Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-04MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY,-AUGUST 4, 1982 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: Spencer, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans STAFF PRESENT: Zelefsky AGENDA ITEMS -TO BE CONTINUED: REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 82-22 Applicants: Donald W..& Catherine H. Mac Leod To permit an addition to a residence on property with a non -conform- ing yard.- Property located at 712 Delaware Street' (Oldtown Specific Plan). Request is categorically exempt, Class. 5, California Environ- mental Quality Act, 1970. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that prior to the meeting of July 28, 1982, the Board was informed that they could not act on Use Permit No. 82-22 due to its appropriateness. Subsequently, at the meeting of July 28, 1982, the application was referred to the Planning Commission for hearing. Since this meeting, the.application was reviewed in depth and found to be a proper application for action by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Acting Secretary Spencer requested that the Board Members give reconsideration to the previous action taken on Use Permit No. 82-22 at the meeting of July 28, 1982. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN WAS CARRIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Spencer, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Two Acting Secretary Spencer addressed the Board and stated that the Board may wish to reopen the public hearing or may choose not to do so. He stated that the Board was in receipt of information that the structure above the applicants garage was approved by a permit in August of 1951 as a rumpus room and has never been used as a habitable use. Information indicates that the property is a single- family dwelling, with an accessory building, non -conforming in height and setback requirements. When a single-family dwelling unit is non -conforming because of yard conformance, the Board of Zoning may act on a Use Permit application providing that the addition conforms to today's Code requirements. The area of dedication was discussed as outlined in Section 9730.4 and Section 9730.6 of the Code. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that if the value of the addition exceeds one-third (1/3) value of the existing structure's value, then a two and one-half (2-1/2) foot dedication for alley purpose will have to be made. Prior to issuance of building permits, this determination will have to be made by a building official. It was stated that open space and open space dimensions meets today's Code requirements. At the time of construction of the rumpus room zoning was R-2 (since changed to Oldtown Specific Plan) with the fifteen (15) foot height of the accessory building allowed which coincides with the main dwelling unit. Board Member Smith stated that after hearing the above information he felt that the standard.findings mandated by the Code for a'Use Permit application were applicable to this proposal and that it was not necessary to reopen the public hearing. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER, USE PERMIT NO. 82-22 WAS APPROVED WITH REASONS, FINDINGS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS AND FINDINGS: 1. Although the applicants proposed addition to the to the present day Code have a non -conforming yard, the applicants residence will conform requirements. 2. The proposed addition is found not to be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 3. The granting of this Use Permit will not adversely affect the'General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. -2- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Three, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. 'TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The conceptual plan and elevations received July 7, 1982, shall be the approved layout subject to the following: a. Determination shall be made by the Building Official if proposed addition exceeds one-third (1/3) of the existing building value. If that value does exceed said one-third (1/3) value, then a two and one-half (2-1/2) foot dedication for alley purpose shall be made. In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the conceptual plan: - Traffic circulation and drives; - Parking layout; - Lot area; - Lot width and lot depth; Type'of use and its relation to property and improvements in the immediate vicinity; Past administrative action regarding this property. AYES: Spencer, Vogelsang, Smith NOES: Evans ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-32 (In conjunction with N.D. No. 82-25) Applicant: Ambrosino & Brown To permit a 11,574 sq. ft. General Warehousing Industrial Building. Location is System Drive and Chemical Lane, on the southeast corner, Parcel No. 2. Acting Chairman Evans stated that Administrative Review No. 82-32 shall be'covered by Negative Declaration No. 82-25. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER, THE BOARD HAVING FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82=25, WITH MITIGATING MEASURES AS.IMPOSED ON -ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82--32, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Spencer, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -3- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: HOB. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Four Mr. Christopher N. Ambrosino, Architect for the project, was present. Acting Secretary Spencer outlined the applicants request and stated that the subject property is irregular in size (flag shaped), pre- viously approved on Tentative Parcel Map No. 76-44 which approved the reduction of minimum building site frontage heard in conjunction with Administrative Review No. 76-151 which delineated all structures proposed for future construction. As Administrative Review No. 76-151 was allowed to expire, the applicant has returned to the Board of Zoning for reapproval. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that staff has determined that both plans for administrative reviews do coincide. Upon the Boards review of the plan submitted it was noted that circulation and parking were substantially the same as originally approved on Administrative Review No. 76-151,meeting Code require- ments. The applicant was informed that although the site plan submitted shows proposed landscaping provided with 1,789 square feet, in lieu of 1,692 sq. ft. required by Code, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan is necessary depicting type of planting materials to be used on the site. ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-32 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-25) WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED FOLLOWING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The revised plot plan and elevations received July 7, 1982 (found to'be substantially in compliance with previously approved A.R. No. 76-151 and T.P.M. No. 76-44) shall be the approved layout, subject to the following: a. The following plans shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board for review and approval: 1. Landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscaping specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. 2. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan. Said plan shall -indicate screening of all rooftop mechani- cal equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. If such plans comply with the modifications outlined by the Board, said plans shall be approved and made a permanent part of the administrative file. -4- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes; H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Five In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the conceptual plan: - Traffic circulation and drives; Parking layout; Lot area; Lot width and lot depth; Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in the immediate vicinity; Past administrative action regarding this property.. B. General Conditions: 1. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. - 2. If lighting is included in the parking lot, energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g. high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 3. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 4. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. AYES: Spencer, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-37 Applicant: Signal Development Corporation To permit "Grand Opening" for Newland Center on August 14 and 15, 1982, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily. Location at 19640 - 19950 Beach Boulevard. Acting'Chairman Evans introduced the event. Bill Walkup, representing Signal Development Corporation, addressed the Board and explained the request. -5- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Six Acting Secretary Spencer stated that the Fire Department had concern with the location of the booths on the site. Proper circulation, allowing access of emergency vehicles should they be required, was explained to the applicant. Mr. Walkup was informed -that the Fire Department will have to be contacted for an on -site inspection prior to the event. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER,'ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-37 WAS GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plot plan received July 23, 1982, shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary electrical permits. 3. An on -site inspection by the Fire Department shall be required five (5) days prior to the event. 4. A certificate of insurance form shall be filed in the Finance Department five (5) days prior to the event. AYES: Spencer,- Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-42 Applicant: Mr. John L. Peterson To permit a six (6) inch encroachment into required five (5) foot sideyard for a length of 20 feet along both property lines. - Acting Chairman Evans explained guidelines necessary whereby allowing the Board to grant Conditional Exceptions and Use Permit applications provided that in so doing, the general purpose of the -ordinance Code is not affected. Acting Secretary Spencer outlined the applicant's proposal. This request is. -Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. The public hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Evans. As the applicant was not present, and'as there was no one else present to speak in favor or opposition of the request, the hearing was tabled to the end of the meeting to allow the applicant additional time to arrive. -6- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Seven ON MOTION BY VOGELSANG, AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-42 WAS TABLED TO THE END OF THE MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Spencer, Vogelsang, Evans, Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-45 Applicant: Irene C. Rice To permit a 20 ft. front on garage in lieu of the Code permitted 22 f t. Property located at 6041 Priscilla Drive. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that the applicant presently has - a side entry garage which she would like changed to -a front entry garage which would provide additional space for a proposed courtyard in her front yard area, reduce the size of her present driveway apron, and improve the appearance of her home. Mrs. Rice's tract of homes was built prior to the•1969 standards requiring that a direct entry garage set back a minimum of twenty-two feet from the ultimate right- of-way. The bulk of the homes in Mrs. Rice's tract have front on garages with twenty (20) foot dimensions. The public hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Evans. As Mr. Alan Fourthaber, present representing Mrs. Rice, had no comment and as there was no one else present to speak in favor or opposition of the proposal, the public hearing was closed. Upon the Board's review of the plan submitted, Mr. Fourthaber was informed that the existing curb -cut to be replaced and the proposed curb -cut in the public right-of-way will have to meet -the standards of the Public Works Department. It was the consensus of the Board Members that the granting of this request would provide one of parity with surrounding•homes. ON MOTION BY'SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-45 WAS APPROVED WITH REASONS, FINDINGS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: REASONS AND FINDINGS: 1. The applicant's tract was originally constructed with a twenty (20) foot setback prior to 1969 Code requirement of twenty-two (22) foot setback for a front -on garage. 2. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other proper- ties in the vicinity. -7- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Eight 3. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 4. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The conceptual plot plan dated July 20, 1982, shall be the approved layout, subject to the following: a. A revised site plan, with elevations, shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board for review and approval reflecting ultimate improvements. b. Landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscaping specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. G If such plan complies with the modifications outlined by the Board, said plans shall be approved by the Secretary of the Board and made a permanent part of the administrative file. B. General Condition: 1. All improvements within the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Public Works Department. AYES: Spencer, Vogelsang, Evans, Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 82-23 Applicants: Mr. Ronald Wood and Mr. William Goodman To permit construction of garages more than 150 ft. from front setback. Garages at zero property line setback. Addition to property with non- conforming yards located at 718 and 720 Williams. -8•- " BZA . 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Nine USE PERMIT NO. 82-23 Applicant: R. Wood and W. Goodman To permit construction of garages more than 150 ft. from front setback. Garage at zero property line setback. Addition to property with non -conforming yards. Property located at 718 and 720 Williams Street, zoned R-2, Two Family Residence District. Acting Secretary Spencer outlined the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act. It was stated that the maximum height of accessory buildings per Code within the R-2, medium density residential district, with rear yard setback of ten (10) feet and interior sideyards of five (5) feet, shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. -In a typical planned residential development, garages at zero property line setback are required -to be constructed of a maintenance free solid masonry material with a maximum height of nine (9) feet. It was further stated by Acting Secretary Spencer -that the Board has no history if subject lot was legally created. He suggested that if the Board acts favorably on this application, proof of the lots legal creation should be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. It was also stated that the property is physically lacking public improvements as no sidewalk was shown on the plan. Acting;Chairman Evans opened the public hearing with Mr. Ronald Wood and Mr. William Goodman present to speak in favor of their proposal. Mr. Wood addressed the Board and responded to the comment about the sidewalk. He said they had previously visited our Public Works Department and were told specifically that the sidewalk would not be a requirement. He said they have owned the property for six or seven years and have made no improvements to the property to date. They thought of tearing down the apartments and rebuilding but after investigating found interest rates and construction costs too high. They have now decided to rehabilitate their eight (8) existing units which will include new roofs, landscaping, interior and exterior improvements. He stated they have been in contact with -Ulrich Stenzel, our Grading Engineer, regarding the drainage problem on their property. The proposed six (6) new double garages at the rear of their property are to only accommodate their tenants. The reason for the height is that possibly some of. their tenants may have R.V.'s or boats along with storage. They wish to make the garages larger than standard size to accommodate all uses. -9- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Ten The Board asked the applicant if he would be receptive to the garage wall being at a height of nine (9) feet located at zero property line. He responded "No", we need the height for our tenants use. It was suggested to the applicant by the Board, that since he has extra open space area by revising his plan a little, by moving the garages forward at a 10 ft. rear yard setback with 5 ft. sideyard setbacks, he could solve the situation for larger garages and obtain the requested height of 14 feet. The applicant felt that as his property abuts commercial property in the rear, zoned C-4 with a parking lot directly in the rear of his property, that a fourteen foot high garage wall at a zero setback should not be a problem. The public hearing was closed by Acting Chairman Evans. Board discussion ensued. The stark appearance of the wall at a zero setback was explained to the applicant. He was informed that other decretionary actions by the Planning Commission and this Board have not approved garage walls exceeding a height over nine (9) feet at the zero property line. A motion was made by Board Member Smith which failed for lack of a second. He felt that as the applicants property abuts commercially zoned property, and as the applicants were improving the property considerably (including the drainage problem), along with helping alleviate the on -street parking prevailing all over the City, the plan submitted should be approved. Board discussion continued in an effort to reach a motion. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SPENCER, USE PERMIT NO. 82-23 WAS APPROVED WITH REASONS, FINDINGS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. As base district requires a ten (10) ft. rear yard setback it would serve no useful purpose becoming a maintenance problem, coupled with the fact that said rear yard abuts commercially zoned property - a zero rear yard would be a reasonable request. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use -will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 3. The granting of a use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 4. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use, -10- BZA 8/4/82 1 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Eleven CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: l.. The conceptual plan with elevations received July 13, 1982, shall be the approved layout, subject to the modifications described herein: a. Proof the parcel has been legally created. If not, a tentative parcel map shall be submitted for approval action. b. Garage sideyards shall be constructed at a five (5) foot setback in order to facilitate orderly vehicular movement. c. Garage height shall not exceed nine (9) feet. d. Garage wall along the common (rear) property line shall be constructed of solid masonry material. e, A grading plan shall be approved. A plan delineating said modifications shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board. If such plan complies with the modifications outlined by the Board, said plan shall be approved and made a permanent part of the administrative file. In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the conceptual plan: - Traffic circulation and drives; - Parking layout; - Lot area; - Lot width and lot depth; - Type of use'and its relation to property and improvements in the immediate vicinity; - Past administrative action regarding this property. B. GENERAL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTIONS: 1. If a parcel map is necessary.to legally create subject parcel, a Final Parcel Map shall be recorded with the Orange County'Recorder's Office. 2. Public sidewalk shall be constructed to Department of Public Works specifications. AYES: Evans, Spencer, Vogelsang, Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -11- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Twelve CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-46 To permit a second story residential structure to encroach 219" into required 15' front setback. HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH USE PERMIT'NO. 82 46 'i To permit an addition to a single family dwelling with non- conforming garage setback. Both applications were submitted by Mr. George Alemshah for property located at 16722 Intrepid Lane. Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposals and stated that both requests are categorically exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that when the subject property was developed in 1964, the applicants tract was administratively approved with 7-1/2 foot front yard setbacks. The applicant is proposing to add to his two-story residential structure a fill-in above his existing two -car garage adding a four foot three inch (413") deck. As the Code requires a minimum front yard setback at fifteen (15) feet, a variance is requested for the two foot nine inch (219") encroachment into the fifteen (15) foot front yard .setback and a Use Permit application for the addition to a single family dwelling with a non -conforming yard. The public hearing was opened, for both applications, by Acting Chairman Evans. Mr. George Alemshah, Architect for the project, introduced himself to the Board. He submitted a list of addresses to the Board Members consisting'of other homes in the immediate vicinity of Mr. and Mrs. Shape's (property owners) home which have identical/similar additions to what they are proposing. He felt that the addition for a pool room above Mr. and Mrs. Sharpe's garage would not impact the neighborhood. The public hearing for both applications was closed by Acting Chairman Evans. Board discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Board Members that these requests were one's of parity with the surroundin homes and, as the proposed addition conforms to all applicable provisions of the Code, the requests should be granted. -12- BZA 8/4/82 1 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments .August 4, 1982 Page Thirteen ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-46 AND USE PERMIT NO. 82-24 WERE APPROVED WITH REASONS, FINDINGS, AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: REASONS -AND FINDINGS FOR C.E. NO. 82-46 1. The tract was originally constructed with a number of homes having like encroachments and, therefore, would not be inconsistent with what neighboring properties enjoy. 2. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity. 3. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. 4. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 5. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely. affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. REASONS AND FINDINGS FOR U.P. NO. 82-24 1. The tract was originally constructed with a number of homes having like'non-conforming garage setbacks and, therefore, would not be inconsistent with what neighboring properties enjoy. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use. 3. The granting of a use permit will not adversely. affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 4. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. -13- BZA 8/4/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Fourteen CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR C.E. NO. 82-46 AND U.P. NO. 82-24 The conceptual plot plan and elevations received July 21, 1982, shall be the approved layout. In its.approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the conceptual plan: - Lot area; - Lot width and lot depth; - Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in the immediate vicinity; - Past administrative action regarding this property. AYES: Spencer, Evans, Vogelsang', -Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-42 Applicant: Mr: John L. Peterson To permit a six (6) inch encroachment into required five (5) foot sideyard-for-a length of 20 feet along both property -lines. During the -first part of the meeting, as the applicant was not in attendance when the public hearing was opened, the Board tabled hearing of Conditional Exception No. 82-42 to the end of -the meeting,allowing the applicant additional time to arrive to speak in support of his proposal. 1 ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-42 WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE FOR BOARD ACTION,. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Spencer, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Acting -Secretary Spencer stated that the applicant wishes to construct a single family dwelling which includes an indoor regulation sized raquetball court fronting on Main Street, which is presently a vacant lot, with the rear of his residence located on 17th Street. The encroachment of six (6) inches into both sides of the Code required five (5) foot sideyard setback,for the end walls of his raquetball court,would allow the applicant a regulation size court. There being no one present to speak -in support or opposition of this proposal, the public hearing was closed by Acting Chairman .Evans. -14- BZA 8/4/82 1 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 4, 1982 Page Fifteen Upon the Board's review of the plan submitted, it was noted that the property could accommodate a raquetball court,by redesign,meeting the intent of the Ordinance Code. For this reason, the Board could not justify the granting of this request. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-42 WAS DENIED FOR REASONS AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS'FOR DENIAL: Conditional Exception No. 82-42 was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments based upon the following reasons: 1. Self-imposed hardship. There are other alternatives available, by redesign, that would allow the applicant to accomplish his proposal meeting Code requirement. 2. The granting of the Conditional Exception would constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity. AYES: Evans, Vogelsang, Smith, Spencer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None THEIR BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. . �;00 Olds Spencer, rtments g Secretary Board of Zoning Adju -15- BZA' . 8/4/8 2