CC MINUTES 09281982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- (5) Granting this permit would. seem to be helpful to the economic welfare of Apache. (6) It would appear an undue hardship would be caused the applicants if this permit for the drive-in facility were not granted because they have indicated ..this activity accounts for 25 percent of their business . (7) The Apache management has indicated siting the restaurant in this location would not interfere with any road or traffic pattern improvements they - plan for the area in the future. Motion carried unanimously. Since there would appear to beample common parking available at Apache, Mrs . Makowske reported .the Planning Commission° had also recommended granting the requested -variance for 18 parking -spaces for the restaurant. However, . she _suggested that, .if the .Council should adopt the Commission findings as presented, the wording of #4 should be clarified to indi- cate the vehicles in the waiting line for pickup are "stacked" rather than "parked" . Motion by Councilman Ranallo .and. .seconded by Councilman Letourneau to grant a variance for 18 .parking spaces , where 52 are. required by the City Zoning Ordinance , to. Zantigo KFC National Management Company for the restaurant they .propose to construct on the southeasterly most corner of Apache Plaza finding., as did the Planning Commission, that: • (:.1)_ The firm's business studies .have indicated 25 parking spaces would be sufficient for their restaurant, but they have nevertheless agreed to provide 34 spaces . (:21' Under a verbal agreement,. the landowner, the C. G.. Rein Company , would provide any additional parking spaces which might be necessary . (3) There is ample parking immediately adjacent to- this site to pro- vide- the additional parking to satisfy the ordinance intent, and it would therefore cause an undue hardship to require Zantigo KFC Company to provide 18 additional spaces . (4). Since 25 percent of the restaurant 's business represents a drive-in facility, vehicles would be stacked up in the drive up lane for only about 5 minutes . (_5) The five, stacking spaces provided for the drive-in facility were not considered .in the 34 proposed -by the petitioners and, if they were accepted as parking spaces , the deficiency in spaces required would be reduced. (6) The intent of the ordinance probably never envisioned the appli- cation of the parking requirements to a shopping center where ample common -parking is provided at all times . Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission representative reported the- petitioners had decided it might be to their advantage to wait to see what treatment