Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZBA Minutes 2005-07-19CITy~~ y<AND `j``Vv CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 817) 299-1870 • 3200 DIANA DRIVE •RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS • 761 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brantley called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Regular members present were Malvin Brantley, Al Hamilton, William Fey, and Joe Moore. Regular member Eddie Leon Nelson was absent. Staff members present were Howard Gregory, Director of Community Development, and Linda Clontz, Recording Secretary. 2. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 21, 2005 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Motion: A motion was made by Member Moore, and seconded by Member Fey To approve the June 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Minutes as written. The motion carried unanimously, by a vote of 4 to 0. 3. CASE N0.06-OS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 90-52(3) OF THE CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW OWNER TO VARY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 90, SECTION 90-332 (C) (2), TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CARPORT TO BE A 600 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7040 BROOKS AVENUE, BLOCK 34, LOT 6, RICHLAND HILLS ADDITION (REQUESTED BY JAMES B. ST. JOHN, FOR WILLIAM K. MCGINNIS) Jim St. John, 1609 West Sanford, Arlington, was sworn in. I'm the contractor on this. I brought some pictures and a diagram of the lot that shows what we would like to do. (He passed copies to the members of the Board.) The diagram there shows the carport as it exists behind the house. And what we would like to do is enclose a six foot by twenty foot portion on the end of it to create a storage shed. The carport is twenty by twenty four foot. The total length of the building would be thirty feet by twenty feet, which is the total of six hundred square feet. And so what we're Printed on Recycled Paper Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 2 asking is a variance to allow enclosure to create the storage shed there at the end, and also to close in the third wall, at the top of the diagram. I also have some pictures that show different views of it...one from the street that shows what you can see of the carport from the street level. And then a couple of different shots that show from the back of the house to the carport, and then from the carport to the back of the house. The house has brick and siding on it. What we'd like to do is match the siding of the house to enclose the shed, the storage shed, because the carport's going to have that already." Member Fey: "What kind of siding does it have now...the existing part?" Mr. St. John: "There's nothing on there right now. The house has vinyl siding on it." Member Hamilton: "You're wanting to enclose the entire carport?" Mr. St. John: "The drive through side of it is going to stay open. There's not going to be a door there, but...looking at your diagram, the top of the picture is north, and so where it says `new wall', that's the north end. There's an existing wall on the east side. The storage building is going to be on the south side, and the west side is going to remain open except for that six foot wall to complete the storage unit." Member Fey: "That was my question...what is the existing wall?" Mr. St. John: "Right now it's just OSB. We haven't put the siding on it yet, but the existing structure...the carport, the structure is there. I didn't put the finished materials on it yet because we wanted to see whether we were going to be allowed to do this or whether we were going to just go ahead and finish it out." Member Fey: "Those picture, are these where you are with it now?" Mr. St. John: "Yes. I took those today." Member Fey: "That's what was kind of throwing me because you've got a wall there. I didn't know if that was there already, or if you put it in." Mr. St. John: "No. We just built the carport. We got the permit to build the carport last month, and did it to meet the existing code as far as the size and the height and, of course, with it being a twenty by twenty four carport and open on three sides, there's no requirement as far as any type of material, so we were going to match the vinyl siding of the house." Member Moore: "The statement on here says that to match the existing, what is that, 501 siding on the house....is that vinyl or is it a.....? Mr. St. John: "It's vinyl. The house has vinyl siding." Member Moore: "And so you'd match that with the....? Mr. St. John: "Yes sir." Member Moore: "When you enclose the carport with three sides on it then it would become an accessory building rather than a carport." Mr. St. John: "Correct." Member Moore: "And it would come under the requirements of the accessory building. And the code for that says `anything over 440 square feet in accessory building, the construction material should be consistent with the construction material of the existing Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes w July 19, 2005, Page 3 main structure', so you do have brick and vinyl siding on the main structure. This would be the same vinyl siding. Is that correct?" Mr. St. John: "Yes." Member Fey: "That house is basically a brick house, isn't it?" Mr. St. John: "Basically." Member Fey: "It's the way I remembered it anyway." Mr. St. John: "The gable ends and the soffit and overhang are all vinyl, and then the back part of the garage and part of one other wall is vinyl also. I think that part of the front of the house that's covered by ivy has vinyl on it as well. I mean, we're not looking to make a big change or do anything, we're just looking to increase the size and add the storage on to it, and be allowed to use the vinyl siding rather than to put brick on it." Chairman Brantley: "I believe the other garage on the back of the house over there is like the two car garage." Mr. St. John: "Yes." Chairman Brantley: "As I understand it, you were going to clean it out and make you a den back there." Mr. St. John: "Yes sir. That's the next thing." Member Hamilton: "This picture right here. Is this vinyl siding." Mr. St. John: "Yes." Chairman Brantley: "I believe by doing away with that garage that you have on the back of the house, that's going to prohibit us from granting you a variance." Mr. St. John: "Why's that." Chairman Brantley: "Because of the State law. In other words, if you choose to do away with your present garage and make a den out of it. But it is a law that you can't grant a variance when it's a self created hardship, which would be in this case by preferring to use your carport to make a den, a garage to make a den, and that's going to put your cars outside, so now you want a variance to ...." Mr. St. John: "I don't think we're asking for a variance to build a carport. The carport's already there." Chairman Brantley: "Yes, it's there, but I mean, to make a garage out of it." Mr. St. John: "No sir we're not." Chairman Brantley: "You're not going to enclose it?" Mr. St. John: "No." Chairman Brantley: "Just the carport. You're going to leave the carport as is, as built right now." Mr. St. John: "The only thing that I want to do is put a storage building on the south end of it and complete the wall on the north end. The drive through end of it is always going to remain open. There won't be a door. We're not building any framing to put a door at any point in the future." Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 4 Chairman Brantley: "And there's the question of whether it's a garage or just a carport, not enclosed carport." Member Hamilton: "You'll have two sides open, is that correct?" Mr. St. John: "There'll be one side; just the part where the cars go in will be open. And part of that is, you know, it helps to keep the wind from blowing through so bad, and makes it look a little bit nicer. The north wall that we're asking to be able to complete is going to help shield the view of the vehicles from the street. So, I think that's going to help make it look a little bit nicer, so I think that that's going to help make it look a little nicer and certainly blend in better with the homes in the neighborhood. Completing the north wall also makes the structure a little bit more secure as far as the strength in harsh weather." Chairman Brantley: "I `11 just read in here what I was just talking about....this item number three that I have in this book says, `on hardship not self imposed or self created. An example of personal or self created hardship might be a situation in which the owner of a square lot divides it into two triangles, then tries to secure a variance in order to sell the property at a higher price. The question is, what about the property owner who encloses a garage to make a den and wants a variance for the carport?" Mr. St. John: "Okay, we already have the carport." Member Moore: "Mr. Chairman, as I read it, by enclosing the carport it becomes an accessory building." Chairman Brantley: "It will be. Yes." Member Moore: "So under the accessory building requirements it does not mention anything about the use, but it does say that over 400 square feet, construction materials must be the same as the existing main structure. His existing main structure is both brick and vinyl siding. So, it doesn't say that it should be the same as the majority of the existing structure, but it would be matching the existing siding that's used on the house. Soto me it looks like more a matter of clarification than a variation." Chairman Brantley: "That's right. I agree." Member Moore: "Interpretation of it." Member Fey: "Mr. Gregory, how do you interpret it?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Member Fey: "Thank you sir. What you're really asking is siding all the way around, and to heck with the brick." Mr. St. John: "Yes, and to be able to build the accessory building. You know, the total of it's going to be 600 square feet." Member Fey: "You just want to close it in for the storage." Mr. St. John: "Yes sir." Member Fey: "I see a lot of them around like that." Mr. St. John: "It's going to be very nice." Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 5 Member Hamilton: "Once the existing garage is converted to a den, it's going to have the exterior siding?" Mr. St. John: "Yes, and windows and doors." Member Fey: "The existing already has siding. You're just going to take the door off, right?" Mr. St. John: "Yes. We don't need that big of a door though, so we're going to close in some of it and match the siding on that." Member Fey: "And put a door in there?" Mr. St. John: "Yes sir. That's whenever they decide to do that. I mean, this is a future project." Member Fey: "That's actually another problem, other than what we're talking about tonight?" Mr. St. John: "Right." Member Hamilton: "Is this garage attached to the house? I'm confused on the picture and the layout here." Mr. St. John: "No." Inaudible. Member Hamilton: "The garage is over here. So it's attached to it?" Mr. St. John: "Yes." Inaudible. Chairman Brantley: "Any other questions? Alright. The chair will entertain a motion on this." Motion: A motion was made by Member Moore, and seconded by Member Fey to approve the request. Vote: Member Hamilton - "Yes." Member Fey - "Yes." Chairman Brantley - "Yes." Member Moore - "Yes." The motion unanimously carried by a vote of 4 to 0. 4. CASE N0.07-OS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE UNDER CITY ORDINANCE CHAPTER 62, SECTION 62-4 (10) "PROHIBITED SIGNS', OF THE SIGN CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS, AND ALLOW A CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING TO BE USED AS A SIGN IN THE C -2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6600 BAKER BOULEVARD, BLOCK 1, LOT 1, LAURA ANN MAY- BERRY ADDITION (REQUESTED BY BILL AND ALISSA SCHOBER) Mr. Bill Schober was sworn in. I have a small sample here, and they say it's a new product. And rather than being a Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes fir July 19, 2005, Page 6 chain link fence, we're hoping to promote it as a mounting system for a sign rather than a sign board would be for letters.....that the chain link is for what we refer to as fence cups. So what we want to do is mount a system to the building that would then read `Another Man's Treasure'. Rather than being a fence we like it as a mounting medium to attach the sign to." Chairman Brantley: "I assume that this would have some kind of border or frame around it, right?" Mr. Schober: "Yes sir. It would be a larger version of (inaudible). It would be black, flat black, rather than galvanized." Melissa Schober: "And, as you can see the cups can go (inaudible)." Member Hamilton: "I think again we're going to have an interpretation on this. It says, prohibitive signs, signs attached to or painted on the outside of a fence or railing is prohibited'. This is a fence." Melissa Schober: "Well, but if you use it as a sign, it's not a fence because it's not on the ground. It's just a medium for a sign." Member Hamilton: "That's what I say. We need an interpretation here. You're going to put this on the top of a building?" Chairman Brantley: "I guess it'd be on the top, or put it on the front?" M. Schober: "Either, or." Member Fey: "What was your plan, to put it on top?" B. Schober: "The diagram that we have is to mount it on top." Chairman Brantley: "You're not planning on putting it close to the ground are you?" B. Schober and M. Schober: "No." Member Hamilton: "Are you going to be changing the message on it....?" M. Schober: "No." Member Hamilton: ".... or are you just going to leave it for the advertising?" Chairman Brantley: "Is this just a one time deal?" M. Schober: "Yes sir." Member Moore: "I have a question. What about the wind loads on it so far as anchoring a sign on your building? I know it doesn't take much when you get something that exposed to the wind that's solid. It takes an awful lot of structure to hold it." B. Schober: "From the manufacturer the, and I can't quote you the technicalities of the wind load. They've been tested if you will, field tested, in Florida with some of their high winds. They're not as solid as they might appear, so it's not as susceptible to the wind as a solid object would be. The wind can pass through." Member Moore: "The reason I ask is that I've seen chain link fences in neighborhoods and places where they use, not the cups, but the strips, like Venetian blind strips, on there, and it doesn't take much. I've seen it after a forty mile an hour wind comes along, and it pretty well wrecks some of those fences just because of the load of it on there. Once you put those cups in there's no way for wind to pass through it, it's going to be like a solid obstruction to it." Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 7 M. Schober: "Well, there's a few little slits on the side that you can't really see, where the wind can come through." Member Moore: "I can see that there's a small amount, but percentage wise of the total area it's pretty small." M. Schober: "The only other field test that we have is that we have some of these signs out in west Texas, and they have a little bit stronger wind out there than what we do here, and as of yet, the cups have not blown out, and none of the fences have come down. And that's out in Lubbock. And we have done some of these out at the Texas Motor Speedway, and they get a pretty good wind out there, and they haven't had any problems." Member Hamilton: "Your mounting is going to be to the bottom. And also you're going to run guy wires on it or something?" B. Schober: "Yes sir. We've got steel pearlies that the attachments will run from the galvanized to the actual frame that will be built." Member Moore: "What is the length of your frontage on that building?" B. Schober: "Well, it's 1.3 acres, I think." Member Moore: "The code says that you're allowed one square foot for each linear foot of your frontage." M. Schober: "It's a 13,000 square foot building." Member Moore: "Do you know how deep it is, or .....?" M. Schober: "No." Member Moore: "Is it over a hundred foot?" M. Schober: "It's over a hundred square foot." Member Moore: "For the hundred and forty square foot area that you're looking at, you must have at least a hundred and forty feet frontage length of your building." M. Schober: "I was trying to do the math." B. Schober: Inaudible. M. Schober: "It's three times longer than it is deep." B. Schober: Inaudible. Member Moore: "Just looking at it, it'd say the building is at least a hundred and fifty feet long, but I'm not sure. Mr. Gregory, have you got any figures on that length?" Mr. Gregory: "No." M. Schober: "I'd say it's more than two hundred actually." Member Nelson: "Probably somewhere in the neighborhood." M. Schober: "Two hundred to two twenty length" Member Hamilton: "Is the the Coomer's?" M. Schober: "Yes, formerly. We'll be selling these cups out of the store, and so I'll be selling all over the state, so everybody that buys one, the taxes will be paid here, and so the City will get that tax revenue as well." Member Hamilton: "Are you the inventor of this?" M. Schober: "No, I wish I was." Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 8 Member Hamilton: "Boy don't I too." B. Schober: "A guy from Weatherford makes these...an electrician. He watched his guys stuff Styrofoam cups in fences, and ..." M. Schober: "And they don't blow out the next day, so...." B. Schober: "And they're made in Texas." Chairman Brantley: "In other words, you're proposing to hope to sell these in other places?" M. Schober: "Yes sir." B. Schober: Inaudible Member Hamilton: "What's the cost...what you're going to be selling them for?" B. Schober: "Sixteen cents a piece, that would be about $4.00 a square foot. And that's another plus as far as the banners go, is that we're about twenty five cents cheaper than banners. Inaudible." Member Hamilton: "That's pretty impressive." M. Schober: "You'll start to see `em, because we've just started selling this." Member Hamilton: "I've already seen it." Inaudible. M. Schober: "I just took him six hundred and fifty more cups today....." Member Fey: "Mr. Gregory. You have anybody against it?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Chairman Brantley: "Any other discussion or questions? If not the chair will entertain a motion." Motion: A motion was made by Member Hamilton, and seconded by Member Moore to approve the request. Vote: Member Hamilton - "Yes." Member Fey - "Yes." Chairman Brantley - "Yes." Member Moore - "Yes." The motion carried unanimously, by a vote of 4 to 0. Chairman Brantley: "Mr. Gregory, I guess we're going to amend our (laughing) sign code." Member Moore: "It's a new type of sign that wasn't considered when the code was written." M. Schober: "Yes it is new." Member Hamilton: "And we have to amend the fence code, too. (laughing)" 5. CASE N0.08-OS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 90-52 (3) OF THE CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW OWNER TO VARY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS SET Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 9 FORTH IN CHAPTER 90, SECTION 90-334 (A) (2) (B) (2), AND EXTEND THE EXISTING CARPORT (FLAT PORTION) AND VARY THE SETBACK (SIDE YARD) IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2945 GUMWOOD PARK DRIVE, BLOCK 2, LOT 1, RICHLAND PARK ANNEX (REQUESTED BY RICHARD E . MCMAHAN) Mr. Richard McMahan was sworn in. For the record, and I think, did everyone get an exhibit A and B that shows the existing and the proposed for the particular variance? And, I guess the easiest way to do it would be to refer back to the minutes of our last meeting where it says on page 6, that we could visualize the gable roof in place of the flat roof. In other words, this flat roof is pictured on exhibit A. That's the flat roof of the carport. So if we could envision that as a gable roof, which is shown on exhibit B, and that gable roof extends right on out to the same distance as the flat roof, but rather than being flat it's a gable roof. And, of course, this gable roof is not as wide as the original flat carport. So what happens if once that gable roof is extended, but then there's a portion that was originally covered by a flat roof that isn't covered, and that's also shown in the exhibit B. The flat portion is extending to the south, or to the front. And that's also mentioned in the minutes last week, or the last meeting, on page 7, where it states that the gable roof would be shorter than the existing roof ,the carport. So, the idea would be continued, the flat portion, which is shown on exhibit B, and that would be extended toward the south, the front of the house. Hopefully, these two exhibits make a little bit more clear as to what we were talking about originally, but as it was covered last week, the Board voted on it, a motion was carried by 4 to 0 to do exactly what was in the diagrams that were presented at the original meeting. They were plan views. Exhibit A and B show it in somewhat of a three dimensional view that really clarifies any question that perhaps the staff may have had on this particular variance." Member Moore: "I have a question. On your exhibit B where your gable comes down, and then the flat roof, or the flat portion of the roof extends to the south. What is the length from where the gable fares into the flat roof there out to the front?" R. McMahan: "That length was shown on the original drawing." Member Moore: "It showed forty three feet from the back of the carport, the front of the proposed carport extension." R. McMahan: "Right. The overall length." Member Moore: "The overall length, but I'm saying where you bring your gable roof back down." R. McMahan: "That is approximately, as I recall, ten feet. The original carport length portion that is shown on exhibit A, that length was originally thirty feet running from north to south." Member Moore: "But your gable will not cover that full length there at the cover." Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 10 R. McMahan: "No sir. It falls quite a bit shorter than that. That's the reason for the addition. Rather than losing any actual coverage there from the original carport, that was the reason for having the combination of gable roof as well as the flat portion." Member Fey: "There is no variance was because of the side lot clearance to the street there, right?" R. McMahan: "Pardon me now?" Member Fey: "The original variance that I made the motion on last week was because of the side there where the fence is, you don't have the setback." R. McMahan: "I believe that was mentioned in the minutes of last week." Member Fey: "Right Howard? The original thing was because of the setback being lost by running that gable out further." Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Member Fey: "Well, what I was asking. I think that's what we did, because they widened the street and took the setback away from him, and that's what happened." Member Hamilton: "Is there still an eleven foot easement now, on the side?" R. McMahan: "Actually, on the side there is the eleven foot easement. Yes." Member Moore: "Will your flat roof go out as far as the front of the house, or will it be shy of that? Going back to your sketch on last month's meeting, it shows that not all the way out to there. Now it's hard to tell from this; looks like it's going all the way out to the end." R. McMahan: "Yes sir, where it would be the best point to tie it in to the existing rafters on the original roof." Member Hamilton: "Under the gable roof that you're going to construct there, will that be open to the rafters, or ....? R. McMahan: "It'll be enclosed in." Member Hamilton: "Sheetrock or something similar?" R. McMahan: "Plywood.....fastened up to the bottom of the actual supporting rafters." Member Hamilton: "Do you know what the height of the ceiling will be when it's completed?" R. McMahan: "The height of the ceiling, it's hard to say. I don't have an exact dimension. I would say eight foot, between eight and nine foot, just roughly speaking. That's based on the height of the existing flat roof carport." Member Fey: "Basically the reason you want that thirteen feet extension is to get the drainage better. I understood that last time, if I remember right." R. McMahan: "Yes. That would be one factor. Because the drainage with this gable, it would turn the actual, it would turn the water back on to our property, whereas now it drains off of the existing flat roof, carport roof, onto the easement area. And so that would correct that area of drainage where it would run both to the north and south. Of course, that is all paved. It would run off much faster (inaudible) driveway where that water would actually run off the roof, hit that driveway, and run down to the gutter, and on down to the storm sewer. I think also exhibit A and B, if you compare the two, just Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 11 from an aesthetic standpoint, and this was mentioned also last meeting, that the gable roof would be much more attractive, obviously, would look more consistent with everything around in the neighborhood, rather than a flat roof, and from all angles, it would be a much more attractive structure than this one with a flat roof." Member Fey: "Mr. Gregory, did anybody object to the proposed extension?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Member Moore: "Mr. Chairman and members, looking at exhibit B, the gable roof there, looks like, and that's what the intention is, the aesthetics of it, is the extension of the houses out there, the extension of the roof, and to me, really, the carport part of it is the flat roof extension from the south edge of the gabled roof out to the south edge of the flat roof there, as long as that's not over twenty feet, that would look to me like that would be basically a carport area." Member Fey: "Well, the biggest problem there is the setback on the side, and we already got that." Member Moore: "The setback, we've already settled that. The street encroached on him there, and he's had to have that." Chairman Brantley: "If it is a hardship then it's not of his choosing. He didn't create it, so." Member Fey: "No, the County moved the street over on him." Member Hamilton: "Will you just be using this for mainly a passenger car?" R. McMahan: "Yes." Member Moore: "Sir, could you pretty well assure us that the flat part of the roof that extends from the gable out to the south end of that flat roof is not over twenty feet?" R. McMahan: "Oh, most definitely. It's not even fifteen. It would fall quite a bit shorter than twenty foot for sure." Member Fey: "Actually I understood it to be thirteen feet, is that right? R. McMahan: "I have thirteen and a half to the edge of the house." Motion: A motion was made by Member Fey and seconded by Member Hamilton to approve the thirteen foot extension. Vote: Member Hamilton - "Yes." Member Fey - "Yes." Chairman Brantley - "Yes." Member Moore - "Yes." The motion unanimously carried, by a vote of 4 to 0. 6. REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 90, SECTION 90-52 (1) INTERPRETATION", TO RENDER AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THAT THERE IS ERROR IN DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ZONING OFFICIAL IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH PROVISIONS (REQUESTED BY SCOTT RATLIFF) Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 12 Member Fey: "Where is this building Howard, outside of being on Baker Boulevard?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Member Moore: "Just this side of Handley Ederville Road, on your right, as you're going west. It used to be a records building, you know, that used to store your records." Chairman Brantley: "Back this side of old Cowan's garage up there." Member Fey: "I couldn't figure out where 7231 was." Chairman Brantley: "We're going to need some explanation on this thing since we just got it." Mr. Gregory: "Mr. Scott Ratliff came to me, and what he wanted to do was to take the records building and put in there the things that are listed on this sheet. I had him send me an a-mail to specify exactly what he wanted to do there. Sometimes that's easier for me to make a determination if I can see if in writing. So, when I looked at this, we have actually two things that at one time that could go in there. One would be an amusement arcade and one would be an amusement center indoors. What I did was, on the back of the little packet, I gave you a definition from the code of each one of those things." Member Fey: "I see Mr. Sralla is giving us some advice also." Mr. Gregory: "Yes. When I looked over Mr. Ratliff's a-mail and I saw the things he wanted to do, I classified it as an amusement arcade. Now there's a difference in an amusement arcade and an amusement center indoors and the biggest difference is that an amusement arcade is not allowed in the C-2 district." Member Moore: "Where is that defined?" Mr. Gregory: "It's in the code in General Provisions, Article I, in the first part of 201 Land Use Table, Definitions....Chapter 90." Member Moore: "On page 9 and 10." Mr. Gregory: So what I did was I contacted the City Attorney, I sent him a copy of what Mr. Ratliff had sent me, his proposed use for that building. I asked Mr. Sralla if he would tell me where he thinks that this type of use belongs. And I made you a copy with his permission, of his answer to me." Member Moore: "Now this is the definition you showed us of the arcade and the amusement center. Where does it say that the arcade is not permitted and the center is permitted?" Mr. Gregory: "In the Land Use Table, 201. Now you see this P under C-2? That was removed about a year ago by the Council, so that's blank now. It's not permitted at all there. Now amusement center, indoor stays, it's permitted." Member Fey: "What is the zoning there?" Mr. Gregory: "C-2." Member Fey: "That's the reason for the questions tonight?" Mr. Gregory: "Actually, what the code says that in the interpretation part of it, I'm saying it's an amusement arcade, so I go to the City Attorney, and he agrees with me. He says their use is an amusement arcade. Mr. Ratliff can speak for himself, but he thinks it's an amusement center indoor, and you guys get to make that interpretation." Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 13 Chairman Brantley: "Basically, it's a thirty minute notice." Mr. Ratliff: "Under your definition of amusement arcade, we were told bounce houses fall under amusement arcade falls under amusement devices, and in your definition amusement device shall not include any machine designed exclusively for children. And, bounce houses, that's what they're designed for, is children. That would kick us out of the amusement arcade, which lives us only with the indoor amusement." Member Moore: "Do you plan on having any amusement devices of any type in there other than the bounce houses?" Mr. Ratliff: "No sir and the very first sentence of your definition of indoor amusement center is a means, a facility providing game equipment for entertainment and amusement as its primary source of income. These are going to be reserved party rooms, birthday parties, team parties, church groups, fund raisers for schools, day cares. That's our target group, 4 to 17." Member Moore: "And your letter to Mr. Gregory, the third paragraph there says `there is also a twenty five hundred square foot room we will be using as an arcade." Mr. Ratliff: "We've changed it up, the only thing that doesn't fit here. We've decided to use that 2500 sq. ft. room for a toddler room. I can buy smaller inflatables that are made for the little ones, so when older brother comes to a birthday party, there's some place for the little one to play. That original a-mail was sent right after we saw the plans for the building. And, there's a lot of office space, more than we actually need, and we were kicking around ideas on what to do with it." Member Hamilton: "Do you have any plans in the future to add any of the coin operated machines?" Mr. Ratliff "No sir. The other companies we've seen do this, it's all birthday parties, teen parties. The arcades aren't really what we're going after. We're going after something to get these kids to get active, to quit sitting around playing Nintendo all day. The arcade kind of goes against the concept of what the bounce houses of running and playing." Member Hamilton: "Do you charge admission?" Mr. Ratliff: "Yes, there's a set fee to have a private party in the three 5,000 sq. ft. rooms in the back of the building. The building is over 20,000 sq. ft. and there's over 15,000 warehouse space that will convert to air conditioning. The party rooms will be 5,000 sq. ft. a piece, and they will be a private party in each room." Member Hamilton: "By reservation only?" Mr. Ratliff: "There'll be one part of it that will be allowable for come and go type of things." Member Hamilton: "Do you charge by the time?" Mr. Ratliff: "On the one that's come and go, it will be a $7.00 admission all day. The other two rooms are reserved for parties only." Member Moore: "Do you ever intend to have any coin operated machines or games in there?" Mr. Ratliff: "Not games." Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 29, 2005, Page 14 Member Moore: "You said `not games', now what other? Mr. Ratliff: "Coke machines, or water machines." Member Moore: "No games." Mr. Ratliff: "No games." Member Moore: "I have a question for Mr. Gregory. Should this be approved, and they are in operation, what are the chances of monitoring so that if he sells out or leases part of it out or something, and somebody does come in and put in some of the other devices, it would change the meaning of it. Would it be watched over, any checking on it?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Member Moore: "Mr. Chairman, I see so very little difference in the definition of amusement arcade and amusement center, and you boil it right down to the fact that this particular use or application is really not defined in either one, but it certainly is not one of the game operations that would be fitting in the arcade. I feel kind of put upon that we are asked to make a definition that the lawyer should make, but he's passed it on to us. But, since they're so close together, I just can't see that we could very well rule out one for the other." Member Fey: "The problem is that we're going to have to make a decision which one it is." Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Member Hamilton: "Well, what I was getting at is if we allowed those little jump deals for the owner now, and if he sells a couple of years later and someone came in and put all kinds of games in there, a coin operated amusement, would we have shot ourselves in the foot? At that time it could be determined what they were going to use it for would be under the amusement arcade, he wouldn't be allowed to do that, correct?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Mr. Ratliff: "Our estimated gross profits will be around $500,000.00 a year. That's off research from other companies that are doing this in the area." Member Hamilton: "Will you have a food service there are anything?" Mr. Ratliff: "Nothing in the building. If they want pizzas, we're going to get with the local pizza place, or Chic Filet. There'll be no on site cooking or anything like that." Member Fey: "Coke machine or anything like that?" Mr. Ratliff: "We're looking at putting a coke machine in." Member Fey: "If I understand right. If we called that an amusement arcade, which the lawyer seems to think is right, then we'd have to give him a variance or something like that?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Mr. Ratliff: "I believe the attorneys definition, why he gave us an arcade, was that you classified our bounce houses as amusement devices, is that correct?" Mr. Gregory: Inaudible. Mr. Ratliff: "That's what I was told. If he classified it as amusement device, your own definition, it would kick us out." Member Hamilton: "These axe not coin operated, are they?" Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005, Page 14 Mr. Ratliff: "No sir. We run a blower that plugs into a 120." Member Hamilton: "It says right there, machines that are designed exclusively for children." Chairman Brantley: "If there's no discussion, the Chair will entertain a motion, one way or the other." Motion: Member Moore made a motion that the Board of Adjustment render The interpretation that the intended use would be as an Ausement Center, Indoor. Member Fey seconded the motion. Vote: Member Hamilton - "Yes." Member Fey - "Yes." Chairman Brantley - "Yes." Member Moore - "Yes." The motion unanimously carried, 4 to 0. 7. PERSONAL APPEARANCES (CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REGARDING NON-SCHEDULED ITEMS AFFECTING THE ZONING AFFAIRS OF THE CITY) There were none. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Malvin Brantley, Chai