Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-23MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1985 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent Hess, Strange, Poe MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY CROSBY AND SECOND BY STRANGE, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Crosby, Godfrey, Poe, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cranmer, Smith, Vincent NOTE: Michael Strange and Tom Poe were present at this Regular. Meeting to vote on the Minutes of October 2, 1985. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY CRANMER, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Crosby REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-32 (Cont. from 10/16/85) 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 eighty feet (801) South of Humboldt Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 2 Scott Hess reminded the Board members that this application had been continued from the previous week's meeting because of insufficiently detailed elevations. The applicants have now submitted revised plans depicting all four (4) elevations of the residence, along with photos of their house and adjacent homes. The siding will be architecturally compatible with the existing residence and the site coverage is approximately forty-four percent (44%). Staff is recommending approval with conditions - one of which is deletion of the outside stairway from the Second Floor to the ground level. Daryl Smith asked for a response from the Fire Department representative concerning the safety factor of deleting this stairway. Tom Poe replied they had no objections since there was a stairway inside the house from the First Floor to the Second Floor and if the outside stairway was built from the Second Floor to the Third Floor as stipulated by the Code. A discussion followed relative to the Planning Staff's concerns about the building being converted to a two (2) unit building, and Mr. Smith suggested a letter be requested from the applicants agreeing to retain the residence as a single family home. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Smith and Catherine Morley was present. Mrs. Morley stated the outside stairway from the Second Floor to the ground level had existed when they purchased the home and they would like to keep it there since their bedrooms were upstairs. She further stated they would sign the agreement letter. There was no one else present to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. GODFREY MOVED, SECONDED BY CRANMER, FOR APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-32 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Godfrey NOES: Crosby, Smith, Vincent ABSENT: None Daryl Smith stated he would move for approval of the project with the stairway remaining from the ground level to the Second Floor and with acceptance of the "Letter of Agreement" from the applicants to retain the residence as a single family unit, along with'the other findings and conditions as recommended by Staff, and Jim Vincent said he would second this motion. Glen Godfrey requested a further discussion relative to installation of smoke detectors and Jim Vincent said they were required by Code. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VINCENT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-32 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -2- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23,1985 Page 3 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed single family residence addition conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. The Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the R1 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. Site coverage is 44.2 percent. 3. At the time of occupancy; the proposed single family residence cab be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 4. The proposed single family residence conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The proposed addition shall match the existing development in terms of building materials, colors and architecture. 2. The addition shall comply with the Huntington Beach -Ordinance Code and Building Code. 3. Prior to the.issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. AYES: Crosby, Smith, Vincent NOES: Cranmer, Godfrey ABSENT: None LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85-4 Applicant: Wayne and 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 Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. -3- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Hess stated he had reviewed the request and was -suggesting a revised plan which the applicants had not seen since,he had been unable to contact them. This revised plan should eliminate the need for the Lot Line Adjustment and keep the lot at its present size. Mrs. Irene Kirby was present and was shown the revised plan. She stated she would like more time to review these changes and discuss with Staff. It was suggested by Staff that the request could be continued for one week and Mrs. Kirby stated she would -request this continuance. UPON MOTION BY CROSBY AND SECOND BY GODFREY, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85-4 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-67 USE PERMIT NO. 85-63 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-60 Applicant: Maris Vana s A request to construct a 10,560 Square Foot commercial center with a variance to permit a zero foot (01) building setback in lieu of ten feet (101) along sixty-five feet (651) of the East property line. Subject property is located on the East side of Beach Boulevard approximately three hundred feet (3001) South of Taylor Avenue. These requests are covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-60. Staff reported this property is vacant, abuts an existing center to the North, and is in a C-4 Zone. The variance request is to permit the northeasterly portion of the building to be at a zero foot (01) setback. Staff has reviewed the project and we have received some written comments from 0. W. Osborne. He requested these comments be read at this meeting, and the letter is as follows: "Oliver Osborne P. 0. Box 2068 Gardena, CA 90247 October 16, 1985 Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Huntington Beach California P.O. Box 190-92648 Huntington Beach, CA -4- 10/23/85 - BZA 1 Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page .5 Attention: Glen Godfrey, Secretary Re: Conditional Exception No. 85-67 in conjunction with Use Permit No. 85-63 Negative'Declaration No. 85-60 Dear.Mr. Godrey: (sic) As an adjacent property owner of recent acquisition, I express my disapproval of the subject application for the following reasons: 1.) Arbitrary and continued "spot variances" are against public policy. 2.) "Spot variances" constitutes an unfairness to adjacent property owners, who have been held to strict compliance with existing legal and zoning requirements. 3.) "Spot variances" such as this constitutes a physical untidyness (sic) that is objectionable to the general appearance of the whole community, as well as to Huntington Beach itself. 4.) No "Environmental Impact Report" has been filed with this application. 5.) It is difficult to envision how a "Negative Declaration" can be filed in advance of a scheduled public hearing. Again, I express my unalterable opposition to use permit No. 85-60, for the reasons above enumerated. We ask that this communication be read at the Public Hearing on October 23, 2985. Regards, /s/ 0. W. Osborne O.W.Osborne" Staff reported that written comments have also been received from the Redevelopment Department which are as follows: -5- 10/23/85 - RZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 6 "To Scott Hess From Assistant Planner Stephen V. Kohler Senior Community Development Specialist Subject BZA CONSIDERATION,OF Date October 18, 1985 UP 85-63 & CE 85-67 Pursuant to your request for, comments on the subject matter -I would like to provide you with the following: 1. The subject site is within the Beach Boulevard survey area. 2. This survey area and additional parcels within the Beach Boulevard Corridor approximately from the 405 Freeway to Atlanta Avenue are the subject of a Redevelopment Plan Adoption process now underway., It is anticipated that a Redevelopment Project Area may be adopted by July 1, 1986. As always I appreciate your providing the opportunity for us to comment on development proposals within the Redevelopment Corridor. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at X5542. SVK:sar xc: Douglas N. La Belle 1511h" Staff is recommending a continuance of one week so the applicant may obtain a reciprocal driveway easement with the property to the North. This would require deletion of two (2) parking spaces in Scott Center. Daryl Smith stated it would be better to have the zero foot (01) setback than have the ten foot (101) area where trash would collect and vagrants could "hang out"; f,urthermore, it would give better traffic circulation. Jim Vincent explained that the zero foot (01) setback would not work for restaurants, dry cleaning establishments, etc., because they would need a rear exit in addition to the front one. There would be no way this could be done with the building constructed to the rear property line at this point. The Public Hearing was opened by -Daryl Smith and Maris Vanags was present. Mr. Vanags said he had prepared an alternate plan after his discussion with Mr. Hess on the telephone. He further stated the adjacent property owner was present and they had discussed the revised plan and reciprocal driveway easement. 1 -6- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 7 T. F. Dineen, 18361 Patterson Lane, was present. Mr. Dineen stated he agreed with Mr. Smith that the ten foot (101) space would create more problems than the zero foot (0') setback, and added that people would pile trash and debris there which would create an unbearable situation. The applicant, Maris Vanags, stated he would request the continuance to work with Staff and to obtain the reciprocal driveway easement. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project. The Public Hearing was left open. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CRANMER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-67, USE PERMIT NO. 85-63, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-60 WERE CONTINUED, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen Godfrey asked that Staff have the Design Review Board review the elevations prior to the Board of Zoning Adjustments next meeting if possible. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-73 USE PERMIT NO. 85-62 Applicant: Lucille Harmon A request to permit conversion of a recreation room into a unit of an existing twenty (20) unit apartment with variances for reduction in recreation area, encroachment of two (2) garage spaces into forty foot (40 ) diameter turning area and encroachment of one'(1) space into front setback. Subject property is located at 17692 Cameron Street (East side of Cameron Street 128 feet North of Newman Avenue). These requests are covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (e) and 5 (a), California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported this property is on the East side of Cameron Street just North of Newman Avenue and the applicant is requesting a variance to delete a ten foot (10 ) portion of landscaping abutting the front and create two (2) garage parking spaces in the turning radius area. Tom Poe stated this would not allow enough room for fire trucks to maneuver and turn in this area. Staff stated 1,492 Square Feet of recreation room area would also be deleted if the applicant converted it to an additional apartment unit. Upon questioning by Daryl Smith, Staff explained the original project had barely met the minimum open space requirements by including this two-story recreation area. Staff further explained -7- 10/23/85.- BZA Minutes, H. B.,Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 8 that, according -to the applicant, the recreation room was being used, abused,_,and.vandalized,by people other than tenants of the apartment complex._"';Staff'recommended denial of the project with findings. . The Public Hearing was opened and"Lucille Harmon was present. Ms. Harmon,explained she was having problems retaining tenants at this apartment- complex because of the noise, drinking, partying, drug'abuse, vandalism, etc., which occurred in this recreation area. She further explained they'had changed loicks�and'given keys to the present tenants only, -but the problems persisted. She also added that the Police had been called on several occasions but no arrests were made-: Glen -Godfrey -and Daryl Smith suggested she contact her -attorney and/or someone in a supervisory position in the Police Department for action on future complaints. A further discussion,continued,concerning these problems and the turning radius.r.equired by,the.Fire.Department. Tom Poe asked if these rooms had sprinklers and the applicant replied they only had smoke detectors..<. ; The Public Hearing;_was-closed_by Chairman Smith. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY CRANMER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-73 AND USE.PERMIT;NO.-85-62 WERE 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. The lot is rectangular in shape and 40,874 Square Feet in size. 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. 3.' The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 4. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living in the vicinity. A reduction of.1,492 Square Feet of recreation space -8- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 9 and elimination of a landscaped planter to screen the open parking spaces will occur if approved which would have a negative aesthetic impact on the property. 5. Although the property is irregular in configuration, the size of the lot satisfies the minimum size of 6,000 square feet and ,exceeds the minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet. 6. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-73 and Use Permit No. 85-62 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 7. The subject property was legally subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with applicable zoning laws. AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 85-66 Applicant: Ed Beram Dental Laboratories/Ron Pattinson A request to establish a dental laboratory with eight hundred (800) Square Foot training center in an existing commercial center on property located at 7466 Edinger Avenue (South side of Edinger Avenue just East of Gothard Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Scott Hess reported this property is in a C-4 Zone and the applicant is asking to establish a 3,000 Square Foot dental lab office with an additional 800 Square Foot area for teaching. The applicant is moving from an existing location which is being demolished. Staff has received no responses to our advertising of the project. Staff has evaluated the project and this use would create no problems in meeting the parking requirements. Staff is recommending approval with conditions; however, Staff would like to change No. 2,of the conditions presented to the Board to read "from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. with no weekend classes permitted:' Upon questioning by Tom Poe, Scott Hess said the applicant had indicated he would have from fifteen (15) to nineteen (19) students enrolled at any one time. The Public Hearing was opened and Ron Pattinson was present to represent Ed Beram. Mr. Pattinson stated the owner of the shopping center had assigned forty-five (45) spaces to the applicant for his use and stated he did not feel the applicant should be limited to a maximum of twenty-five (25) students as suggested by the conditions. Scott Hess explained that twenty-three (23) spaces -9- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 10 should be.allocated•based on,the square;footage of -the building and any spaces above that number should,be allotted to.other tenants of the shopping center: Daryl•Smith-asked.if.Mr..,Hess,was saying the property owner did not.:have;authorit,y to assign forty-five,(45) spaces to this tenant, and Scott Hess replied the property owner did not have this authority. Parking space requirements are figured on the square footage of all buildings in the shopping center and allocated accordingly. Ed Beram, who was.also present, pointed out that there always seemed to be an excess of parking spaces available in the center. Jim Vincent advised the applicant that fifty (50) students would require other occupancy changes -and requirements in the building. Mr. Pattinson again stated his client, Ed Beram, would be better satisfied with no limitation placed on the number of students he could have in the school at any one time. Glen Godfrey then suggested a limitation of.thirty (30) students with a review at a later date to determine whether or not any parking problems had developed. Jim Vincent stated he did not understand why the Board should limit the number of students at this time since the applicant would be required to come back to the Board if he increased the usage beyond a feasible number.. The -Public Hearing was closed as there was no one else wishing to speak for or against the project. Daryl Smith said he would move for approval of Use Permit No. 85-66 with the stipulation the students should park in the allotted area behind Aaron's, elimination.of restrictions on the number of students, and a review of the -,parking adequacy within twelve (12) months of the issuance.of.a Certificate of Occupancy. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND -SECOND BY GODFREY, USE PERMIT NO.-85-66 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING -FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. 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. 2. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. -10- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board -of Zoning Adjustments October 23,,- 1985 Page 11 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 4. Based on"the types of uses in the commercial center and the number of existing parking spaces, the proposed use will have sufficient parking and will be compatible with the existing ,commercial uses-. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated October 14, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The class hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 6:00-A.M. and 10":00 P.M. with no weekend classes. 3. Students of the facility shall park within the twenty-three (23) spaces located -along the southerly property line behind Aaron Brothers. 4. The use shall comply with -all --applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building.Division, and Fire Department. 5. A review of parking adequacy for -the stipulated use shall.be conducted within twelve (12) months of the date of final issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable sections of Article 951 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. If, at that time, there is,a-.violation of these conditions or code sections, Use Permit No:-85-66-may become null and void. AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey,, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-19 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-21 Applicant: Tait and Associates A request to demolish existing gas station and build new three (3) bay gas station at 9001 Adams Avenue (Northeast corner of Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-21. According to Staff, this is an old service station which is being demolished and replaced. -It is located on the corner lot of a shopping center but the -owner does not have a reciprocal access agreement with the center. The applicant is proposing additional landscaping, shifting one drive away from the intersection but -11- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H.-B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 12 moving another -closer to the.intersection.-..Staff would recommend - approval of this request but not with this configuration. Staff would suggest -,deletion of 'the southerly.drive approach along Magnolia Avenue and installation of a landscape planter there. Also, reduce the width of the northerly drive approach'along Magnolia Avenue,by. shifting the North side southerly by --five feet There was no one-.present.at the -meeting to represent the applicant. A general discussion -,followed Staffs report -concerning the landscape requirements, traffic circulation, drive locations, and submittal of colored elevations for review. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY, SECONDED BY CROSBY, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-19 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-21- WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 10, 1985,--shall be revised and submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Five foot (51) wide planters -at the Northwest corner of the site and along both sides of the four (4) spaces fronting Adams Avenue. b. Deletion of the southerly drive approach along Magnolia Avenue and -install a -landscape planter. c. Reduce width of the northerly drive approach along Magnolia Avenue by shif.ting:.the: North side southerly by five feet d. Parking spaces shall.be nine feet by nineteen feet (9' x 191) in size except handicapped which must be fourteen feet by nineteen feet (14' x 191). 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. -A hedge,•no_less-than thirty-six inches (36") in height of intense -vegetation (except within five feet (51) of intersecting driveways), along with minimum fifteen (15) gallon trees, shall be provided -in -the planters along the North and -East property lines. -A minimum seventy (70) Square Feet of landscaping shall be provided along the West and South sides of the building. -12- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 13 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. c. Landscaping shall comply with S. 9481.8 and Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27 ) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit: a. A reciprocal driveway easement for access to the East and North shall be recorded. b. Colored elevations for review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 6. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 7. All repair work shall be conducted wholly within the building. 8. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 9. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 10. The major identification sign shall be removed or altered to comply with Article 948. 11. All signs shall comply with Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs shall be low -profile, monument -type signs. 12. The site shall•be restricted to servicing of automobiles and sale of automobile -related products. A "mini -market" shall not be permitted without the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 13. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. -13- 10/23/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 23, 1985 Page 14 14. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 15. All buildings oil's •such as 'unusable `iumber'. 'w'ire p , , , pipe, •and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them., 16. If lighting 'i,s in'cluded in :the'parking lot,high-pressure ' sodium `vapor lamps' sYi'all be used for energy savings. All outside`1'igh'ting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 17. The development shall comply with the flood plain standards as required in Article 969.6..` AYES: Cranmer, Crosby,,,Godfrey,, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None There was no further business .to,,be presented to the Board. UPON MOTION BY CROSBY AND SECOND BY VINCENT, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION_ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None 7 Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments ih -14- 10/23/85 - BZA