Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6675-A Staff AnalysisJuly 30, 2001 Item No.: A File No.: Z -6675-A Owner: Dena Yancey Trujillo Revocable Trust Address: 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. Description: Lots 9 and 10, Block 25, Newton's Addition Zoned: c-3 Variance Re ested• Variances are requested from tht parking provisions of Section 36-502, the development criteria of Section 36-301 and the sign provisions of Section 36-555. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Two-story commercial building Proposed Use of Proper Two-story commercial building, with addition of outdoor "cafe" Staff Reort: A. Public Works Issues: No issues. B. Staff Analysis: On May 24, 1999, the Board of Adjustment granted several variances permitting the existing building at 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. to be expanded by the construction of a second floor. The building square footage was increased from 3,725 square feet to 8,121 square feet. The variance allowed the second floor to maintain the west side yard setback of 4.11 feet and to reduce the rear yard setback to 11 feet. Rear and side yard setbacks of 15 feet and 25 feet respectively were required for this site. A parking variance was approved, allowing the site to have only 16 parking spaces. The code required 27 spaces, based on general commercial occupancy July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) requirement of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. At the time of the original approval, there were two primary issues of concern that were raised by staff and addressed by the Board. The properties adjacent to the north of the site are occupied by single-family homes. Staff was concerned that the effect of the reduced rear yard setback be mitigated by reducing or eliminating any uses on the back side of the commercial building that might impact the residential properties. Consequently, the project was approved subject to there being no doors or windows in the rear of the second floor other than for a fire escape door and a small window in the owner's office. Staff's conceFn related to the parking variance was the possibility of a restaurant occupying the site. The parking variance was based on uses that require a parking ratio of 1/300 square feet. Restaurants require triple that parking requirement; 1/100 square feet. Consequently, the Board imposed the condition that there not be a restaurant in the building without further application to and approval by the Board. The applicant has begun operation of Cafe des Artistes, a "wine cafe" and special event center on the property. The business primarily involves use of a landscaped patio/terrace located on the back side of the building. It is described as a drop-in place to read a book, magazine or newspaper, drink a cup of coffee, glass of tea, soft drink or beer, taste wine and have a snack to eat. Most foods will be catered in from other merchants such as bakeries, delicatessens and outside caterers although some food will be prepared on site. The patio/terrace will also be used for special events such as wedding receptions and art showings. A separate art gallery on the second floor of the building will also be utilized for these special events as needed. The applicant is requesting variances to allow use of the outdoor patio/terrace area and a portion of the second floor of the building for the wine -cafe and special event center. The applicant has also requested a sign variance but no specifics were provided. As such, that issue cannot be discussed by staff. Staff does have concerns about the proposed wine- cafe/special event center. Although the Board's previous action specifically prohibited a "restaurant" within the 2 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) building, it is clear that the intent was to allow only those uses that have a parking requirement of one space per 300 square feet. The wine -cafe falls within the code definitions of "eating place without drive-in service" or "bar, lounge and tavern." The definitions of each are: Eating place without drive-in service means an establishment where food is available to the general public primarily for consumption within a structure on the premises or which by design of physical facilities or by type of service and packaging permits or encourages the purchase of prepared, ready -to -eat foods intended for consumption off the premises, and where the consumption of food in motor vehicles on the premises is neither permitted nor encouraged. Bar, lounge or tavern means an establishment, the primary activity of which is the sale and consumption on the premises of beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages, and where any food service is secondary to the sale of beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages. This use may include a facility for dancing. The parking requirement for "restaurants (and similar establishments serving food and beverages)" is one space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. There is limited on -street parking available in the immediate area without involving the nearby residential streets. A complaint has been made by a neighborhood resident that persons attending the site are parking on Harrison and Newton Streets and a nearby residential alley. The applicant has stated that two nearby banks have given permission for use of their parking lots after hours. No proof of any written/long-term agreement has been provided. Aside from the issue of parking, the use of the outdoor patio/terrace area is of considerable concern to staff. Allowing activities such as those proposed by the applicant to take place in the reduced rear yard area will no doubt negatively impact the adjacent residential properties. It is clear that the original variance was granted predicated 3 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) upon there being no development or use in the rear of the building that might affect the adjacent residences. The C-3 zoning district development criteria require all uses to take place within the enclosed building. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances, as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 25, 2001) Robert Robinson, Jr. and Dena Yancey were present representing the item. There were several persons present, both in support, and in opposition. Two letters of objection had been received and forwarded to the Board. Staff presented the item and stated that, as a result of continued negotiation with the applicant, a compromise had been very nearly reached. Staff referred to a letter dated June 21, 2001, from Mr. Robinson, in which he outlined specific agreements regarding the operation of the wine cafe and special event business. Staff stated that there were only 2 points of disagreement; the use of the outside music and the maximum number of people permitted on the terrace (wine cafe). Staff recommended no outside music. Mr. Robinson suggested no outside music audible beyond the premises. Staff recommended a maximum of 75 persons on the terrace. Mr. Robinson suggested a maximum of 150 person. Mr. Robinson addressed the Board and made reference to points in his letter. He emphasized that there would be no full service kitchen. He stated Ms. Yancey had been using the terrace for over a year and no complaints had been made. Mr. Robinson reiterated Ms. Yancey's desire to have soft music on the terrace. He stated Ms. Yancey was sensitive to the fact that the terrace was adjacent to residential properties. He stated Ms. Yancey had used good judgment in the past. Mr. Robinson asked the Board to allow the use of soft, outside music. He stated the music would cease if it results in complaints. Mr. Robinson stated his request to have a maximum of 150 persons. He stated the Fire Marshall's office had determined the area would accommodate more than that, based on the number of exits. Mr. Robinson presented photographs of the area. Mr. Robinson presented agreements from two area banks allowing use of their parking lots, after bank business hours. Fred Gray asked how many seats were set-up for the wine cafe. Mr. Robinson responded that as many as 70 seats could be set up. 4 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. Norm Floyd began to read point -by -point from Mr. Robinson's letter, for the benefit of those present in objection. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, gave those persons a copy of the letter. In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Robinson stated there was no grease trap because there is no cooking; there is no stove or oven. Fred Gray asked how many parking spaces were available at the two banks. Mr. Robinson responded that approximately 22 spaces were available. w During the ensuing discussion, it was determined that the patio terrace area was approximately 1,000 square feet in area which would require 10 parking spaces. Beverly Wittenberg, of 5207 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. She stated Ms. Yancey's terrace business had disrupted her use and enjoyment of her own property. Ms. Wittenberg cited examples of occasions when loud music and crowd noise from the terrace negatively impacted her. Ms. Wittenberg stated the proposed use seemed to be cloaked as a "ladies' tea room" when in fact it was much more. Ms. Wittenberg stated the terrace was being marketed as a place for dinners, not just a wine cafe. She asked how use of the area could ever be monitored by the City, if it was approved. Ms. Wittenberg stated there had been music on the terrace area late at night. Fred Gray asked Ms. Wittenberg if there was any level of activity on the terrace that she could support. Ms. Wittenberg responded that it would have to be much smaller than that proposed by Ms. Yancey. Michael and Jennifer Selig, of 5219 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. Ms. Selig voiced concerns about crowd noise, particularly late at night. She stated she was about to have a baby and the baby's room was located on the back side of her house, closest to the terrace area. Ms. Selig made note of several occasions when noise from the terrace disrupted her. She asked if allowing use of the terrace would not impact her property value. Ms. Selig stated that any use of the terrace area should be limited to Monday -Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Cindy Harrell, of 5215 Stonewall, spoke in opposition. Ms. Harrell stated that Ms. Yancey's contractor tore down a hedge row that lined the rear of her property, thus eliminating some sound barrier. Ms. Harrell stated she received only an apology for the �1 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) removal of the hedges, which were on her property. She stated the dense hedgerow was replaced with sparse plantings of trees. Ms. Harrell made reference to conditions imposed when the original variances were granted. She stated the "fire escape" stars at the rear of the building were being used on a regular basis by persons going back and forth between the terrace and the gallery on the second floor of the building. She stated all other area business that have similar outdoor areas have those areas on the front of the business; facing the street, not adjacent to nearby residences. Ms. Harrell stated crowd noise and music were audible beyond the fence and lighting from the terrace "bleeds through" the fence into her yard. Norm Floyd asked Mr. Robinson about the grill on the terrace.. Mr. Robinson responded that the grill could be used by terrace users but it is not used on a daily basis. Mr. Floyd commented that the issue seemed not to be necessarily "what" but "how much." Mr. Robinson stated that there would not be big crowds on the terrace every day; that they would typically be on weekends after 7:00 p.m. or during the day when the cafe would be closed. He reiterated that it was Ms. Yancey's desire to be a good neighbor. He stated Ms. Yancey had worked with the neighbors and was unaware that what she had done was a violation. He apologized if there had been loud music in the past. Mr. Robinson "assured" the Board that Ms. Yancey would operate her business so that it would not distress the neighbors. Norm Floyd asked if the Board could approve the use for a specific length of time, with further Board review at that point. Staff responded that the Board could do so. Michael Selig stated that allowing any outdoor use would negatively impact his family. Anne Cockrill-Laser, of 5422 Hawthorne, stated she helped Ms. Yancey at the cafe and had never heard a complaint from the neighbors. Connie Carberry, of 1810 N. McKinley, stated she also helped Ms. Yancey. She stated there had been an occasion around Memorial Day when the people who rented the terrace invited more people than Ms. Yancey had expected, resulting in more crowd noise. She stated the grill was used by employees and she had never seen it used for the business. 6 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. Norm Floyd commented that it was easy to see why there was some question about whether the use was a restaurant. After the ensuing discussion about the possibility of calling the question, a motion was made to approve the variances subject to the agreements outlined in Mr. Robinson's June 21, 2001 letter and the following additional conditions: 1.There is to be no outside music. 2. There is to be a maximum limit of 75 patrons at any event on the terrace. 3. The approval is for a period of 1 year, after which the issue is to be reviewed by the Board. 4 - Beverly Beverly Wittenberg again raised objections. Mr. Floyd stated that the issue would be back before the Board for reconsideration in one year; if it has been a problem, it will not continue. The vote was 1 aye, 2 noes and 2 absent. Since the item failed to receive 3 votes either for or against it, it was deferred to the July 30, 2001 meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 30, 2001) Robert Robinson, Jr. and Dena Yancey were present representing the application. There were several persons present, both in support and in opposition. Numerous letters of support and of objection had been received by staff and forwarded to the Board. Staff presented the item. Chairman Ruck outlined the hearing protocol; stating each side would have a total of 20 minutes for comments and presentations. Robert Robinson addressed the Board and stated he had supporters present who wished to speak. Ellen Gray, of Country Club Blvd., stated she felt the wine cafe would be an asset to the neighborhood. She stated she had used the facility in the fall of 2000 for an event that had about 50 persons in attendance. Ms. Gray asked for approval of the variances. Sterling Cockrill, of 4801 Crestwood, stated he had been a resident of the Heights since 1925 and he felt the proposed use was a positive addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Cockrill stated 7 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) Ms. Yancey should control the number of people on the site and should limit noise and hours of operation. Mr. Robinson addressed the Board and presented a map with which he showed the neighborhood to be a mixed-use area. He outlined the use as previously described. Mr. Robinson made note of several businesses in the general area that he felt had similarities to the wine cafe; such as reduced parking and outdoor dining. He specifically mentioned Cheers, Scallions, U.S. Pizza and two banks. Mr. Robinson stated that the nearby banks had authorized Ms. Yancey to use their parking lots when the banks were not open. He showed photographs of the site and the patio area. Mr. Robinson stated that the wine cafe was a reasonable use that would have no more impact on the neighborhood than the uses he had previously mentioned. As regards noise, Mr. Robinson stated this was an established mixed use area, not a rural, undeveloped area. Mr. Robinson surmised that the wine cafe would not disrupt what "is already there." He made note of the adjacent fire station. Mr. Robinson stated that the station had responded to 509 fire alarms and 299 emergency alarms, at all hours of the day and night, last year. He stated the fire station created more noise than would emanate from the wine cafe. Mr. Robinson noted that staff had recommended a maximum of 75 persons on the patio. He stated the applicant would reduce that number to limit the maximum number of persons on the patio to 50. He stated there would be no outdoor music. Mr. Robinson stated Ms. Yancey had operated the wine cafe for over a year without any complaints. He stated Ms. Yancey had apologized to her neighbors for the couple of occasions when noise was generated by crowds on the patio. He asked the Board to weigh the issues and to ask themselves "what is fair?" Mr. Robinson stated the screening fence and the reduced number of windows in the rear of Ms. Yancey's building helped to mitigate the noise created by the use. He stated the small grill was used occasionally but that there would be no other cooking on the property. Cindy Harrell, of 5215 Stonewall, asked if the hours of operation were being reduced from what was initially proposed. Mr. Robinson responded that they were not but that the issue was open for discussion. Ms. Harrell acknowledged that the area was a mixed use neighborhood. She stated Cheers had only 4 outdoor tables and Scallions was open only 1 night a week. Ms. Harrell stated the banks closed early in the evening. She stated all the uses listed by Mr. Robinson were not adjacent to residential properties or they had limited outdoor uses. Ms. Harrell stated the Fire Department did not turn on its vehicle sirens until they were on Kavanaugh Blvd. Ms. Harrell stated the trees on Ms. 8 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) Yancey's patio were lit with small lights that were visible through the slats in the fence. She stated the building itself acted as a deflector, sending noise from the patio into her yard. Ms. Harrell referred to the original Board of Adjustment action on the site and commented that staff had tried to protect the neighborhood by limiting windows and doors on the building and by supporting other conditions. She stated neighbors never envisioned having to protect themselves from a use like this. Jennifer Selig, of 5219 Stonewall, stated no complaints were made about the wine cafe because neighbors did not know they had a right to complain. She stated it was not until they received notice of the Board of Adjustment hearing that the neighbors realized the wine cafe was a violation and not allowed. Ms.. Selig stated she bought her home knowing the fire station and Yancey's were there. She stated she did not anticipate having an outdoor restaurant in her back yard. She stated the use was prohibiting her from using her back yard. Beverly Wittenberg, of 5207 Stonewall, stated that all of the other restaurants in the area with outdoor dining have the outdoor seating oriented to the street. She stated she would not be opposed to the wine cafe if the outdoor use area was in front of the building. Ms. Wittenberg stated there had been loud events on the patio as late as 10:30 - 11:00 p.m. She stated the only apology Ms. Yancey had made was by mail, 4 days prior to this hearing. Ms. Wittenberg asked how the use could ever be monitored. Ms. Wittenberg stated she did not have a good feeling about the rules being followed since the wine cafe was begun without proper approval. She stated the wine cafe had also been found to be in violation of state Alcohol Beverage Control Board regulations. Nik Fisken, of 5208 Stonewall, stated he had heard loud noise coming from the site over Memorial Day weekend. He stated there were other neighbors who were opposed to the issue but they were unable or unwilling to come to the hearing. Michael Selig, of 5219 Stonewall Road, stated the main problem was private parties going on until 10:00 - 10:30 at night. Scott Daniel, of 5205 Kavanaugh Blvd., voiced his opposition and listed several other area residents who were also opposed to the use. He voiced concerns about noise, hours of operation and traffic. Mr. Daniel made note of the original Board of Adjustment approval and commented that there was to be no use of the area at the rear of the building. PI July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. Chairman Ruck asked the applicant to discuss the hours of operation. Mr. Robinson stated the hours, as noted in his June 21, 2001 letter. Chairman Ruck commented that "Special Events" seemed to be of primary concern. Mr. Robinson responded that they would not be every day and the applicant would not disturb the neighbors. Dena Yancey stated she would agree to whatever the Board stated and she would conform to the rules. Mr. Robinson stated the site would be monitored by the neighbors and by the City. w Chairman Ruck asked how crowd noise would be controlled at an event such as a wedding reception. Ms. Yancey responded that noise typically was not a problem unless more people show up than the event was contracted for. Ms. Yancey stated contracts for use of the patio for special events would include a limit on the number of people attending. She stated she would be present to monitor the events. In response to a question from Chairman Ruck, Ms. Yancey stated people could not bring their own food or drink to the site. Mr. Ruck asked if the contract stated such. Mr. Robinson responded that they would add that requirement as a condition. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles interjected that the question of "what is fair" is a zoning issue for the Planning Commission. He stated that the Board of Adjustment's scope was to determine if there is a substantial hardship or justification to grant a variance. In response to a question from Andrew Francis, Ms. Yancey stated there was no indoor seating. Mr. Robinson stated denying the request would be a severe hardship due to Ms. Yancey's financial investment; albeit made without prior approval. Gary Langlais suggested that additional plantings could be placed at the rear of the site to reduce the noise coming from use of the patio area. Ms. Yancey responded that she had installed particular plants at a neighbor's suggestion and had installed retractable canopies on the back of the building to help reduce noise. 10 July 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) Chairman Ruck asked if people were able to use the rear stairway to go between the patio and the upstairs area during special events. Ms. Yancey responded that they were. Chairman Ruck stated that a mistake had already been made and he was in sympathy with the neighbors. He stated he was pro- business but not when a business requests a variance that will negatively impact its neighbors. Scott Richburg stated that he saw no good reason to grant a variance when there was unanimous objection from those most impacted. Gary Langlais referred to the original, 1999 approval and w commented that one of the conditions stated that there was to be no restaurant on the property without Board of Adjustment approval. A motion was made to approve the variance as stated in Mr. Robinson's June 21, 2001 letter with the additional modifications submitted by the applicant that there would be no more than 50 persons on the patio/terrace and that there would be no music of any kind. The motion was seconded. The vote was 0 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion was denied. 11 May 24, 1999 Item No.: 7 File No. Owner: Address: Description: Zoned• Variance Requested: Z-6675 Dena Yancey -Trujillo 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. Lots 9 and 10, Block 25, Newton's Addition C-3 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-301, the parking requirements of Section 36-502 and the screening requirements of Section 36-523. Justification• Applicant's Statement: We propose to improve our existing building which houses Yancey's Wines and Spirits at 5208 Kavanaugh Boulevard in the Heights neighborhood. We are one of the oldest established businesses in the Heights and have been located in the neighborhood for over thirty years. The attached application reflects our request for a zoning variance in order to improve our building as well as adding a beautiful upgrade to our neighborhood for our neighbors and customers to enjoy. The one story block and brick building occupies approximately 3,725 square feet of the 100' X 140' lot. The goal is to add a second floor to the existing building, which will provide additional lease space in this C-3 zoning. Since the existing structure was not designed to support a second floor, new structural columns are required at the front and rear in order to space over the existing roof. For May 24,'1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: this reason, the upper floor will be approximately 4,396 square feet for a total of 8,121 square feet of gross area, and 7,652 square feet of floor area. For C-3 business or retail, the required off-street parking is a 1,300 ratio, or 26 spaces. Since the existing lot will support 15 vehicles, we are requesting a variance for the other 11 spaces. The other request concerns the rear yard setback. The existing building already encroaches into the 25' rear yard requirement approximately 14 feet. With the addition of the structural columns and second floor, the proposed addition will not be closer to the rear property line than 11 feet, thus the request is for a variance of 14 feet. As you know, our property and location are very valuable and dear to our family. We own our home two blocks away and are deeply vested in our community and neighborhood. One -Story Commercial Building Two -Story Commercial Building 1. Kavanaugh Boulevard is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline is required. 2. With building permit property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2 May 24, 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4. Eliminate one driveway; only one driveway will be allowed with building permit. 5. Submit sign and planter design (at the time for building permit) to insure sight distance is not affected by construction. B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property located at 5208 Kavanaugh Blvd. is occupied by a 3,725 sq. ft., one-story commercial building. The building is typical of 1960's construction; glass front and flat roof. A 16 space parking lot is located in front of the building, with two driveways onto Kavanaugh Blvd. The applicant proposes to add a second floor to the existing building. The resulting structure will have a pitched roof and a fagade treatment more compatible with other structures in the Heights neighborhood. The existing structure was not designed to support a second floor and new structural columns will be required at the front and rear in order to span over the existing building. The new upper floor will contain 4,396 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 8,121 square feet. The proposed expansion results in the need for four variances from the Board of Adjustment. Additional variances may be required from the Board of Directors and City Beautiful Commission for those areas not under the Board of Adjustment's purview. The existing building has a rear yard setback of 12.42 feet and a side yard setback on the west side of 4.11 feet. After construction of the second floor, the structure will have a rear yard setback of 11 feet and will maintain the existing 4.11 foot side yard setback on the west. The Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet and a side yard setback of 15 feet when abutting a residential district. Redevelopment of the site requires placement of screening between this site's parking lot and the abutting property to the west. The applicant is requesting a variance of that requirement since the parking lot is already existing and the residentially zoned property to the west is occupied by a fire station, not a residence. 3 May 24, 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) Once the project is complete, the building will have a gross floor area of 8,121 square feet, requiring 27 on-site parking spaces; based on the general commercial requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet. The site plan proposes 15 on-site parking spaces. There is no additional space on the site for more parking. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The remodeling proposed by the applicant will result in a more aesthetically pleasing structure that is more compatible with structures in the Heights neighborhood. This proposed upgrade should be of benefit to the area. Adding the second floor, while basically maintaining the rear and side yard setbacks of the existing building should have minimal impact on adjacent properties. There will be only one small window on the north (back) side of the second floor. The window will be located in an office occupied by the applicant. There will be no windows on the east or west sides of the second floor. A second floor fire exit only will be located on the rear of the building. Although the building sits closer than 25 feet to the rear property line, limiting the windows and exits on the north side of the building should help to mitigate the impact of the reduced setback. The 15 foot side yard requirement is not necessary since the abutting residentially zoned property is occupied by a fire station, not a residence. In the C-3 district, no side yard setback is required except when the site abuts residentially zoned property. The applicant is requesting a parking variance of 12 spaces. There may be some minor modification of this number in response to Public Works requirement to dedicate right-of- way and eliminate one of the two driveways onto Kavanaugh. The redesign of the driveway could result in a gain or loss of 1-2 parking spaces. The applicant has stated that he intends to seek a variance of the driveway requirement from the Board of Directors. The Heights has been recognized and prides itself on being a walking neighborhood. Very few businesses in the Heights commercial area have adequate on- site parking, if any at all. There is on street parking available on Kavanaugh Blvd. in this area. There is not much competition for that on street parking from the nearby uses. The properties adjacent to this site are occupied by a fire station and a bank, both of which have adequate on- site parking. Staff does not believe the 11-12 space parking variance is out of character for the neighborhood. 4 May 24,' 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) It is likely that the second floor of this building will contain office uses rather than retail commercial office uses which might require greater on-site parking. Most of the commercial uses in the Heights area are smaller, specialty shops which do not generate high traffic volumes throughout the day. Staff's only concern is the possibility of a restaurant occupying a portion of the site. The parking requirement for a restaurant is 1 space per 100 square feet, which could greatly compound the issue regarding the lack of parking. Consequently, staff would recommend that this variance be granted subject to no restaurant being located in the building. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback, screening and parking variances subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments, including any variance of these requirements as may be granted by the Board of Directors. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance, including any variance of the Landscape requirements as may be granted by the City Beautiful Commission. 3. There are to be no doors or windows in the rear and side walls of the second floor other than for a fire escape door and the one small window in the owner's office as indicated by the applicant. 4. There is to be no restaurant located in this building without further application to and approval by the Board of Adjustment. The parking variance is based upon those uses requiring a maximum parking ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 24, 1999) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. Staff informed the Board that Public Works Comment No. 4 had been removed and replaced with the following: 5 May 24,' 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont. Two driveways are permitted subject to each driveway being no more than 20 feet in width and one driveway being an entrance only and the second driveway being an exit only. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff, including the modified Public Works Comment. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.