Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-24MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1985 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hess, Poe MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Vincent UPON MOTION BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY CRANMER, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-26 (Cont. from June 12, 1985) Applicant: William Leland A request to permit conversion of single family residence to commercial use. Subject property is located at 619 Main Street (West side of Main Street between Acacia Avenue and Palm Avenue. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 2 This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Scott Hess reported this project is located at 619 Main Street and zoned C3 - General Commercial. On that particular block, there are two other commercial operations. The applicant had asked for a continuance so he could revise his plans. He shows a two -car garage in the back and is converting several of the rooms in the residence to office space. Staff would recommend approval with conditions. Daryl Smith asked about the Building Code requirements in converting a residential building to commercial use. Staff said the applicant would have to bring the building up to standards, provide handicapped parking, and provide secured windows if within five feet W ) of the side property lines. Ross Cranmer stated the applicant would have to fill in the doors and windows on the side and will probably have to install air conditioning as a result. One concern of Daryl Smith's was about customers going through the alley for entrance to the parking area. It was his feeling that they would not do so and would be parking on the residential street instead. This will create a situation where other residents will be constantly complaining. Glen Godfrey asked if there had been any communication from Redevelopment on this project, and Scott Hess said they had approved the development since it was located toward the North end of the alley. Upon questioning by Daryl Smith as to whether the applicant was required to enter into a parking arrangement with the Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Hess said the applicant meets the requirements for a C3 Zone. The applicant, Bill Leland, was present but asked his contractor, Bob Jarrard, to speak. Mr. Jarrard said they had resubmitted the plans after the first hearing, and he stated they are complying with the Uniform Building Code. He added the 32 Square Foot reduction in size would create a hardship and make the project impractical. Ross Cranmer reiterated the fact that all openings on the sides would have to be closed. Daryl Smith said he did not feel this project would lend itself favorably to the development plan for the downtown area and these types of projects would ultimately be more costly to the Redevelopment Agency, the City, and the taxpayers in general. -2- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 3 Glen Godfrey said this property is located in a C3 Zone, that the applicant is meeting the design requirements of the Code, and that he did not see how the Board could deny the project. Staff reported only one anonymous telephone call had been received objecting to the conversion because it would be creating a parking problem in the neighborhood. Les Evans said he would move for denial with the findings that the intention of the City is not to permit commercial uses on twenty-five foot (251) lots but rather to consolidate lots. Also that there will be inadequate parking for such an operation. EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY SMITH, FOR DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-26, WITH FINDINGS. AYES: Evans, Smith NOES: Cranmer, Godfrey, Vincent ABSENT: None MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. Jim Vincent said the applicant had purchased the property specifically to convert it to such use and is meeting the City Codes. Mr. Vincent further said he did not see how the Board could deny it. UPON MOTION BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY GODFREY, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-26 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans dated July 15, 1985, and elevations dated May 23, 1985, shall be the approved layout with the requirement that a revised site plan be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Elimination of garage and replacement with two unenclosed parking spaces (one 14 feet in width designed for the handicapped) in conformance with Article 979. b. Depict trash area c. Revise the floor plan so as to conform with all access requirements to the handicapped, including relocation of the handicapped ramp to the side entrance; and indicate no openings on building walls within five feet (51) of side property lines. -3- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 4 d. Reduce the building size by thirty-two (32) Square Feet or provide an additional parking space. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, Fire Department, and Public Works Department. 4. Alley dedication of 2'-6" shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All signs shall comply with Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. AYES: Cranmer, Godfrey, Vincent NOES: Evans, Smith ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-36 (Cont. from July 17, 1985) Applicant: James K. Reed A request to permit two foot (21) encroachment into side yard setback at 17891 Caledonia Circle (Southwest corner of Caledonia Circle and Balmoral Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff reported this application was continued from the last meeting for the applicant to revise his plans. He has increased the size of the building by 50 Square Feet and would only have a nine foot (91) side yard setback. He is providing access off the Kitchen with an interior stairway. This stairway would necessitate the one foot (11) encroachment. However, due to the size of the lot, there is no land -related hardship and Staff would recommend denial based on the findings. -4- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Pa ge 5 Daryl Smith stated that, with these revisions, it would be difficult to convert to a duplex. The original setback was for two feet (21) and he now is only asking for one foot (11). Mr. Smith further added he did not understand Staff's position for denial since the Board had previously approved encroachments for as much as five feet (51) into setbacks. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Smith and the applicant, James K. Reed, was present. Mr. Reed told the Board he had tried to conform with their requests by integrating the addition more into the interior of the residence and he had lessened the encroachment. He added he is upgrading the home and the area, he needs the additional space, and he does not want to build something that is not usable. The contractor, Rick Walters, said they had gone two feet (21) closer to the pool which they did not want to do because of Mr. Reed's elderly parents. Upon questioning by Daryl Smith, Scott Hess said the size of the property was sixty-five feet wide by ninety feet deep (65" x 911). SMITH MOVED, SECONDED BY VINCENT, FOR APPROVAL BASED ON FINDING THAT THE SIZE OF THE LOT CREATED A LAND -RELATED HARDSHIP. AYES: Smith, Vincent NOES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey ABSENT: None MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-36 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks by providing a ten foot (10') side yard setback, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. -5- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 6 6. Granting of Conditional -Exception No. 85-36 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 8. Exceptional'circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey NOES: Smith, Vincent ABSENT:. None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-41 Applicant: George E. McCall A request for a variance to permit the conversion of an existing 220 Square Foot shed into a mini -gym built on the side property line (0' setback) and build a 410 Square Foot addition for additional gym area, weight room, and shower facilities with a two foot (21) rear yard setback in lieu of the required five foot (51) and zero (01) side yard setback in lieu of the required five feet (51). Subject property is located at 20701 Charwood Lane (North side of Charwood Lane at intersection with Sunridge Drive).. This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff said there is currently a single family residence on this lot. Along the side of the applicant's property, there is a ten foot (10') strip of land owned by the City where a forty-two inch (42") storm drain exists approximately seven feet (71) below grade. It was also originally used for pedestrian access from Charwood Lane to the school site. In 1973, this strip was allowed to be utilized by the owner at that time. According to the applicant, he now owns this area but the tax rolls indicate that the City still owns it. We have asked the applicant to present proof of ownership which he has not done. There is a 200 Square Foot shed located on this strip and the applicant wishes to convert this space into a mini -gym and also build a 410 Square Foot addition fora weight room with shower facilities. The applicant has already started construction without benefit of a building permit. According to the City Code, no wall over forty-two inches (42") high can be built over a storm drain. Staff is recommending denial of this request based on our findings. Staff has received two anonymous telephone calls regarding, this project - one in favor of it and.the other objecting to the construction. -6- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 7 The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant, George E. McCall,. was present. Mr. McCall stated he did not believe there was a storm drain in that area. He added that the City had built the wall and he just wanted to expand into what the City left there. The City, according to Mr. McCall, had knocked down the wall except for the portion he wanted left, and they also put the roof over the shed. Glen Godfrey asked the applicant how much he paid the City for all this and Mr. McCall said he did not pay one penny. After a further discussion about the storm drain and property ownership, Chairman Smith closed the Public Hearing since there was no one else wishing to speak concerning the project. UPON MOTION BY EVANS, AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-41 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. There is adequate area to set back the structures five feet (51) from property lines. 3. The proposed gym and weight room will not be compatible with adjacent residential properties because they are proposed to be built on the property line. 4. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-41 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. Accessory structures of this size are required to maintain a five foot (51) setback for proper light and air ventilation. 5. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. 6. Roofed structures built on storm drains are prohibited by City Ordinances. -7- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 8 The walls recently constructed by the property owner without benefit of a building permit must be removed within thirty (30) days. A field inspection will be made for compliance with this requirement. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-15 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-45 USE PERMIT NO. 85-40 Applicant: Gloria Costa A request to convert an existing retail facility with a small snack counter into a pizza restaurant with forty-nine (49) seats within the Downtown Specific Plan with a variance request for a reduction in parking and a special permit request to maintain an existing building with nonconforming setbacks and landscaping. Subject property is located at 119 Main Street (West side of Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Scott Hess said that, prior to presenting this application, Staff would like to get a clarification of a section of the Downtown Specific Plan which would affect two of these three applications. We need to know whether the term "expansion of floor area" means additional building area or existing building where portion is for retail use and the other for restaurant use with reference to an expansion. Daryl Smith said, if more tables were to be added, that, in itself, would constitute an increase in business. Staff mentioned that it is a nonconforming building and the City is concerned with its use. The applicant used eighty percent (80%) for retail and only twenty percent (20%) for the snack area. If they are just expanding the use, then they do not need the Coastal Development Permit or the Conditional Exception. We would just have to determine whether parking is adequate or whether the applicant/owner will agree to participate in the Redevelopment Agency parking arrangement for downtown which, incidentally, he has done. Any expansion of actual floor area would require the entire building to be brought up to Code. -8- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 9 Daryl Smith asked if the building is presently occupied and Scott Hess replied that it is vacant. Staff said the applicant would need a Certificate of Occupancy and the building would have to be brought into conformance with the seismic standards. Scott Hess further stated, after questioning by Daryl Smith, that if the Board determines a need for all three applications - the Coastal Development Permit, the Conditional Exception, and the Use Permit - then the applications will need to be referred to the Planning Commission for a special permit. Glen Godfrey said it was his feeling it would be most judicious to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for an interpretation of the ambiguity in wording, and Daryl Smith said he could not disagree with that idea. There were no comments from the other members so Chairman Smith opened the Public Hearing on the Use Permit. The applicant's son, Carlos Costa, was present. Mr. Costa said they would be adding about three (3) tables and some appliances but would not be doing any actual renovation. He added that the Health Department has approved their plans and he has agreed to bring the building up to Code. Mr. Costa further said they had understood there would be another six (6) months after October loth to bring their building up to the seismic standards. The square footage which will be in actual use will be the same as before. The Public Hearing was closed as there was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project. Mr. Smith said he had concerns about the applicant, and others in similar situations, getting into uncontrollable costs by entering into the parking arrangement and attempting to bring the buildings up to seismic standards. Mr. Costa stated they do own the building, which has common walls with businesses on each side of them, and they will all work together on these solutions. GLEN GODFREY MOVED THAT THE MATTER OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE FOR RESOLUTION AND DECISION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY SMITH. Scott Hess suggested that a motion might be made on the Use Permit and let Staff work with Redevelopment and Public Works to iron out the ambiguity. If we are unable to resolve it, then perhaps the matter could be referred to the Planning Commission, and Jim Vincent agreed with the suggestion. -9- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 10 Upon questioning by Ross Cranmer, the applicant said they wanted to occupy the building as soon as possible. Daryl Smith said the letter submitted by the applicant did not seem to specifically call out the exact agreement, and Scott Hess said Staff would prepare a letter for the applicant's signature which could be recorded. After further discussion about the occupancy of the building, SMITH WITHDREW HIS SECOND TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. GODFREY, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, WITHDREW THE MOTION No action was taken on Coastal Development Permit No. 85-15 or Conditional Exception No. 85-45. VINCENT SAID HE WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE USE PERMIT WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS PRESENTED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT STAFF WOULD WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND REDEVELOPMENT TO CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY OF WORDING. UPON MOTION BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY EVANS, USE PERMIT NO. 85-40 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. A Use Permit for the restaurant is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 2. The granting of this Use Permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or• injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The applicant is willing and able to carry out this request and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. 4. The granting of this Use Permit will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the City's Ordinance Code. 5. The granting of the Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 6. The applicant is willing to participate in an agreement for an "in -lieu" fee for providing twenty-four '(24) parking spaces in a parking facility as prescribed by Sec. 4.2.12(e) of the Downtown Specific Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The floor plans received and dated June 26, 1985, shall be the approved layout. -10- 7/24/85 - BZA I Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 11 2. In lieu of providing on -site parking, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to participate in a parking district formation and post a bond in an amount adequate to cover the cost of the twenty-four (24) parking spaces based on a parking ratio of one (1) space per one hundred (100) Square Feet of the 2,334 Square Foot building for a restaurant use. This agreement shall be signed, notarized and recorded to assure that any future property owners will also participate in a parking district. 3. The building shall be brought into seismic safety compliance prior to final occupancy of the building and/or restaurant. 4. The property owner shall submit an irrevocable offer of dedication of 7-1/2 feet for alley widening purposes. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Building Division, Fire Department, and Orange County Health Department. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued upon satisfaction -of the above conditions. 7. No outdoor seating shall be permitted. 8. Major exterior building modifications are subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith, Vincent NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 85-41 (NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-38) Applicant: Slater/Metzler Industrial A request to permit construction of three (3) industrial buildings to be located at the Southeast corner of Metzler Lane and Slater Avenue. This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff reported the applicant is proposing three (3) industrial buildings - two (2) as industrial buildings and one (1) for automotive repair. Staff has reviewed it and the project is basically in conformance with the Code. This property is located in the Coastal Zone and the elevations are subject to review by the -11- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 12 Design Review Board. The Negative Declaration was not prepared and Staff is recommending that the application be continued to the meeting of August 7th for review by the Design Review Board and preparation of the Negative Declaration. Daryl Smith stated it appeared to him that the review could be taken care of in the conditions but what bothered him was the Negative Declaration.. He asked why it had not been prepared and Staff replied it was thought to be exempt. Staff,further added that the Negative Declaration would have to be properly advertised and this will take two (2) weeks. The Board cannot, Staff reported, take action on the Use Permit until.after the Negative Declaration is adopted. Chairman Smith opened the Public Hearing. The applicant's representative, Warren Lortie, was present. The Board members discussed with him their concerns relative to the project such as consolidation of parcels, the fifteen foot (151) storm drain easement along the easterly property line, the Slater Avenue access, 10' x 101-corner cut-offs, and Fire Department access. The applicant requested a continuance of two (2) weeks to work with Staff on the plan corrections needed and for the advertisement of the Negative Declaration. The Public Hearing remained open. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, USE PERMIT NO. 85-41 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: NONE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 Applicant: Ned R. Healy and Company A request to revise the parking lot layout at 17602 Griffin Lane (East side of Griffin Lane at corner of -Burton Drive). This request is covered.by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. According to Staff, the applicant's proposal is for a�Site Plan Amendment to,modify the parking layout. They -want to re -orient the compact spaces to the opposite side of the lot. Because of the grade, they would prefer to landscape the area shown on the map rather than include all the landscaping at one end of .the property. Staff is recommending a different plan. -12- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 13 Glen Godfrey asked if there was a reciprocal parking agreement and Staff replied there was not. Les Evans expressed concern over the drainage situation, and Daryl Smith asked that the Minutes reflect the fact the Board approved the revision of the parking lot layout only as to parking stalls and landscaping and not any changes in the previously approved drainage plans. The applicant's representative, Rita Healy, was present. She reviewed the plan which Staff was recommending and mentioned the fire hydrant would then be located behind the fence they planned to erect. Jim Vincent stressed the fact the fire hydrant would have to be on the driveway side of the fence for access or the gate would have to meet Fire Department standards. There was a discussion about the location of the "will call" area and Ms. Healy explained most of the items would be picked up by United Parcel Service rather than individual customers. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT FOR APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDED PLAN, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the following modifications: a. Revise the parking layout to reflect the attached site plan. 2. All conditions of Administrative Review No. 84-83 shall remain in effect except as noted herein. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-48 (EXTENSION OF TIME) Applicant: Charles H. Bollman A request to permit a one (1) year extension of Administrative Review No. 84-48. Subject property is located at 7151 Garfield Avenue (North side of Garfield Avenue approximately 225 feet East of Steward Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff recommended approval of this request with no additional conditions to be imposed. The applicant was not present. -13- 7/24/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 14 UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-48 (EXTENSION OF TIME) WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-49 (EXTENSION OF TIME)` Applicant: Dr. Richard A. Graham , A request to permit an extension of one (1) year to Administrative Review No. 84-49. Subject property is located at 18852 Main Street (South side of Main Street approximately 200 yards West of Beach Boulevard). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 84-22. Staff reported that it was felt the pole sign located on this property was obtrusive, that it should be modified to a monument sign with a pedestal, and should not exceed eight feet (81) in height. Daryl Smith said this is a new sign and now Staff is saying it is not satisfactory. He further asked when the permit was issued and Mr. Hess replied three months ago. Glen Godfrey stated this was an opportunity for the Board to rectify the condition of the obtrusive sign. Daryl Smith asked if this was the only condition Staff was recommending and Staff said it was. The applicant, Dr. Richard A. Graham, was present. Dr. Graham said he had spent over $12,000 for the sign and did not understand why anyone felt it was obtrusive. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-49 (EXTENSION OF TIME) WAS APPROVED WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: w AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith, Vincent NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None MISCELLANEOUS AGENDA ITEMS: BOARD REVIEW OF ADDITION TO PREVIOUS ACTION - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-37 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-36 Applicant: Dane Lussier, Jr. Staff reported these applications had been approved by the Board at their meeting on July 10, 1985, and the applicant has now brought in a model showing a proposed sundeck to be constructed on the Second �l -14- 7/24/85 - BZA 1 Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 24, 1985 Page 15 Floor above the new garage. It is a substantial structure and Glen Godfrey felt it should be presented to the Board for their review. The applicant, Dane Lussier, Jr., was present. He felt the sun deck would be a pleasant addition to the structure and he said the sundeck would only be seven feet in height. UPON MCTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, BOARD REVIEW OF ADDITION TO PREVIOUS ACTION ON CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-37 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-36 WAS APPROVED WITH'NO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None There was no further business to be discussed. UPON MOTION BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY CRANMER, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, JULY 29, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., AFTER PROPER POSTING OF AGENDA ITEMS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None & 3 Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh -15- 7/24/85 - BZA