Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1985 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment August 20, 1985 7:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Upham, Members McGuirk, Meyer, Wagner and Alternate Member Swoboda MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Wendt STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant Zoning Official Johnson, City Attorney Locke, City Engineer Pullen, and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of Board. Chairman Upham called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. A. Ralph Senn, President of Flying Tomato, Inc. came forward to explain that he wanted to address the Board concerning a problem he has with his new business, but asked the Board to allow him to speak later in the meeting when others from his company had arrived. Mr. Wagner made a motion to postpone Agenda Item 2 until later in the meeting; Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITBM N0. 3: Approval of Minutes - meeting of July 16, 1985. Mr. Wagner pointed out a typographical error on page 2 ("that" should be "than") and with that change Mr. Upham moved to approve the minutes with Mr. Wagner seconding the motion which carried unanimously (5-O). AGBNDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to Table A, The District Use Schedule, Ordinance 850, requiring a 25 foot front setback for construction of a carport to be 16'5" from the front property line at the residence at 1201 Walton. Applicants are Mr. A Mrs. J. Loupot. Mrs. Kee explained the request, located the residence and mentioned a letter from the applicant and a letter from surrounding property owners which had been included in the packets. Bob Leland, Landscape Contractor for the applicant came forward to clarify the request. He was sworn in and pointed out the proposed structure is open on all sides except for the support posts and thus would be a "canopy structure" rather than a carport as it is commonly considered. Mrs. J. Loupot was sworn in and stated she prefers not. to move the proposed carport back because doing so would destroy existing grass and a flower bed, and she said she only wants a cover for the car rather than a regular garage. 1 ZBA MINUTES 8-20-85 • Mrs. Kee stated the proposal constitutes both a structure and a carport, and as such would not be exempt from the setback requirements. Mr. Swoboda asked when a 15 foot front setback is allowed and Mrs. Kee explained that is acceptable when there is approved rear access to the lot. Mr. McGuirk said there appears to be a ready alternative as pointed out in the staff report, and there do not appear to be any other encroachments along Walton, and he would be hesitant to allow one at this residence. Mrs. Loupot came forward again and pointed out that their lot goes through to Williams Street, but actually they do not have rear access because a driveway to Williams Street has never been built as it is too great a distance (the length of one city block). Mr. McGuirk pointed out that the alternative is to move the carport back to comply and Mrs. Loupot replied that would involve tearing up a newly constructed patio. Mr. Upham again explained the limitations under which this Board must function. Mr. Leland came forward again to explain the layout as proposed is to maintain the normal parking area and the walkway area, and even shifting the structure back would leave it about 1 to 1- 1/2 feet into the setback. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum steback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (1)There is a ready alternative, and (2)The variance will represent a marked departure from other lots and structure configurations along Walton Street, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this • ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Meyer abstained). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to Section 7 Ordinance 850, the parking regulations, for 67 parking spaces for the construction of a 47,000 square foot 'edical clinic (Scott A White) at the southwest corner of Glenhaven Drive and University Drive. Applicants are Vic Paulos & R. W. Butler. Mrs. Kee located the tract of land, explained the parking variance requested is actually for 68 spaces rather than 67 as is shown on the agenda. She explained there is a gully crossing along the very rear of the property running in basically a north/south direction, but the applicant is proposing to fill in this gully. She suggested possible alternatives could include reducing the total square footage of the building, building a multi-story facility, and/or purchasing additional land to provide more area for parking. Vic Paulos of R. B. Butler & Co. was sworn in and explained there are 3 people in the audience who represent Scott & White, and he then introduced them to the Board. Michael Bukosky of Temple, Texas was sworn in and stated that due to the nature of this business,~they feel that the additional spaces which have already been added will make the total parking available fall into direct line with that provided at the Scott & White Clinics in Killeen, Belton and Waco, and will be more than adequate. He pointed out that of the 47,000 square feet in the building, many will house supportive services and will not be direct patient areas. He said the traffic flow will be controlled by a computerized appointment system and the result • will be a steady flow of patients without a long waiting period. Finally, he said they had worked hard with the contractors to maintain as much of the natural terrain and trees as possible, as it is a beautiful tract of land, and this request 2 ZBA MINUTES 8-20-85 • for variance to the parking requirements is one of the results of that effort. Mr. Swoboda asked how many doctors would be working in this clinic and Mr. Bukosky answered that there would be plans for a total of 30 doctors, but they would never all be there at once, and the peak number of physicians there would be 20-25, each with one patient in examining room and perhaps one each maximum in the waiting room. He went on to explain the parking to square foot ratio in the other clinics. Mrs. Meyer said there was perhaps public transportation available in those other cities, after which a Mr. Jerry Pickle, Assistant General Counsel for Scott & White was sworn in and stated that there is virtually no public transportation in any city with exception of Waco, and even there the clinic was located outside the area served by public transporatation•. More discussion followed regarding just how this computerized appointment system works in other locations. Mr. Upham asked how many employees would be in the clinic at various times of the day, and Mr. Bukosky replied that there would be approximately 3 full time employees per physician, and the clinic would be regularly staffed for perhaps 22-25 physicians. Mrs. Meyer asked where the hardship is and Mr. Pickle replied that the hardship is that the required number of parking spaces for this 47,000 square foot clinic will not fit on the tract of land with the clinic. Mrs. Meyer pointed out there is a solution available; that they could purchase more land or build a smaller building. Mr. Pickle said they do not own any other land, and much of that area is zoned for residential development. He went on to say the 47,000 square foot building which as planned represents the maximum building the clinic would like to put there, and also the size necessary for the operation here. He went on to explain that the nature of this business, which is different from other clinics because of the • specialization of the physicians and the computerized appointments, and is also different from retail businesses. Mrs. Kee explained that the required parking for this clinic is the same for all medical and dental clinics in this city, and is different from retail businesses. Mr. Pickle said he does not know where the required figure comes from, but he believes given the way Scott & White operates, the traffic flow can be managed; that this is a multi-specialty clinic and different from the average family clinic practice relative to traffic, as some of these doctors do not ever see a patient. Mr. McGuirk asked what the Froject Review Committee reported on this plan and Mrs. Kee replied that the P.R.C. has not had a chance to review the plan to date, but that a revised site plan had been received and the review was scheduled for August 21st. In response to Mr. McGuirk's question, she went on to say that she does not know if this building can be redesigned on this tract of land to meet all the requirements, or not. Mr. Pickle said they had tried to balance it out, and Scott & White wants to locate here and they will work with the city. Mr. McGuirk said that it has been the experience of the city that when parking falls short on large developments, there seems to be parking problems, therefore he is extremely reluctant to grant this variance, and he cannot see how ordinance requirements are a hardship to this property. Mr. Wagner said that when planning a project is still on the table it's hard to grant a variance when the plans themselves can be changed. He went on to say that this Board really has nothing to relate to regarding the size of this facility and its impact on the community, he because of this he would find it difficult to grant a variance. • Mr. Bukosky said it has been Scott & White's experience that there is no need for that much parking, adding that they do not want to experience a shortage of parking which would upset their patients, as their business is service and if they cannot 3 ZBA MINUTES 8-20-85 • accommodate the demands on that service, they will be out of business. Mrs. Meyer said she likes the computerized/clinic concept, and everything else which has been presented regarding the operation of that business, but the Board's decision tonight must be based on hardship or unique and special conditions of the land, and so far nothing has been shown to exemplify either. Mr. Wagner said this item could be tabled until after the P.R.C. review which could clarify pertinent questions regarding landscaping, with the option of calling a special meeting of this Board if necessary to rule following that review. Mr. Bukosky said he really did not know if they could get an additional 68 parking spaces on that tract, and if not, what would be gained by tabling this item. Mr. McGuirk said he believes there is no alternative but to table the item until the exact number of spaces can be determined. Mrs. Kee stated that staff has a problem as to what review should come first, the ZBA or the PRC, and this particular item had been set up this way because the ZBA meeting came first. Mr. Upham said this ZBA should be the last to rule because any modification to the site plan could offer a different consideration by this Board. Mrs. Kee reminded the Board that regardless of action taken by the P&Z or the PRC, this Board still has its charge. Mrs. Meyer agreed, stating that the same criteria must be met whenever a decision is reached. Mr. Wagner stated that the computer information might indicate a change in requirements. Mr. Swoboda agreed, stating that might be the unique and special condition. Mrs. Meyer clarified by stating that the unique condition must be "of the land". Mr. Bukosky said that if the maximum number of physicians in residence at one time • is 22, each seeing one patient with another in the examining room, a maximum of 44 patients would be at the clinic at any one time, and many of the physicians due to their type of specialization would see no more than 5 or 6 patients per day, there is no way the parking lot can be full at any one time with this type of integrated health care system. He went on to explain that the "drop-in" rate is very low as this definitely is not an emergency clinic. Mrs. Meyer again said the unique condition "of the land" is not there. Vic Paulos again came forward to explain that there is a big ditch running through the tract, and the plans are to build over part of that ditch and preserve as many trees as possible and try to utilize the natural conditions as much as possible. Mr. Pickle then went up to the site plan on the wall to point out exactly what is planned. Mr. Upham said that if that property was topographically unsuitable at the time of purchase, the topography now does not represent a hardship. Emil Ogdon, 2804 Brothers came forward and was sworn in and stated that as a citizen of this city he believes this non-profit, international clinic will bring more affordable medical care to this community, and would be a benefit to the community, and a decision for a variance should be a little easier to reach because of that. Louis Hecox, 300 Kyle came forward and was sworn in and stated that in his opinion, this Board should be able to deviate from this ordinance in this case. Mrs. Meyer explained that the conditions are granted by Legislature under which the Board can grant a variance. Mr. McGuirk pointed out that there must be a "unique • and special condition of the land". Mr. Hecox said that if they do not need the parking, we are imposing hardships on them. He went on to say that the property they are trying to put a clinic on is a bad piece of property as it has a gully 4 ZBA MINUTES 8-20-85 • running through it, and they want to follow a plan which follows the natural drainage in the area and retain the natural beauty. Mr. Ogdon stated that perhaps the hardship is putting in a building of this size to serve the market area, and there is not enough room for a building this size and parking to meet the requirements for it in this lot. Mr. Wagner then offered a motion to authorize 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 building will be constructed in reclaimed land in order to provide for maximum parking and adequate landscaped appearance; and, (2)Any further fill-in would jeopardize the natural drainage inherent in the area, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being that the ordinance requirement of 1 space per 150 square foot of gross floor space does not take into account the specialized medical services being proposed by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swoboda. Mr. McGuirk asked how many this would be for and Mr. Wagner said the agenda says 67, but apparently that was an error, and it should be for 68 spaces. Votes on the motion were cast and the motion carried by a vote of 4-1 with Mrs. Meyer voting against it. Chairman Upham then declared a 5 minute recess. After the recess, the meeting was reconvened. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for variance to • Section 7 Ordinance 850, the parking regulations, for 7 parking spaces to allow 20 seats in a liquor store at 817 University Drive. Applicant is Gary Martin. Mrs. Kee explained this request, stating that the applicant must have 8 seats inside the building according to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in order to receive the type license for which he has applied, and wants 12 seats outside on a patio. She went on to explain that the applicant had not addressed the seats indoors because he was not, at the time of filing for the variance, aware of the necessity of including them. She then identified area uses, property lines and setback lines, adding that according to a parking survey made of this shopping center several years ago there are not enough parking spaces on the lot for the center, therefore it is a non-conforming shopping center. She then referred to similar requests and results made by the Board in the area in the past. Gary Martin, 3217 Plantation Road, Austin, Texas was sworn in and explained that he has existing business locations, adding that the TABC requires "adequate indoor seating" just to get the required license, adding emphatically that indoor on- premise consumption is not encouraged. He went on to explain that other business locations have drive-in service only (which is acceptable) due to interpretation by local TABC offices. He then explained that this building exists, and there is no room for over 1 parking space on the lot, but that Mr. Gatti's is alloting 10 spaces for this business, and Mr. Culpepper, owner of the shopping center, has allotted 3 spaces. He went on to explain that even though this shopping center is non-conforming because it does not have the required number of parking spaces, he has never seen the parking lot even close to being full. He then went on to • explain that because of the location of this business, he anticipates that much of his business will be walk-on from the campus directly across the street. 5 ZBA 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 he 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 ?) 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 6 • ZBA MINUTES 8-20-85 determine if unique and special conditions are still being met, because conditions could change so much that the requirements to grant a variance are no longer met. Mr. Wagner said that this variance would not be adding to the non-conformity of the existing shopping center, therefore he made a motion to amend the original motion to show that the variance is being granted to Gary Martin for the operation of The Igloo. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion to amend. Votes were cast on the motion to amend and carried by a vote of 4-1 (Meyer against). Mr. Wagner then offered another motion to amend the amended motion to show that the variance is being granted for the purpose of the required indoor seating only. Mrs. Meyer seconded that motion to amend. Votes were cast and the chairman ruled that the second amendment failed because the voting was 3-2 for (McGuirk & Swoboda against) and he explained that a variance required a 4-1 vote to pass. Votes were cast on the original motion as amended to state a variance is granted to Gary Martin for the operation of The Igloo. The amended motion carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Upham abstained). Mrs. Kee asked if approval of a motion to amend a motion needed 4 votes in favor to pass and City Attorney Locke replied that only a simple majority was required to pass a motion to amend a motion. She then instructed the Board to bring the item back up on the floor adding that someone who voted against the motion should do this. Mr. Upham revised his vote from an abstention to a negative vote, and then moved to bring the item back to the floor. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. a • Mr. McGuirk then read the motion as amended: "I move to authorize 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, that cross parking agreements can be obtained from local merchants, that the variance be granted to Gary Martin for the operation of The Igloo and that the variance be granted for indoor seating only. Votes were cast on this motion as amended and carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 7: Consideration of a request for variance to Section 7 Ordinance 850, the parking regulations, for 12 parking spaces to allow 36 additional seats at the Universal Grocery at 110 Nagle. Applicant is Nelson Liu. Mrs. Kee explained the request, located the land and stated the reason this request for variance is before this Board is that the Fire Department notified the Zoning Official that additional seats had been added in this grocery store/snack shop. She then referred to the letter which had been sent to the attorney for Mr. Liu indicating how many seats would be allowed with available parking, or the steps to be taken should Mr. Liu want to keep the existing seats in his store. • Ed Elmore, legal representative for the applicant was sworn in and clarified the background of this grocery store/snack shop. He passed around photos taken at this business and of the parking area (photos in file}, explained existing area uses, 7 ZBA MINUTES 8-20-85 • businesses and located specific buildings on the TAMU campus. He stated that this property is not technically in what has been defined as the "Northgate" area, but it is adjacent to it and has many of the same problems as the other older businesses in the Northgate area. He said it is unique due to its proximity to the A&M campus, adding that the Zoning Official has based the parking requirement on seats in a restaurant, but that the history of this business is that it is a grocery store with a snack store inside, and that the square footage of the business is divided approximately 50/50. He said that from 1974-?8 it was a grocery store and from 1978 to present it has been a grocery/snack store; therefore he would appeal the interpretation of the Zoning Official that this is a restaurant, when in fact this is a grocery store and parking requirements should be figured at 1:300 sq. ft. He passed around a photo showing that the floor space is divided approximately 50/50; then passed around a different photo showing only 3 cars on the parking lot when there were 17 patrons seated indoors. Mr. Elmore went on to say the question is whether this is in fact still a grocery store as it has been in the past, or if it has changed. Furthermore, if it has changed, why require the amount of parking specified in Section 7 of Ordinance No. 850 as protecting the neighborhood and for traffic safety, when, according to Mr. Lui, there has never been an accident involving anyone entering or leaving this property. In fact, Mr. Lui believes that any additional parking might encourage driving to this business and thus, increase the problem. Mr. Elmore then spoke of two hardships compliance would impose as being (1}This business has over 30 years use as a grocery store and additional spaces in an already developed area would impose a hardship on Mr. Liu and the other tenents of this center; and, (2)Removal • of seats would impose an inconvenience to the citizens who would either have to eat their food outside or take it to the St. Mary's property to eat. He then stated that the last seats were added to this store in 1982; that there were 48 seats put in in 1978 and in 1982 seats were increased to 54. He continued by stating that the building is leased from Mrs. Boyett and the lease provides a parking area which is non-exclusive. He stated that 80~ of the business is between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., that 15X of the business is on breaks between 9 & 10 a.m. and 2 & 3 p.m., with only 5~ of the business coming after 5 p.m.; and therefore, this business does not impact other tenants for long periods of time. He asked the Board to please consider whether this is a restaurant or a grocery store which requires 1 space per 300 sq. feet and would require 6 spaces plus 1 for 2 employees for a total of 8 required spaces, and pointing out that there are 9 spaces with a 3 foot gap between barriers and perhaps by restriping the lot and reducing the size of the spaces to the legal size, perhaps more spaces could be provided. Mr. Wagner asked how the parking is enforced and Mr. Elmore said there is a sign which says "Customers Only" as well as tow warning signs, which means that parking is available there for all the businesses in the center, but is not available for student parking. Mrs. Kee said she had never been under the impression that her interpretation is being questioned, but she thinks that when seats are available, it becomes a restaurant. Mr. Elmore asked if Skaggs is considered a restaurant. Mrs. Kee replied that the interpretation is made determined by the amount of floor space devoted to a specific use within the overall operation, and in this case, 56 seats take up what appears to be a good portion of this store. Mr. Upham said this • question should have been brought up in 1978 when seats were first put in. Mr. McGuirk said that although this business is technically not in Northgate, it 8 ~..,, • ZBA MINUTES 8-20-85 has all the Northgate problems and perhaps should be considered to be in Northgate, but unlike most Northgate businesses, this business has parking available which is not fully utilized. Mr. Wagner said that if this has gone on since 1982, there appears to be no problem. Mr. Elmore pointed out that in fact, most of the surrounding people (St. Mary's in particular} have urged Mr. Lui to request the variance. Mr. McGuirk referred to this as being a request for variance to parking requirements at a restaurant, and then made a motion to authorize 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)That this location, while not within the Northgate district possesses most of the Northgate problems which are not found in other commercial districts; and, (2)That the available parking is not presently utilized, a situation competely unique even to Northgate, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being that the applicant cannot supply the customary amenities of his business and that increased pedestrian congestion in the available parking area is likely without this variance, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Meyer and carried 4-0-1 (Upham abstained). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 8: Consideration of a request for variance to Section 7-B.3.1 Ordinance 850, the requirement to mark parking spaces on the surface, on a proposed gravel, commercial parking • lot at the northeast corner of Church and Nagle. Applicant is Skipper Harris. • Mrs. Kee explained that this tenant is leasing the land from the Boyetts, described the existing zoning and uses in the area and pointed out that the request concerns the marking of parking spaces on the surface, further explaining that a gravel surface has been approved by the City Engineer for this lot and striping on that surface would be very hard, if not impossible. She pointed out the applicant is not in the audience, but the owner of the property is. Mr. Boyett (the owner) stated that he could only answer questions, but could not explain the request. Mr. Upham stated that this Board customarily has tabled requests in the past when the applicant is not in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Wagner then made a motion to table the item due to the absence of the applicant. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Upham then announced that he would HEAR VISITORS, specifically Mr. Senn, who requested postponing this Agenda Item No. 2 until later in the meeting. Ralph Senn was sworn in and explained that he had been made aware of a problem this afternoon at approximately 3 p.m. regarding the allowed seating in his restaurant (formerly Bogie's), The Flying Tomato. He pointed out that the problem seems to be the understanding of the number of seats which will be allowed, and asked that the Board hold a special meeting in order that he can finalize the decision and get on with this new business in the Northgate district when the students are arriving on campus. The Board agreed to hold a special meeting to hear this case at 7:30 a.m. on September 3, 1985. 9 ZBA MINUTES AGBNDA ITBM N0. 9: Other business. 8-20-85 Mrs. Kee informed the Board that the Director of Planning would like for them to consider having more than one regular meeting a month in the future. Board agreed that perhaps the time had come to do this, and chose to hold regular meetings of the Zoning Board of Adjustment on the first and third Tuesdays of each month, if requests warranted the meetings. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 10: BMBRGBNCY AGBNDA ITEM: Closed Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. [6252-17(2)B]. City Attorney addressed the Board in closed session, after which the meeting was reopened to the public. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 11: Adjourn. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Wagner seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Ch~mac~, ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones ~, f~~%----- ack -Up am 10 ,~. ~o~~~ ZONIIJG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS ' Variances: From Section 11-B,5 I move to deny a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations / minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 2 . P-yF 1~i42/~~' w/[.G QFf~.~ivT /9- ~9~'~r0 ~~PA~i uRF ova ar~/~ 3. ~-~e~J~ ~r ~,..A~V1~ srnu~r-,u~~41~/F/~u~rlG~vs i4-LOa~' ~t/A~7'1~./ .rT. 4. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Th i s motion was made by ~`, /? M(,(~~J rlZ/'~ Seconded by /4(s~~~C. Th~~ariance was denied by the following vote: _ ~ - p - r ignature ~ Date • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to auto ho~ize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations minimum setback (Table A) ~--~~ 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 dis ict C' • ~ 4 ..-~. ~ ~v'V~,. Q'v'.:~" owl F~ ,~ ~/ ` ' , Y 1 ~` ~ ;"~ ~A. ,~ ^y~--- ~~ ~. 4~/ 1 ~~ ~ ~' ands h t t sp i r i t s Ord i ance s e obse ved nd substantial ~ ~Q.,~,,~ ~1 justl a donee su ject to he following 1 imitations: ~/~„ ~, nn~w _ n ~ ^ G v"y~„ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would res it in u necessary .hardship to this appii~e~nt being: 2. • 3. 4. This motion was Seconded by The variance wa Y r~fi tea 'by t te: ~d V _~ Da e air Signature L~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-6.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations minimum setback (Table A) „parking requirements (Section 7) • c ~~ 1 ~~~tK ~ swo~o~/~ 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: 2. ~~'`'''9z`~` 3 • ,9.DTi9 cC-'•v~ /~~9~/~l~' Ir q/f~/Gf~ Z~°' 4. ~. 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary .hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: l . _ 7~i~4T 2. - . - ,. - ., ~ ~ , - ,.- ~ c..ysv ~ 1~l/ice O ~d L~X~`L 3 • T~~i~ !/~9,~~/~Nr ,~ ~~~ TD G. ~'I r~ T~t'= 4Rr-~Q,~c1n/ GIB I~[.o~ at _ . I This motion was made by /~f~'~r'~/J2/~ Seconded by MF The variance was granted by the following vote: ~~ J N.kfY~ M ~~i~~y L ~"Ic~v-eK -.S Y w~~ ~~ ~rfy~it, -s y ,~,._ lrli L ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section Il-B,5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations / minimum setback (Table A) D' 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: ~• ~ ' ~OMPL~T~L y 5• 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary ,hardship to this a plicant being: T'`/~T T~/e~ A~l°L/L nIT f/~i+~tia s PPL ~ 1%YE cy ,Bur~NFss r~~o -srn~~ey ~+~,~,v~, nYr~T ~NC.2'-~!7=.U ~cwG~'s~3)oN ~~/ryf ~4yA~G,¢,y(<c / and such that the spirit of this ~rdinance shall be observed and justice donee subject to the following limitations: rrs o,F His 9~riu~ ~s ~/,~~Ly w~r,~oui. subs~~ is l T.~./1~ ~ARIA~ 1. 2. 3. 4. Th i s motion was made by /Lf ~'(J~/C'/~' ' Seconded by ~ -QO~ The variance was granted by the followin vote: D to 9 -~ - +~.. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • • GUEST REGISTER DATE AUGUST 20, 1985 NAME 1. V 2. ~rr 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. ADDRESS ~.~ 6-cam t"~r .~tr't ~ P~ `~'~ ~ S G~~~J l9 G.ldd~/v ~•-..- r, ; r -~ ..~Y. ~ `:~, ~ ~, ~ C. ~ ~ 13 . ~Li ~fl 3 Zt/ ~ t ~~ ~ 7-~ . 14 . ~ ~ ~ ~x 3q z ~-- S . ~ ls. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23- • 24. 25. r ~ ~'