Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-16MINUTES HUNTINGTON'BEACH BOARD OF ZONING'ADJUSTMENTS - Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY,.00TOBER 16, 1985_- 1:'30 P.-M.- BOAR D MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent STAFF MEMBERS -PRESENT: Hess, Poe MINUTES: UPOU MOTION BY EVANS- AND SECOND BY GOD'FR'EY; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 1985,-WERE DEFERRED TO.THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 1985; BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith; Vincent NOES:. None ABSENT: None UPON MQT.IQN B,Y EVANS AND SECOND BY,GODFREY;:MINUTES OF THE'REGULAR MEEThNG OF OCTOBER 9, 1985, 4fkk APPROVED AS TRAN9CRI6E6, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES,: Cranmer, Evans; Godfrey; Smith; Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: Norte REGULAR -AGENDA ITEMS: LOT,LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85'=4 Applicant: _ Wayne.add -,Irene- Kirby A request to adjust the lot line between Lot Nos: 9 and 10 in order to create a conforming side yard,for the existing front dwelling on Lot No. 9: Subject property.is-located on the Southwest corner of Memphis Avenue and-Delaware.Street. This request is covered by Categorical Eitemptiori, Class 50 California'Envirorimental Quality Act, 1984: Since neither of ,the applicants; Wayne or Irene Rirhy, were present at the meeting, Daryl Smith suggested the request be continued to the next meeting. Minutes, H. B. Board of. Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 2 UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85-4 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-208 Applicant: Lawrence L. Truman/RMG Engineering, Inc. A request to divide a 10.0 gross acre site into two (2) parcels. Subject property is located at 14401 Willow Lane (West side of Willow Lane at intersection with Maple Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 15, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported the applicants had submitted a second letter requesting tabling of the request until reactivated by the applicant. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-208 WAS TABLED,.AT-THE.REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, UNTIL REACTIVATED BY THE'APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING -VOTE: AYES: Cranmer,' Evans, Godfrey, -Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION -NO. 85-68 Applicant:- S. Y. Kimball A request to permit -a reduction in -minimum open space width dimension from twenty-five feet (251) to.twenty-three feet (231) on property located at 16192 Santa Barbara Lane (North side of street approximately 175 feet West of Stillwater Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5,- California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Scott Hess reported the subject property is -located near the Southwest -corner of Saybrook Lane. and Edinger Avenue, and -the applicant is requesting_ a reduction in minimum open space area. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that there are unique circumstances,since.the lot is 96.3 feet in depth and most of the other lots are -from 100 feet to 107 feet in depth. Therefore, Staff is.recommending approval.- -2- 10/16/85 - BZA 1 Minutes-, H, B. Board' of Zoning. Adjustments October.16, 1985 Page 3 Glen Godfrey asked what the lot coverage would be and -Scott Hess said it was less than fifty percent (50%). Mr. Godfrey then inquired as to the size of the proposed structure for the lot and, Staff said it would be approximately 3,400 Square Feet. i Daryl Smith opened the Public Hearing and S. Y. Kimball was present. Mr. Kimball submitted a petition signed by twenty-four (24) property owners and/or residents of the tract stating they favored granting of a Conditional Exception for Lots 40, 42 and 43 of Tract 12054: The petition read as follows: "Petition for the Granting of a Conditional Exception for Lots 40, 42 and 43 of Tract 12054 We, the undersigned residents of Tracts 12054 and 6808 favor the granting of a conditional- exception allowing a minimum dimension ranging from 2116" to 24' with an average minimum dimension of 2314" in lieu of the required 25' minimum dimension as prescribed by the openspace requirements for the city of Huntington Beach. We understand -that the square --footage requirement for openspace-is met and agree that the granting'of this conditional exception will not have a negative_ impact upon the iritegrty'of the development and the community. The developer of Tract 12'054 has co-operated with the residents along Santa Barbara Lane to the'ekt-ent of redesigning his originally proposed tract,,at the expense of -two building lots, to include the existing homes o6 Santa Barbara Lane in the new private community of Faire Marin." Mr. Kimball further stated the garages across the street were all built at a twelve.foot (121) setback and he was attempting to keep this at twenty-two feet (221) or just a little less. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed, UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 85-68 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING,VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Granting of reduction in open space minimum dimension from 25 feet to 23 feet will not reduce the required total open space - area_(1,200 square feet); a total of 1,335 square feet of open space will be provided. 2: 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 -3- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 4 other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The subject property is 96.3 feet in'depth; other lots in the vicinity range from 100 feet to 107 feet in depth. 3. - The granting of a conditional exception is necessary_in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-68 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 5. The granting of the conditional'exception will not, adversely affect the General Plan of the City'of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The'site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 24, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2.. The development shall,comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code,_Building.Division, and Fire Department, except as noted herein. AYES: Cranmer,'Evans, Smith, Vincent NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None - Les Evans suggested hearing Conditional Exception No. 85-69 and Conditional Exception No. 85-70 at the same time since they were almost identical to Conditional Exception No. 85-68. The Board agreed to this suggestion. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-69 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.'85-70 Applicant: S. Y. Kimball CE 85-69: A request to permit a reduction in minimum open space widthimension from twenty-one feet six inches (21 -6 ) to twenty-four-feet-(24') on property -'located at 16172 Santa'Barbara Lane (North side of'street approximately 320 feet West of Stillwater Drive). CE 85-70: A request to'permit'a reduction in minimum open space width dimension from twenty-five feet (251) to twenty-one feet six inches (21'-60) on property located at 16162 Santa Barbara Lane (North side of street approximately 375 feet West of Stillwater.' Drive). -4- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16,'1985 Page 5 These requests are covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reiterated Mr. Evans statement about being identical to Conditional Exception No. 85-68 and Staff was recommending approval because of the lot depth. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Smith and the applicant, S. Y. Kimball, was present. Mr. Kimball stated the petition covered these two (2) lots also and the situation was basically the same. There was no one else present to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-69 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-70 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-69: 1. Granting.of reduction in open space minimum dimension from 25 feet to 21 feet 6 inches will not reduce the required total open space area (1,200 square feet); a total of 1,385 square feet of open space will be provided. 2. 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. The subject property is 96.3 feet in depth; other lots in the vicinity range from 100 feet"to 107-feet-in depth. 3. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in'order- to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-69 will not be materially"detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 5. The granting -of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the Ceneral Plan -of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-69: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 15, 1985 shall be the approved layout. -5- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. October_ 16, Page 6 B. Board of Zoning Adjustments 1985 2. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department, except as noted herein. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAI, EXCEPTION NO. 85-70: 1. Granting of reduction in open space minimum dimension from 25 feet to 21 feet 6 inches and from 15 feet to 14 feet will not, reduce the required total open space area (1,200 square feet); a total of 1,350 square feet of open space will be provided. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property regarding the size of the lot, 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. The subject property is 96.3 feet in depth; other lots in the vicinity range from 100 feet to 107 feet in depth. 3. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial;'property rights. 4.- The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-70 will not be materially,detrimental to the public.,welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 5. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of .the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF'APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0. 85-70: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 15, 1985'shall be the approved layout. 2. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance -Code, Building Division, and Fire Department, except as noted herein. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith, Vincent NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None Glen Godfrey asked that the Minutes reflect his "NO" vote was because he felt_ there was adequate space on the lots to accommodate a normal size residence and still meet all the setback requirements. This pertained to all three requests - Conditional Exception Nos. 85-68,_85-69, and 85-70. 1 -6- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 7 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-28 USE PERMIT NO. 85-65 Applicant: Ron Montgomery A request to add 3,000 Square Feet of building area to an existing single family residence with nonconforming setback for front entry garage - twenty feet (201) instead of twenty-two feet (221) - in an R1-CZ Zone. Subject property is located at 16386 Ardsley Circle (East side of Ardsley Circle approximately 250 feet South of Humboldt Drive). These requests are covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (e), California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Scott Hess said the request for the Coastal Development Permit was necessary because the applicant wants to build a 3,000 Square Foot addition which includes a third floor to a single family residence within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Development Permit is to determine compliance with the provisions of the Coastal Element and Zoning Code. The Use Permit is to permit an addition to the garage which maintains the same setback as the garage (twenty feet) in lieu of a twenty-two foot (221) setback. The project entails adding a portion to the garage, a second story addition over this portion, and a third story, with an outside stairway to both the Second and Third Floors. Staff conducted a survey of three (3) story homes in the area and found two in the general vicinity and several along Carousel Lane (abutting the main channel). The majority of homes are two (2) story. To date, no written or verbal response to the request has been received. Staff has reviewed the request and is recommending approval of this project subject to specific findings and conditions, including -a "signed letter" from the.property owners indicating the residence would remain a single family unit. Daryl Smith opened the Public Nearing and the applicant's representative, Gilbert E. Fraide, was present. Mr. Fraide stated he was representing the Architect, Ron Montgomery, on behalf of the property owners, William and Norma Marshall and he presented a small rendering of the proposed residence to the Board. Mr. Fraide explained that the plans had been changed back to the original setback line of twenty feet (201). Scott Hess reminded Mr. Fraide the addition would have to be back to the twenty-two foot (221) line to conform with the Code and Mr. Fraide explained the original plans had shown fifteen feet and six inches (15'-61). Mrs. W. Dalessi, 16365 Ardsley Circle, stated she objected to a three-story residence being located across the street from her home and further stated that every home on the street is either'a single or two-story unit. She felt the structure looked more like an apartment building or hotel than a residence.. -7- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 8 The next,door neighbor to the North, Mike Thomas, 16382 Ardsley Circle, said he was concerned that the proposed building would not conform with the rest of the area, that the three-story imposing structure would block sunlight from his home, would affect privacy of both homes, and that the Marshalls would further object to noise and activities of his children. Kathlyn Richards, 16375 Ardsley Circle, reiterated the objections expressed by Mrs. Dalessi and felt the imposing structure would be an aggravation to the entire neighborhood. There was no one else present to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. A discussion followed between Daryl Smith and Scott Hess to clarify the need for the Use Permit; i.e., that the Use Permit would still be required for the First and Second Floor additions because of the nonconforming setback even if a third story was not built. A further discussion ensued relative to the Board's possible action on the Coastal Development Permit., Mr. Hess explained no precedent had been set by the City for denial of such a permit based solely on a Third Floor addition, and that the applicant/property owner and/or other residents could appeal the Board's decision on this Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit to the Planning Commission. After a statement by Mr. .Thomas that there would be a big difference between a three-story building on a wide channel instead of on a mall street, Mr.. Fraide said his clients would be willing to' re -think the configuration of the resident. The owners had wanted the glass materials, etc., since they needed the light in the house because of family problems. Les Evans said he would move for denial of the Coastal Development Permit because the imposing single family residence does not conform to the General Plan of the City, is not consistent with the surrounding residential area, looks more like a hotel than a residence, and is inconsistent with the R-1 Zoning District. Seconded by Glen Godfrey. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-28 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-28: 1. The proposed single family residence does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan because its imposing architectural facade and commercial -like appearance is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. -8- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 9 2. The development is not consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix zoning requirements, the Rl Zoning'District, and the surrounding residential area because of the size and site coverage of the structure. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Vincent NOES: Smith ABSENT: None Les Evans said he would move for denial of the Use Permit because the establishment, maintenance, and operation would be detrimental to persons residing in the area; would not be compatible with the area due to the imposing architectural look; and the three-story structure would be inconsistent with the General Plan. Seconded by Ross Cranmer. Glen Godfrey then asked if the maker and seconder of the motion would entertain the addition of findings that this lot coverage would be approaching fifty-eight percent (58%) and that the proposed structure would be too large for the lot size. Both the maker and seconder of the motion agreed to these additional findings. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, USE PERMIT N0..85-65 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-65: 1. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the general.welfare of persons residing in the vicinity because the imposing architectural facade and commercial -like appearance is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. 3: Lot coverage is approaching fifty-eight percent (58%) coverage and the proposed three (3) story structure would be too massive (approximately 5,000 Square Feet) for the lot size of 5,016 Square Feet. 4. The granting of the use permit will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The proposal is not consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Vincent NOES: Smith ABSENT: None -9- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16,.'1985- Page 10 Daryl Smith said his "NO" vote on the denial of the Coastal Development Permit and the Use Permit was because there were three (3) story homes already existing in the neighborhood, that the two foot (21) encroachment into the required setback would not create a problem, and that he did not believe the Board had good legal cause for denying the requests. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-32 Applicant: James and Catherine Morley A request to add a 1,635 Square Foot, third -story addition to an existing two-story residence in the Coastal Zone. Subject property is located at 16566 Ensign Circle (East side of Ensign Circle approximately 80 feet South of Humboldt Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported this Coastal Development Permit is required for a Third Floor addition because it abuts the harbor. The applicant is adding 1,635 Square Feet to the existing residence. There was a discussion between Staff and the Board members about the size and shape of the residence and Staff recommended that revised plans be submitted depicting the elevations, the garage in front, etc. Staff would then recommend approval with conditions. Daryl Smith opened the Public Hearing and Catherine Morley, the applicant, was present. Mrs. Morley explained they needed the additional space and had hired Ron Montgomery, Architect, because he had built some of the original homes in the area. There was no one else wishing to speak, so the Public Hearing was closed. Les Evans suggested that the project might be continued for one week so the applicant could submit revised plans and elevations to give the Board a better concept of exactly what the applicant was planning to build. Mrs. Montgomery stated she would be amenable to such a continuance. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT No. 85-32 WAS CONTINUED, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, TO THE -MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None" -10- 10/16/85-- BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 11 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-302 Applicant: Ronald and Marianne Anderson A request to consolidate two (2) lots into one (1) lot and Waiver of Final Map. Subject property is located at 414 Fourteenth Street (East side of Fourteenth Street approximately 150 feet North of Orange Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 15, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff said the intent of this Tentative Parcel Map is to consolidate the two 25-foot lots into one lot, and the applicant is requesting a Waiver of the Final Map. Les Evans said the tentative map could be approved but the applicant would have to return to the Board after all improvements were completed and dedications made to the City. Jim Vincent suggested the Board could allow the applicant six (6) months within which to complete these items without having to file another -request and pay additional fees. The applicants, Ronald and Marianne Anderson, were present and agreed to comply with these stipulations. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-302 WAS APPROVED, WITHOUT A WAIVER, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed consolidation of two (2) parcels for purposes of residential use in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for community residential/business district allowing residential buildings was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. -11- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 12 ' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map received by the Department of Development Services on September 18, 1985, shall be the approved layout (with the amendments as noted thereon). Waiver of the Final Parcel Map was not approved. When all items of Condition No. 3 have been complied with, the applicant may submit a letter to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for consideration of a Waiver without additional fees. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Prior to final recordation of the plat map and waiver of final map, two feet and six inches (2'-6") of alleyway shall be dedicated to City standards and all street improvements must be made per Public Works standards. 4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of"said parcel(s). 5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage,system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s). 6. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed. 7. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances, 8. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department -of Development Services. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-65 (EXTENSION OF TIME) Applicant: William C. Goodman A request to permit a one (1) year extension of time for Administrative Review No. 84-65 for construction of a 3,200 Square Foot industrial building. Subject property is located at 17042 Palmdale -Street (East side of Palmdale Street approximately 210 feet South of Warner Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 3, California. Environmental Quality Act, 1984. -12- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 13 Staff reported the Board had approved this request in 1984 but the applicant has been unable to start construction. Staff is recommending approval of an Extension of Time for this request. William Goodman, the applicant, was present. There was a discussion about improvements on Cain Avenue because of access off that street, and it was determined that curbs and gutters would be required. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-65 (EXTENSION OF TIME) WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All previous conditions of Administrative Review No. 84-65 shall remain in effect during this extended time period. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None MISCELLANEOUS AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT N0. 85-67 Applicant: Milton R. Cheatham, Jr. A request for a temporary outdoor event (parking lot sale) on October 19 and 20, 1985, at 8909 Adams Avenue. According to Staff, this has been an annual event for several years and Staff is recommending approval with the standard conditions. The applicant, Milton R. Cheatham, Jr., was present and agreed to the conditions as presented. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, USE PERMIT NO. 85-67 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual site plan received October 14,.1985,- shall be the approved layout. 2. A certificate of insurance form shall be filed in the Administrative Services Department in an amount deemed necessary by the Public Liability Claims Coordinator, along with a Hold Harmless Agreement executed by the insured, at least three (3) days prior to the event. -13- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 14 3. A Certificate to Operate, as required by S.9730.80 of the Ordinance Code, shall be issued prior to the event. 4. The applicant shall provide for clean up of the area after the closing of the event. NOTE TO APPLICANT: AYES: Cranmer, NOES: None ABSENT: None You are hereby notified that, for future events, this Department must receive your complete Temporary Outdoor Event application a minimum of three (3) weeks prior to the event for adequate review and processing. If this procedure is not followed your application wi not e processed. Also, for your information, you may process up to three (3), one -day events at a time provided they are all within a few months of one another. Evans, Godfrey, Smith REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF USE PERMIT NO. 85-61 Applicant: David P. Oddo The original request was to construct a two (2) story, two (2) unit addition to an existing house with nonconforming setbacks and abutting an arterial highway at 902 Main Street (Southwest -corner of Main Street and Tenth Street). Staff has looked at the modified plan and the applicant'is proposing changes in the original request to allow a three car garage out to Tenth Street. Staff further informed the Board a decision on the reconsideration of this Use Permit would have to be made if the applicant was to be heard on October 30, 1985, because of the time required for readvertising this project. Glen Godfrey mentioned the Planning Commission's discussion the previous evening after a presentation by Mrs. Howard, one of Mr. Oddo's neighbors. This was followed by a dissertation concerning the merits of referring the project directly to the Planning Commission. Ernest T. Oddo was present to represent his son, David P. Oddo, the applicant. SMITH MOVED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF USE PERMIT NO. 85-67, SECONDED BY VINCENT. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -14- 10/16/85 - BZA Minutes,.H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 16, 1985 Page 15 AYES: Smith, Vincent NOES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-70 (EXTENSION OF TIME) Applicant: Andrew J. Blaser A request to permit one (1) year Extension of Time for Administrative Review No. 83-70 for property located on the East side of Sampson Lane south of Woodwind Drive. Staff explained this was a request for a second extension of time for an Administrative Review originally approved in 1983. Staff recommended approval of the request. The applicant, Andrew J. Blaser, was present. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-70.(EXTENSION OF TIME) WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All previous conditions of Administrative Review No. 83-70 shall remain in effect during this extended time period. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith, Vincent NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None There was no further business to be presented to the Board for consideration. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VINCENT, THE REGULAR_MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES:. None ABSENT: None Glen K. Godfrey, Secretar Board of Zoning Adjustments jh -15- 10/16/85 - BZA