Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19940324 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 24, 1994 4.00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #94-3 LUCY DIREOU (AMY AMIDON HAS ASKED YOU TO HEAR THIS CASE FIRST AS SHE HAS A MEETING IN REDSTONE SHE HAS TO GET TO) III. CASE #94-2 EUROPEAN FLOWER MARKET IV. MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1994 V. ADJOURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 24, 1994 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00 P.M. Answering roll call were Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, Charlie Paterson, Ron Erickson and Remo Lavagnino. Bill Martin and Rick Head were excused. CASE #94-3 LUCY DIKEOU Remo read into record application for variance, (attached in record) and then opened the public portion of the hearing. Pawnee Dikeou, representative for applicant : I am here with Jake Vickery, architect . My Mother, Lucy Dikeou, is also here. Affidavits of mailing and posting were turned in. (attached in record) This house was before you previously on a variance request . Since then 2 things have changed. The scope of the variance has been reduced. When the last variance came before the Board none of our family was in town and there was very poor communication to the architect who presented it . Therefore we feel the hardship was not explained well at that time . Vickery: Using plans explained the variance request . After looking at a number of options we concluded that this was the only feasible place to place the garage and I did so in such a way so that I have a 5 foot rear yard setback. I also have a 5 foot side yard setback which are the minimums . One of the variances that we are asking for is a reduction in the aggregate of the 2 side yards from 15 feet down to 10 feet . That has been necessitated by placement of the garage in this little corner of the existing structure . What we are proposing is a 1 story garage . We are willing to make a condition that there will be no second floor construction on it . Remo: You are talking on top of the garage? Vickery: Yes . It will always be a 1 story thing. In the previous application we had requested 2 stories . They had requested a bedroom above the garage . We have eliminated that . Pawnee : In looking at the hardship or practical difficulty--first it is a house that is on the historic inventory. Because of that it is protected by the HPC. So we need their approval now of any demolition of the existing house. This house is not a 2-story historic residence. It is 1-story that almost covers all of the available site coverage . Additionally it was felt by the HPC that part of the charm of this house is it' s 1-story scale and to try and change that and make it a 2-story, that would end the historical integrity of the house . BAM3 .24 . 94 Everyone felt that having a garage where Jake showed would prevent unnecessary demolition of the structure and keep the scale and bulk of the house as much as possible down to a 1-story house. HPC was in full support of this on this basis . Howard then read a letter from Charles Israel, 523 West Francis, stating his support of the variance . (attached in record) Vickery: I would add that we are prepared in a little more detail to speak directly to the standards applicable to variances that are in the code. Remo: You did mention some of them here. And the 3rd states "Allowing construction of a 2-car garage does not pose any special benefit not allowed other similar properties" . I would agree with that except if you are putting it in a setback that takes it out of that category. Most of the other people either have it within the framework of setback requirements or it was there before zoning took place. So that is a statement that really doesn' t apply to this particular case . One of my concerns because we have had a similar situation here is that you are talking--what are you putting on top of the roof of the garage? Vickery: We are showing a railing there. Remo: I am talking about the roof itself . Vickery: I imagine it would be built up roof or a membrane roof of some kind. Remo: My concern is, is this going to be a deck? Vickery: There is no way to get up to it right now. There is a possibility that it might be used for a deck at some later date . Drueding: Then I have to check the FAR. Remo: Yes . Because this would affect the FAR. That was my concern with the decorative railing. Drueding: One more thing it does affect--the 5 foot setback is for- -it is a total of 30 foot setback--minimum 10 except for a garage that is used only for a garage. If you are going to use it as a garage there would be a 10 foot rear setback. But if you are going to use it as a deck, it is not being used just as a garage. Vickery: You can see a portion of the garage is 156 . 2 feet that would be allowable without a variance that is remaining coverage that is allowable . So any deck that were put up there would be contained in that area and not the portion-- 2 BAM3 .24 . 94 Drueding: My point is that this garage only gets this 5 foot setback if it is only used as a garage--no other uses . Remo: Even if he uses his remaining coverage as part of it? Drueding: He needs a 10 foot setback. He can' t have any deck. You get this benefit to have a 5 foot setback instead of a 10 foot setback for attached garages--only used as garages . It can' t be used for anything else . Vickery: I understand. Just to keep it clean if that is the case then we would not have it be a deck up there. Drueding: Reading from code: "Front and rear yard the principal buildings shall total no less than 30 feet and the front and rear yard shall each be a minimum of 10 feet provides that the rear yard for that portion of the building used as a garage only shall be minimum of 5 feet . " So if it is just a garage then you have 5 feet . If you are going to do something else then you need an additional variance. Remo: Is this a variance that is 5 feet? Drueding: No. It is given to them. Remo: So then he doesn' t require a variance for that-- Drueding: But if he uses it for other than just a garage he would then require a-- Remo: Where is this 5 foot? Is this the side yard variance? Drueding: Side yard. Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer: HPC recommendation to you was that they felt if the applicant was denied this variance they would demolish part of the existing building and take that and put it on top of a garage . And they would be within the buildout site coverage and FAR. But we would now have part of the structure be 2 stories tall . Remo: Could you prevent them from doing that? Amidon: We, because this house is on the inventory, have a few go for demolition but at the moment we don' t have review of design. Remo: Review is different from authority. Do you have the authority? Amidon: We do not have the authority to stop them from doing that . Vickery: But you do have the authority to prevent the demolition. They can prevent the demolition should they choose. They can prevent 3 BAM3 .24 . 94 the demolition but not any second story on existing. Pawnee : Say there is some demolition. Say you put a garage in--you lose 1 room. So that is 1 more room that would have to go on the second story. They know they could prevent that if this variance were granted. Jim: This looks like it has been added onto a couple of times . How recently was this added onto where you are proposing to put the garage? Amidon: I don' t know how recent it was . I think this part of the building is historic on Lot D. On Lot E either this building was totally demolished and something was added within this century after 1904 is the best I can do. Jim: So essentially the historical part of it is the portion that is up front . Amidon: That whole part on Lot D is historic. This part on Lot E that is questionable . Jim: What is the use of the space that is attached to the proposed garage? Vickery: This is kind of a shed piece in here that really looks like it is part of this house the way the roof forms . But this area right here this is a bathroom. Jim: So if it were that you didn' t get this approval and that garage wanted to be added it could be added by taking away the bathroom along there . Pawnee : We discussed reducing the size of the laundry. Vickery distributed pictures and further explained bathroom, shed etc . Pawnee : The one bathroom that is down there is the only bathroom serving 2 bedrooms and so there would be no other bathroom on the ground level if we lost the bathroom/mudroom out of the master bedroom which essentially makes one of the bedrooms unusable too. Remo: I thought we were talking about a utility area. Howard: The bathroom is not included in that area. That is the laundry room we are talking about . And basically all we are talking about in this laundry room is adjoining those cars on the alley. So that really shouldn' t be affected. Vickery: The problem is then there wouldn' t be a laundry. And that is an important aspect of their house. 4 BAM3 . 24 . 94 Howard: I don' t see the point because we are talking about side yard, not the back yard. And that would affect the back yard setback. Pawnee : We want to have at least the same amount of square footage we did before, and need to add somewhere else. If we are already at our site coverage we need to then add it onto the second level . And there was a feeling from the HPC meeting of keeping the 1-story and adding as small amount of space on the second level as possible. So it might not be difficult to carve out the non-historical portions of the house, demolish all of that, put a garage in there. You still have to put up more space on the second level which HPC objects to. And we are not preserving the historical nature. Remo: I don' t know whether HPC considered moving the garage into the dining room and meeting the setback requirement . Amidon: It wasn' t discussed but that just means that you cut off part of the dining room and add another addition. Jim: Which doesn' t prevent them from doing that 2 years from now anyway. Remo: They can' t add to the second story. This finishes their site coverage. The hardship is the consequences of what they are allowed to do and is that more beneficial to the community. Jim: My point is they are allowed to do that any time anyway if they went before HPC to have a review at a later date anyhow. Remo: HPC is on record now that this is not what they want to do. So I don' t know why they would go back to HPC to do something that HPC is denying them right now. Jim: I do remember they came to this Board before with some bigger proposal than what they are proposing now and it was rejected. Howard: Not completely rejected. They got one variance. Their first plan was requiring the back yard setback because of the second story. It was only a garage at the time. There was a possibility we would have given it to them because it was only a 1-car garage. They have expanded now out to a point where it is a 2-car garage. And now it is encroaching into the side yard setback and it doesn' t have a second floor on it anymore . I have got a problem with that . Have you thought about the fact that you could put a 1-car garage or 1-and-1/2-car and shrunk it down to match the side of the house? It would still be a side yard variance but there is a possibility you might sway someone in the other direction because you are not sticking out with 2 cars . It seems like you are asking for a lot . Vickery: Our attitude on it to begin with it is in that area and that kind of property with the families that we have that a 2-car garage 5 BAM3 . 24 . 94 isn' t unreasonable. Current code requires that there be 1 parking space per bedroom. This is a 3-bedroom house as it sits right now which means there should be, to conform to current code, 3 parking spaces . What we are doing is providing 2 parking spaces on site which is actually lower than the required. These guys have an extended family with lots of kids and Grandmas . And I just don' t think it is unreasonable to request a 2-car garage. If you look around the neighborhood there are lots of 2-car garages . Howard: But those are all legal . Those are all inside of their setback lines . Vickery: I am saying that if you look around a 2-car garage is a component of a lot of houses that are being built now. Their problem is they would like to have a 2-car garage like everybody else- has generally but they can' t build it because they have this 1-story historical structure that they are stuck with. And we, as a town, would like to maintain this 1-story historical structure . So we are trying to work something out where we get them what they need and get the community what it needs . Pawnee : The community does get one more cars off the street with a 2- car vs a 1-and-1/2-car garage. Vickery: Remember a guy building a new house could do a 2-story volume with-- Remo: But it would be a new house. It wouldn' t be an historic structure and he would have his 2-car garage and he would meet all the setback requirements. He would meet all the FAR requirements-. He would be legal . We have an unusual situation here. Ron: On the plans we show a storage area on the east side of the building. It is not a very big storage area. It looks to be about 6 feet long, 3 feet wide and about 5 feet high. Is that considered site coverage? Drueding: 15% for cantilevered or overhangs . Ron: If the applicant was to remove that storage area would you give them some credit someplace else in which case it would minimize any variance we would give because the site coverage would be less? Vickery: What I calculated in site coverage I didn' t include that storage area. Remo then asked for comments from the public . Bob Walker, representing Bill and Corky Reid at 317 North 4th Street : Their property abuts the eastern property line of this Dikeou residence. The owners of the house I am representing live in Chicago. 6 BAM3 . 24 . 94 Some years ago we went through a process--not a variance process . It was with staff where we wished to add onto the Reid residence which is a very small house . Just to be able to put in a bay window which added no less than 10 square feet we were required to tear down an existing shed on the property. Also we were not allowed, even though we could have gone through the variance process, to build a 2-car garage or even a storage facility because we would have had to go into the setback. We did not go through the variance request process . In theory this might be a different situation. My problem with it in looking at it very quickly is that there are 3 houses in that area that all kind of come together on that eastern property line. And all of the houses have back yards basically and it is all separated by fences . So that is the only privacy those people have including this house. The Reids have a ground-level deck and that is where they entertain. And I know for a fact that they would object very strongly to having a 2-story structure overlooking their deck. If it were a single story I don' t think, given the fact that they have planting across in between the 2 pieces of property, that it would impinge that much visually. However knowing the way things work around here I am not so sure that that roof would ever not be used for a deck. And the fact that it has a railing around it which I am sure was done partially for aesthetic reasons, could conceivably be a problem as far as the Reids are concerned. As you can see they basically have somebody sitting on that deck looking down on their back yard. The Reids would not want this thing used as a deck and also if there would be some way of even further reducing the height of it . There isn' t any setback on the rear property line on the Reid' s garage. It is right up against the alley. If there would be some way perhaps to move that garage to not have the 5 foot setback--move it up so that it would almost align with Reid' s garage then it would impinge less on Reid' s back deck as far as the bulk of the building. Remo: But that is increasing the variance that they are requesting. It is incumbent on us to give them the minimum variance . Lucy Dikeou: I understand exactly what he is saying. His garage comes to the alley line and he is saying that it would look better if mine came the same way. And he is right . It would look better. Pawnee : We would be happy to go either way the Board wishes . Sharon Parrish: I live at 533 West Smuggler and I have to tell you that what they are trying to do personally does not impact us . So what I am saying to you is in general and asking for your consideration as you look at this . Across the alley from us is the Charles Mills house . And he wrote a letter. They have a 2-car garage which faces the alley. When they put the house up everything was within the ideal height-wise and they got a variance sideways I believe . I know the neighbors really complained. Their garage is very tall . A story and 7 BAM3 . 24 . 94 a half . Their entire garage roof obscures 1/2 of our mountain view. We now sit in our living room and our back yard and we look at their 2-story or 1-and-1/2-story garage . We cannot see 1/2 of the mountain that we could see when we bought the house 10 years ago. And we also look at their open garage door. I think that in considering these things--the setbacks, I appreciate your consideration on height also and on whom it is going to impact . It has been very disturbing to us what has gone on in the west end and continues to be because there are just humongous houses going up there with almost no space between them. And they are going up so tall . So now we have a 2-story house and then the next homes in with 2-and- 1/2 stories . And so everyone is living on the second floor because you can' t see anything from down below. What they are doing doesn' t personally impact us because the Israel' s house is totally in the way and so we can' t see them at all . But I appreciate your consideration on the variances and also the question about the height of the garage and what it is going to be used for. Remo: Bill, is there a maximum height for garages? Drueding: There used to be in the alleys . For a detached garage it is going to be 2/3rd of the allowable height on alleys in the west end. That was removed from code in 1988 . Remo: So there is no height limit? Drueding: No. I guess the Israel' s garage is part of their house . It is not detached. The garage has a second story. Remo: They can put a second story too? Drueding: Sure. It does affect the FAR. But I am sure it was all built within code then. Parrish: I think they cancelled because I think they are maxed out on their square footage on their lot . Drueding: Maybe now, Y(--S . Parrish: It is unfortunate that was not considered at that time for what it was doing to us . We are also a neighbor who does not have a 2-car garage . We have a carport and we have a driveway. There being no further comments Remo closed the public portion of the hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Howard: I have a problem with the variance for the side yard setback because I think they are asking for more than they should have asked 8 BAM3 . 24 . 94 for. In their first attempt it was a 1-and-1/2-car garage. They come back to us with a 2-car garage . Normally people come back to us with something smaller. Granted they didn' t put the second floor on. But it changed the variance from a back yard to a side yard. But I would be more apt to give them a side yard setback up to the existing house vs sticking out past the existing house . The thing about putting something on the alley like the next door neighbor--if you take the garage and put it over here like this then you would only have a back yard setback to deal with. Which you may be able to give because your neighbor has the same identical thing next door. That is a possibility also. I really have a problem giving this because of that . When they first came to us they said that they really wanted a garage because they wanted to have at least a 1-car to be able to park indoors because the area is very dark and they would be able to enter through this doorway. I am still willing to allow that in a 1-car situation. Everybody would like to have a 2-car garage. I would like to have a 1-car garage myself . I think they are asking too much in this situation. Charlie : When you speak about pushing the garage to the rear, I would not be in favor of that . I am glad that we are not getting a second story and that the low impact of the residence will remain the way it is . If we do grant this variance I hope that we put a covenant on here so that it will not be a second story over the garage at a later time . I would go along with this if the Board is inclined towards the smaller garage that Howard . si.,g ests following the line of the building. I would be in favor of that and I would grant that variance . Remo: You don' t think--I want to make sure we all understand Howard' s reasoning about going to the alley lot line. It would remove the need for this variance. It would only be a rear yard variance because he would be moving it here. Ron: My feelings last year when they came before us I was against all the variances both for a side yard variance on this house . I think this is pretty well maxed out on the lot . I don' t think a garage is a right per' se. I would probably go along with Howard' s suggestion of moving it and just granting rear yard setback rather than a side yard setback. I would not grant this variance the way it has been requested because I think it is too close to the side yard. Jim: I am still trying to find something that could be considered a hardship. I don' t know what this Board in general has done when HPC recommends something. 9 BAM3 . 24 . 94 Remo: Generally we respond favorably or positively to recommendations from HPC. Jim: The only other problem I have is--that doesn' t preclude them from coming back at a later date, going through HPC and then HPC says OK to something additional to what they are asking for today. It may be that they don' t get to do anything additional on top of the garage or with the garage . Remo: We can put conditions on it . This Board is allowed to refuse, accommodate or accept or modify any kind of variance that we give these applicants . Drueding: They would only be allowed to move up to the second story within 10 feet of the property line. They could go over that garage . They would make the garage non-conforming but they would be allowed to come within 10 feet . They could go for a second story. Howard: But then the garage is not exclusively a garage . Drueding: What I am saying--if I am not here they have a non- conforming garage as long as you don' t increase the non-conforming now, you would be fine . Howard: What we are talking about is--the 2-car garage if we move it over then it has to come into the house or you move the dining area. In this way they accept the fact that maybe we would go for a 1-car garage and they are not being involved with the HPC. You are not going to touch the house whatsoever. The existing house is going to stay where it is . So I don' t see the hardship in that . If they do this one it is the same situation but they would lose their window here in their dining room but that is like a tradeoff to me. If you want something then you have got to give something back. Jim: There are many different ways you could accomplish a 2-car garage . I tend to agree with Howard in that respect . Remo: HPC' s concerns are to protect and promote the retention of historic structures and landmarks . Our focus and obligation is really to explore the impacts of variances on neighbors, on bulk, on health, safety and welfare and other possible adverse conditions . Remo re-opened the public portion of the hearing. Pawnee : We are willing to say that we will never put a 2-story structure above the garage and. if we ever demolish the whole house that the variance for the garage will go away. Then you all know if the house ever gets demolished this variance doesn' t stay and additionally there is a restriction that we will never build 2 stories above the garage . 10 BAM3 . 24 . 94 Jim: I feel like my hands are tied here because if we don' t approve something they could go through HPC and go through this long arduous thing which is a hardship in itself that I don' t want to see these people go through. So if they are going to get it one way or the other I am not interested in giving them the long road, the hard road to get that . Ron: I am not so sure HPC is going to give them anything at this point in time . First of all the structure itself is a mishmash. It is one historic structure and some newer additions to it . So I think if they want to go back to HPC and say "Look, we will destroy the newer additions and build it back to where it is more authentic, HPC may go along with that . It would be a partial restoration or renovation. But the part of the house that is not historically designated has no value- -T don' t think. So I don.' t. think HPC is going to allow them to build on that non-significant, non-historic structure . I think right now we have to decide whether we want to grant a side yard setback for a 2-car garage that overextends the coverage on a piece of property. Do we want to do that? Remo: That is what has always been before us . Ron: But I don' t want to get involved with what HPC is going to do or not do. We shouldn' t make a decision because we don' t want to give them the hardship of going through HPC. I don' t think that should be our consideration. Jim: I was just trying to establish a hardship. Ron: Yes . Where is the hardship? Remo: When you were saying that you don' t want them to go through that process and you would rather give them something now more definitive . Are you talking about the manner in which they proposed the 2-car garage or are you talking about Howard' s 1-and-1/2-car garage? Jim: Well, if we grant them permission--we don' t have to grant them permission--we just deny the proposal and then-- Remo: They still have a variance . We are giving them a variance. Howard: They need that 15 feet mainly because they are on the lot line on the other side . The total has to be 15 feet . So we would be granting them approximately a 4 foot 5 inch for approximately that variance . And they are lining up with the house as it is . So there would still be a variance. Jim: So it is by us today or HPC tomorrow. Remo: If we grant them a 1-and-1/2-car garage now and they accept that, they have a 1-and-1/2-car garage with our variance. That is 11 BAM3 . 24 . 94 what we are allowing them to do. If they want to take it beyond that, they can go to HPC. But, as Ron says, it shouldn' t really be our concern. Howard: We can also stipulate that there never be a deck up there and never be used as a second floor--a second story. Glenn Rappaport, architect and former member of HPC: I was interested in your comment about the differences in the way HPC works and the way this Board works . As a member of HPC we were very concerned about community issues, liveability issues and how mitigations could be worked out with neighbors and what was best for the parcel in certain circumstances and not being so strict about if we had a specific hardship which could be construed as that because they are locked into a second story envelope . I think he would minimize the impacts on the neighbors if you were to push that building to the left side of that drawing and if they even did go up 2 stories I don' t see that that would impact the little building as the 2 parcels are linked to each other and their views and open space. As far as the position of it I think you are making it much worse for that little community if you move it to the right . Howard: You are saying move it out to the alley? Rappaport : Right . Howard: If they do that to get the deck that they are looking at and the 2-car garage they would have to move it up to where the dining room wall is . Which may or may not be acceptable to us . But I don' t know if it would be acceptable to the owners because they are losing the window. MOTION Ron: I move we grant an east side-yard setback variance of 5 feet 2 inch by a 22 foot 6 inch on case #94-3 Ron: I am not going to vote for this variance . Howard seconded the motion. Roll call vote : Jim, no, Howard, no, Ron, no, Charlie, no, Remo, no. MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we grant the applicant up to 200 square foot lot coverage variance in order to facilitate the construction of a garage within the current setbacks . Howard seconded the motion. 12 BAM3 . 24 . 94 Howard: I want to amend the motion to say that there will never be a second floor put on this and no deck. Ron accepted the amendment to his motion. Roll call vote : Jim, yes, Howard, yes, Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo yes . Vickery: So we have got no side yard variance . Howard: What you have got, Jake, is we figure that 200 square feet will allow you to put that piece into the dining room area that we are talking about--give you your 18 feet wide--approximate . Nobody is going to jump on you if you go over 1/2 inch. But it will give you your allowable 18 feet like you are talking about . That is a minimal variance. You can also put a 1-car garage in there and not do that . But it allows you to be conforming now in that situation. You can decide whether you want a 1-car or 2-car. Remo: You can go into the dining room area as much as you want . Howard: You have got your site coverage variance to give you the 200 square feet . And for 200 square feet.--it looks right now that you have got 15 feet by 22 feet . You will have to adjust it the way you want . But 200 square feet for a garage is adequate for 2 cars . Ron: We have granted you the right to build on an additional 200 square feet on the lot . Architect : The reason we wanted to say that we wouldn' t put a deck or anything above the garage is because it would increase the non- conformity. But now it wouldn' t increase the non-conformity. Howard: Yes it would. The point is if you build a second floor then you have to have a larger setback in the back yard. You are only allowed 5 feet if it is a garage and only a garage . You become non- conforming if you build a second floor on that garage . Vickery: The 156 square feet that is legitimately in the coverage, they could build above that . Vickery: There is a portion of the garage that is not in the variance . And that could be 2 stories . Howard: No. Bill explained to us that if it is a garage then it is only a garage--not part of it is a garage and part isn' t a garage. Remo: If you put anything else on there it takes it out of that category. 13 BAM3 . 24 . 94 CASE #94-2 EUROPEAN FLOWER MARKET Remo read request for variance (attached in record) and opened the public hearing. Glenn Rappaport, Architect for the applicant presented affidavit of posting and mailing. (Attached in record) We have been going through a process with the Planning Office to try to get this building going and it has been kind of a convoluted process . Leslie Lamont, Planning Dept : What Frank and Glenn are working on is a slight addition for the development of European Flower Market . Right now there is the flower market and then there is a 2-bedroom on the back. What they want to do is add commercial square footage onto the building. Glenn: There is a cinder block 2-story portion at the rear. What we have to do to meet our parking requirement is undercut that portion enough so that we have legal parking. Remo: So you will cantilever over? Glenn: It will have posts . I think we have to undercut it about 6 feet is all . The footprint of this building will not change. With the exception of that 6 foot pull-back underneath the footprint will be exactly the same . There is a potting shed that encroaches on the neighbor' s property. That encroachment will be removed. Ted Guy just purchased the gray apartment buildings to the east of this and I sent him the drawings . We have gone through HPC conceptual approval and got conceptual approval at this stage. Their findings were that the bulk of what we are proposing is consistent with the neighborhood and what is going on there. We haven' t had any other concerns from the neighbors . Ron: The additional commercial square footage is going to be second floor? Glenn: Yes . It will be second floor and the first floor will be re- worked as well . Also the other component of this is that we are not adding more than 500 square feet of new net leasable space so we are not required to go through growth management . The Flower Market is going to stay. It will be smaller but it is going to stay. Remo asked if there were any comments from the public . There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. 14 BAM3 . 24 . 94 MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we grant this variance. Charlie seconded the motion. Ron: I think whet Tae ought to do is put a proviso on there that says "This represents 35% of our total case load in the last year and City Council ought to move this up to the front burner" . Roll call vote : Jim, yes, Howard, yes, Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo,yes . MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1994 MOTION Ron: I make a motion to approve the minutes of February 3 , 1994 . Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Results of election: Chairman, Remo Lavagnino. Vice Chairman, Charlie Paterson Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 5 : 55 P.M. ) �lt Ja ice M. Carn y, City -De y lerk 15