HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report_Page_06ZBA MINUTES
8-20-85
Mr. McGuirk asked where employees will park and Mr. Martin said they will park
right behind IHOP and the Mobile station. Mr. Upham asked how these spaces are
allocated and Mr. Martin said that he has a lease agreement which includes them,
but he does not know if any specific spaces have been allocated. Mr. Upham pointed
out that this shopping center is already almost 200 spaces short, therefore there
seems to be no more spaces to be allocated. Mr. Martin said lie seems to be rather
like the people on the agenda just before this - that the lot is never full even
though the ordinance requirements are not met. ,
Mr. McGuirk asked where staff stands on the actual site plan and Mrs. Kee replied
that the Director of Planning has reviewed it, and there are no real changes being
proposed. Mr. McGuirk asked about a previous request on the McDonald's tract and
Mrs. Kee replied that the Board tabled the item and the applicant then withdrew his
request. Mrs. Meyer asked for clarification, stating that it is her understanding
this variance is required because seating must be provided before this man can get
his license from the State, adding that she has problems with people drinking and
driving. Mr. Wagner said that even if the outdoor seating is deleted, a variance
is still being requested for the required indoor seating; and he wonders if some
kind of cross -parking agreement can be required. Mrs. Kee reminded the Board that
Mr. Martin's lease says Mr. Gatti's will sublease 10 spaces to this property. Mr.
Wagner asked how that would work and Mrs. Kee replied she does not know. General
discussion followed concerning how patrons can reach the parking spaces and then
Mr. Wagner asked City Engineer Pullen to come forward. Mr. Pullen was sworn in and
replied to Mr. Wagner's question regarding the proposed use, curb cuts, etc. on
this property, and Mr. Pullen replied that his office has no problems with this
proposal.
Discussion followed concerning the number of spaces this applicant actually needed
and what he really wanted, with Mrs. Meyer pointing out that the problem is that a
variance runs with the land, and this Board would be granting spaces forever for X-
number of -spaces.
Mr. McGuirk made a motion to autorize a variance to the parking requirements
(Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not
normally found in like districts: (1)The leased land contains no parking spaces at
all and (2)Adjacent parking is available, and because a strict enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being the requestor would be unable to utilize the property and such that the
spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to
the following limitations: (1)That the variance be restricted to 4 parking spaces
and that crossparking agreements can be obtained from local merchants. Mrs. Meyer
seconded that motion. Mr. Swoboda asked who could grant this applicant those 4
spaces. Mr. McGuirk said the owner could. Mr. Swoboda pointed out that entire
shopping center is in non -conformity. Mr. Wagner suggested an amendment to the
motion to make the variance in the name of Mr. Martin or the name of the business
for the duration of that business only. Mrs. Meyer said the Legal department has
said the variance can be conditioned for a length of time for that business but at
the end of the time period the variance must be extended. City Attorney Locke was
sworn in and stated that a variance can be tied in to the lease, but it will not
expire at the end of that lease if the use has not changed. She would rather a
variance be tied to a Building Permit or a Certificate of Occupancy, and once the
variance is used, the question comes up as to what is vested. She went: on to say
that if a use for that building has changed, then the variance can be reviewed to
G