Building and Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioner: R.B. Skokie Corporation represented by Henry Green, President, 80 River Oaks Plaza,
Calumet City, Illinois 60409.
6. Attorney for the Petitioner: None
7. City Council Members: None
8. Court Reporter: None
9. Objectors: Mr. & Mrs. Curt Pepe, 3609 Cornell Court, McHenry.
It was noted for the record that the Objectors were not represented by Counsel.
�
ZBA - Arby's - October 4, 1993 Page 2
�10TICE OF PUBLICATION
�
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on September 17, 1993. The Publisher's
Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Notification was made
to all abutting property owners. The subject property was posted with the required notification.
SUMMARY
The Petitioner is requesting that the subject property be granted a variance to permit the building to be
located 11 feet away from the east property line instead of the required 15 feet and, (2) allow the front
screening requirement to be limited to a 2 foot high grassed berm and, (3) grant a conditional use permit for
a drive-through establishment.
The first hearing held September 13, 1993, was recessed until such time that an additional application for
variance had been made to the City to include rear yard setback requirements and screening/landscaping
requirements and all notification had been accomplished according to ordinance requirements.
LOCATION OF THE SUBTECT PROPERTY
The property is located approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Richmond Road and McCullom
Lake Road on the east side of Richmond Road. This site is proposed as Lot 3 of McCullom Place
Subdivision, which is currently under review by City Staff.
`'Chairman Semrow stated that each issue brought up by the Petitioner would be handled on an individual
bases.
REAR YARD SETBACK
TESTIMONY
Petitioner Green first requested a variance for rear yard setback requirements. The rear yard, which would
be paved asphalt is only 11 feet instead of the required 15 feet. Green also stated that Dayton-Hudson
owners of Target stores, have no objection to this request.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Swierk asked the Petitioner if Arby's would own the property. Mr. Green stated that was subject to the
building permit being issued. This lot is very narrow, only 107 ft. wide with a 10 ft. easement in the front.
They already turned the building sideways to accommodate the size of the lot.
Chairman Semrow asked the Petitioner if the drive-through window was next to an area where people would
drive past who are not using the facility. Green answered yes, vehicles would pass parallel to the window.
Semrow then observed that the window was midway between two sides of the building and it projected out,
iway from the building, and asked if this was the way it had to be designed or could the window be flush
`'with the building in order to gain a few more feet in setback. Mr. Green answered that the serving window
ZBA - Arby's - October 4, 1993 Page 3
is 11 feet from the rnost outside portion of the building and that it must protrude to accommodate the
necessary equipment used by Arby's. He also stated that this is a very unusual circumstance because Arby's
usually builds on larger lots. Semrow said his thought was that if the window could be built flush to the
`-building it would eliminate the need for the setback variance.
Semrow asked the Petitioner if Arby's drive-through and Target's parking lot were separated by a curb.
Petitioner stated that it probably would be separated by a yellow line to prevent cars from getting "hung up"
on the curb. Semrow asked Director Lobaito if there were any requirements for curbs or yellow lines.
Lobaito stated that if the separation is a curb, it must be concrete, no requirements otherwise.
Semrow asked the Petitioner if there would be a canopy that would extend across the 11 ft. setback.
Petitioner stated that currently there is no plan for a canopy, however there may be a need for one at a later
date. Semrow asked if this was a possibility or a probability. Petitioner stated that on the west side of the
building it was a probability, but not on the east side. This was necessary to prevent rain and snow from
getting the customers and their food wet while they are at the drive-through window.
Swierk asked Lobaito if a screening strip was required on all sides of the building. Lobaito said this was a
requirement on corner lots only, Arby's is an interior lot.
Christensen asked the Petitioner if they would consider not installing a drive-through window, making it
easier to fit the building on the lot. Green stated that Arby's does not build restaurants without the drive-
through facility.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE OBjECTORS
`-'Curt Pepe asked Petitioner Green if Arby's had ever built a restaurant on a lot this size. Petitioner
answered yes, howe�-er they were never this narrow. Mr. Pepe then asked if the back lot variance would
influence the number of parking spaces installed. Petitioner replied no, not at all.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
Testimonv
Petitioner Green is asking for relief from the required 3.5 foot parking screening strip required by the
Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner explained that the engineering plans for Arby's was done by Smith
Engineering. Page C-5 shows all the elevations for the entire parcel. Arby's sits in the bottom of a bowl
by Route 31. Target is located behind Arby's. K-Mart and Blockbuster Video sit approximately five feet
higher to the north of this property. Arby's contention is that because their building will be sitting in a
"hole", they will not be as visible as they should be. Therefore, they want to construct a 2 ft. berm in lieu
of the required 3.5 ft. screening. Green stated that a 2 ft. berm would still have the greenery and bushes of
the 3.5 ft. berm, but it won't be blocking people's view of the restaurant. He explained that Arby's is not
a destination place. It is a fast-food restaurant depending on drive-by business.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Tobeck asked the Petitioner if the elevations were the finished elevations. Petitioners replied yes, they were
�btained from the final engineering plans.
�
ZBA - Arby's - October 4, 1993 Page 4
Christensen asked the Petitioner for the finished floor elevation. Petitioner Green said he thought it was
761.57. Christensen then asked for the curb elevation. Petitioner Green said he thought that was 759.00.
Christensen then stated that the floor would be approximately 2 ft. above the curb.
�
Lobaito explained that there was a difference of 3 ft. The curb elevation goes up as you travel south on
Route 31, from 759 to 762.
Kleemann added that berms are created as noise reducers as well as protection against blowing debris and
headlight glare. He also stated that the Pepe's live very close to the proposed site.
Chairman Semrow asked Mr. & Mrs. Pepe to tell the Board approximately how close they live to this site.
Mrs. Pepe stated that it was approximately 170 ft.
Semrow remarked that cars passing through the drive-through will shine their lights across the back lot of
the property and probably would affect the Pepe's property.
Kleemann stated that was why the 3.5 ft. berm was a requirement.
Tobeck suggested to the Petitioner the possibility of raising the foundation,removing the need for a variance.
The Petitioner said that he thought this was not a viable solution. He then asked Lobaito if this would have
an adverse affect on drainage in the area. Lobaito said he would have to research the idea and could not
answer at this time.
Christensen stated that with a 3.5 ft. berm all Arby's was going to loose was a 4" stripe around the bottom
�f the building. Petitioner Green stated that visibility was very important. They needed as much of the
`'building noticeable to the public as possible.
Semrow said that the cars in this parking lot could be parked in such a manner that the lights would be
shining on Route 31; a 3.5 ft. berm is not too much to ask for in terms of safety. He does not feel that 1.5
ft. is enough to quibble about. The Petitioner then stated that he would rather not have a berm. Green said
that Arby's has to let the pubic know they are there. Semrow said he did not think that a berm was going
to make or break their business.
Tobeck stated that she feels Arby's has nothing to worry about. They are the only restaurant on that
corner; if shoppers are hungry they will go there to eat. A 3.5 ft. berm or a 2 ft. berm will not make a
difference.
Semrow asked Petitioner Green if he had anything further to say. All Mr. Green wanted to state was that
Arby's was anxious to come to McHenry, they are sincere in their desires and they promise to be a good
neighbor. They would like the City of McHenry to return the courtesy.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE OBJECTORS
Mr. Pepe asked Pet:itioner Green how tall the roof of the building was. The Petitioner said it was
approximately 10 ft. He then asked the Petitioner how tall the average car was in their parking lot. The
Petitioner answer 5 ft. Mr. Pepe asked the Petitioner why a 3.5 ft. berm would be harmful to business when
-he view would be obstructed by cars. Mr. Pepe went on to say that he and his wife have nothing against
�"Arby's. They are in favor of the "adult-preference menu." However, they do not want to be bothered by
ZBA - Arby's - October 4, 1993 Page 5
headlights from cars in the Arby's parking lot. They also want to make sure that this parcel is used
appropriately. Mr. Pepe said that if Arby's has to squeeze their restaurant on to this parcel, perhaps it is not
�uitable for this use. They are concerned and want the property in the City of McHenry to be used
'�-responsibly.
With nothing further to say by the Board or Objectors, Chairman Semrow suggested that a motion for each
point be heard separately.
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Dixon that the ZBA recommend to the City Council that a conditional
use to permit the construction and operation of a drive-through establishment be granted; and that the
Approval Criteria for Conditional Use, Table 31, pages 357-358 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck
Voting Nay: Swierk
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Motion carried 6-1
Motion by Kleemann, seconded by Adamson to recommend to the City Council the approval of the
variance for an 11 ft. rear yard setback instead of 15 ft. required by ordinance; and that the Approval Criteria
�or Variances, Table 32, pages 376-377 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
�
Voting Aye: Adamson, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck
Voting Nay: Christensen, Swierk
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Motion carried 5-2
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Swierk to recommend to the City Council to deny the variance
allowing a 2 ft. berm instead of the required 3.5 ft. screening and insure that the Petitioner meet the criteria
of Table 32, pages 376-377 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck
Voting Nay: None
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Motion carried 7-0
�..
ZBA - Arby's - Octcber 4, 1993 Page 6
ADJOURNMENT
'Vlotion by Kleemann, seconded by Christensen to recess this hearing at 8:50 p.m.
�
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk,Tobeck
Voting Nay: None
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Motion carried 7-0. Hearing was recessed at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry Se ow, Chairman
`.
Zoning Board of Appeals
c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7�,Plan Commission (7),City Administrator, Director of Building and Zoning, Public Works
Administration, Objectors (2), City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, Building and Zoning Zoning File,
Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File Copy.
�►
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
� OCTOBER 4, 1993
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST ) Z-368
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST ) AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST
#40362 (OWNER) AND R.B. SKOKIE ) TRUST NO. 40362
CORPORATION, D/B/A/ ARBY' S ROAST ) R.B. SKOKIE CORP. (ARBY' S)
BEEF RESTAUR�,NTS (CONTRACT ) CONDITIONAL USE
PURCHASER) FOR A VARIANCE PERMIT )
AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE )
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY )
COUNTY, ILLINOIS . )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on October 4, 1993, Chairman Semrow called the
�aring to order at 7:31 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
�.
1. Zoning Board Members: Richard Adamson,Randy Christensen,Wayne Dixon,Emil Kleemann, Harry
Semrow, Donna Tobeck and John Swierk.
2. Attorney for the Zoning Board: Jeannine Thomes of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle
3. Recording Secretary: Marci Geraghty
4. Director of Building and Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioner: R.B. Skokie Corporation represented by Henry Green, President, 80 River Oaks Plaza,
Calumet City, Illinois 60409.
6. Attorney for the Petitioner: None
7. City Council Members: None
8. Court Reporter: None
9. Objectors: Mr. & Mrs. Curt Pepe, 3609 Cornell Court, McHenry.
was noted for the record that the Objectors were not represented by Counsel.
�
�
.ZBA - Arby's - October 4, 1993 Page 2
�-t�TOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on September 17, 1993. The Publisher's
Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Notification was made
to all abutting property owners. The subject property was posted with the required notification.
SUMMARY
The Petitioner is requesting that the subject property be granted a variance to permit the building to be
located 11 feet away from the east property line instead of the required 15 feet and, (2) allow the front
screening requirement to be limited to a 2 foot high grassed berm and, (3) grant a conditional use permit for
a drive-through establishment.
The first hearing held September 13, 1993, was recessed until such time that an additional application for
variance had been made to the City to include rear yard setback requirements and screening/landscaping
requirements and all notification had been accomplished according to ordinance requirements.
LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
The property is located approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Richmond Road and McCullom
T.ake Road on the east side of Richmond Road. This site is proposed as Lot 3 of McCullom Place
`,,,abdivision, which is currently under review by City Staff.
Chairman Semrow stated that each issue brought up by the Petitioner would be handled on an individual
bases.
REAR YARD SETBACK
TESTIMONY
Petitioner Green first requested a variance for rear yard setback requirements. The rear yard, which would
be paved asphalt is only 11 feet instead of the required 15 feet. Green also stated that Dayton-Hudson
owners of Target stores, have no objection to this request.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Swierk asked the Petitioner if Arby's would own the property. Mr. Green stated that was subject to the
building permit being issued. This lot is very narrow, only 107 ft. wide with a 10 ft. easement in the front.
They already turned the building sideways to accommodate the size of the lot.
Chairman Semrow asked the Petitioner if the drive-through window was next to an area where people would
drive past who are not using the facility. Green answered yes, vehicles would pass parallel to the window.
��mrow then observed that the window was midway between two sides of the building and it projected out,
away from the building, and asked if this was the way it had to be designed or could the window be flush
with the building in o�der to gain a few more feet in setback. Mr. Green answered that the serving window
ZBA - Arby's - October 4, 1993 Page 3
is 11 feet from the �riost outside portion of the building and that it must protrude to accommodate the
�cessary equipment �.�sed by Arby's. He also stated that this is a very unusual circumstance because Arby's
�tisually builds on larger lots. Semrow said his thought was that if the window could be built flush to the
building it would eliminate the need for the setback variance.
Semrow asked the Petitioner if Arby's drive-through and Target's parking lot were separated by a curb.
Petitioner stated that it probably would be separated by a yellow line to prevent cars from getting "hung up"
on the curb. Semrow asked Director Lobaito if there were any requirements for curbs or yellow lines.
Lobaito stated that if the separation is a curb, it must be concrete, no requirements otherwise.
Semrow asked the Petitioner if there would be a canopy that would extend across the 11 ft. setback.
Petitioner stated that currently there is no plan for a canopy, however there may be a need for one at a later
date. Semrow asked if this was a possibility or a probability. Petitioner stated that on the west side of the
building it was a probability, but not on the east side. This was necessary to prevent rain and snow from
getting the customers and their food wet while they are at the drive-through window.
Swierk asked Lobaito if a screening strip was required on all sides of the building. Lobaito said this was a
requirement on corner lots only, Arby's is an interior lot.
Christensen asked the Petitioner if they would consider not installing a drive-through window, making it
easier to fit the building on the lot. Green stated that Arby's does not build restaurants without the drive-
through facility.
�,1UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE OB ECTORS
Curt Pepe asked Petitioner Green if Arby's had ever built a restaurant on a lot this size. Petitioner
answered yes, however they were never this narrow. Mr. Pepe then asked if the back lot variance would
influence the number of parking spaces installed. Petitioner replied no, not at all.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
Testimonv
Petitioner Green is asking for relief from the required 3.5 foot parking screening strip required by the
Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner explained that the engineering plans for Arby's was done by Smith
Engineering. Page C-5 shows all the elevations for the entire parcel. Arby's sits in the bottom of a bowl
by Route 31. Target is located behind Arby's. K-Mart and Blockbuster Video sit approximately five feet
higher to the north of this property. Arby's contention is that because their building will be sitting in a
"hole", they will not be as visible as they should be. Therefore, they want to construct a 2 ft. berm in lieu
of the required 3.5 ft. screening. Green stated that a 2 ft. berm would still have the greenery and bushes of
the 3.5 ft. berm, but it won't be blocking people's view of the restaurant. He explained that Arby's is not
a destination place. It is a fast-food restaurant depending on drive-by business.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
�„�.'obeck asked the Petitioner if the elevations were the finished elevations. Petitioners replied yes, they were
obtained from the final engineering plans.
,��
ZBA - Arby's - Octc�ber 4, 1993 Page 4
Christensen asked the Petitioner for the finished floor elevation. Petitioner Green said he thought it was
'61.57. Christensen then asked for the curb elevation. Petitioner Green said he thought that was 759.00.
`'Christensen then stat ed that the floor would be approximately 2 ft. above the curb.
Lobaito explained that there was a difference of 3 ft. The curb elevation goes up as you travel south on
Route 31, from 759 to 762.
Kleemann added that berms are created as noise reducers as well as protection against blowing debris and
headlight glare. He also stated that the Pepe's live very close to the proposed site.
Chairman Semrow asked Mr. & Mrs. Pepe to tell the Board approximately how close they live to this site.
Mrs. Pepe stated that it was approximately 170 ft.
Semrow remarked that cars passing through the drive-through will shine their lights across the back lot of
the property and probably would affect the Pepe's property.
Kleemann stated that was why the 3.5 ft. berm was a requirement.
Tobeck suggested to the Petitioner the possibility of raising the foundation,removing the need for a variance.
The Petitioner said that he thought this was not a viable solution. He then asked Lobaito if this would have
an adverse affect on drainage in the area. Lobaito said he would have to research the idea and could not
answer at this time.
,`,.:hristensen stated that with a 3.5 ft. berm all Arby's was going to loose was a 4" stripe around the bottom
of the building. Petitioner Green stated that visibility was very important. They needed as much of the
building noticeable to the public as possible.
Semrow said that the cars in this parking lot could be parked in such a manner that the lights would be
shining on Route 31; a 3.5 ft. berm is not too much to ask for in terms of safety. He does not feel that 1.5
ft. is enough to quibble about. The Petitioner then stated that he would rather not have a berm. Green said
that Arby's has to let the pubic know they are there. Semrow said he did not think that a berm was going
to make or break their business.
Tobeck stated that she feels Arby's has nothing to worry about. They are the only restaurant on that
corner; if shoppers are hungry they will go there to eat. A 3.5 ft. berm or a 2 ft. berm will not make a
difference.
Semrow asked Petitioner Green if he had anything further to say. All Mr. Green wanted to state was that
Arby's was anxious to come to McHenry, they are sincere in their desires and they promise to be a good
neighbor. They would like the City of McHenry to return the courtesy.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE OBTECTORS
Mr. Pepe asked Petitioner Green how tall the roof of the building was. The Petitioner said it was
�pproximately 10 ft. He then asked the Petitioner how tall the average car was in their parking lot. The
�etitioner answer 5 ft. Mr. Pepe asked the Petitioner why a 3.5 ft. berm would be harmful to business when
the view would be obstructed by cars. Mr. Pepe went on to say that he and his wife have nothing against
Arby's. They are in favor of the "adult-preference menu." However, they do not want to be bothered by
ZBA - Arby's - October 4, 1993 Page 5
headlights from cars in the Arby's parking lot. They also want to make sure that this parcel is used
�propriately. Mr. Pepe said that if Arby's has to squeeze their restaurant on to this parcel, perhaps it is not
�uitable for this use. They are concerned and want the property in the City of McHenry to be used
responsibly.
With nothing further to say by the Board or Objectors, Chairman Semrow suggested that a motion for each
point be heard separately.
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Christensen,seconded by Dixon that the ZBA recommend to the City Council that a conditional
use to permit the construction and operation of a drive-through establishment be granted; and that the
Approval Criteria for Conditional Use, Table 31, pages 357-358 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck
Voting Nay: Swierk
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Motion carried 6-1
�Vlotion by Kleemann, seconded by Adamson to recommend to the City Council the approval of the
�ariance for an 11 ft. rear yard setback instead of 15 ft. required by ordinance; and that the Approval Criteria
for Variances, Table 32, pages 376-377 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck
Voting Nay: Christensen, Swierk
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
Motion carried 5-2
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Swierk to recommend to the City Council to deny the variance
allowing a 2 ft. berm instead of the required 3.5 ft. screening and insure that the Petitioner meet the criteria
of Table 32, pages 376-377 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck
Voting Nay: None
Not Voting: None
Abstaining: None
Absent: None
'vlotion carried 7-0
�.
�
ia��o�yo ��:� tr31� ts�0 'Ltsyt� �k'Gl:t AL K�Mh:U I F:� IgJ blp'lib(d'L
OCT-�9-199GS RfB=59 FRQ�1 CITY � MC�EirRY P4VB&Z TO 9t3i289$�38 P.0?
ZBA-Arby's-Octobe�r 4, 1993 p� 6
� ,�',��QUR11�iV7' '
Motlou br�leemana� �ccoad�ed by Chriscettaea ca► r�cesa this be�riag sa 5:50 p.m.
Votin� Ay� Adam�oa, Cluitt�sea, Dizoa�I�kem�t, Semro�r� S,vierk,�'obar]c
v�x�►: rro�
Not vacin� None
Abaaiain� Nor►e
Ab�ear. Noae
Motion carri«! y-0. �mrinj .va� rece�ed at 8:54 p.�na.
R�espoct£ullr subm;aed,
� '�'1
Hsnry Rr, Ch�irm�aa
`- Zoaia tir+� of ApPea4
� A�d�,Zoe�ia�Ba�ed oE App�lt�,P1oa C.ommi�tica{7).C�ty Admlaietr�wr,Direeme o(Buildie�aod?.o�oia�Publio porb
A�iai�t�aioa. Obl�tots �� �ty Eapoows� Aldorateo Re6a�eaa Copy, P�tidoaa'� Bui�er �uod Zoaio# Zanla� Pt1e,
I.�ndourk CQmmira��n Cbwir�us, Northww�HernW�4'iq Clerk F�7t Cop�.
1.�
OCT-�-1993 09�2q 312 890 2898 P.02