Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-15MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1986 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Godfrey, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith, Strange STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hess MINUTES: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 8, 1986, were not ready for approval of the Board so they were deferred to the Regular Meeting of January 22, 1986 SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE 85-96 REVIEW NO. 85-96 Applicant: L & M Investment Company/Townhouse Plaza Scott Hess reported the applicants were making a request for reconsideration of their applications which had been denied by the Board at the meeting of January 29, 1986. Daryl Smith asked whether a letter had been received from the applicants requesting a rehearing and Staff said it had been. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-96 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-55 WERE APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE MEETING OF JANUARY 29, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Godfrey, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Patapoff, Shaw, Strange NOTE: Glen Godfrey left the meeting at this point and Michael Strange remained to replace Mr. Godfrey. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-92 Blue Ribbon Builders, Inc. A request to permit construction of a new two -car garage with an eighteen foot (181) front setback in lieu of the required twenty-two feet (221). Subject property is located at 6531 Kilda Circle (Northeast corner of Kilda Circle and Kristopher Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1 and Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff stated that this property currently contains a single family residence with side entry garage. The applicant wishes to convert the existing garage into a Family Room and construct a new garage with an eighteen foot (181) front setback in lieu of the required twenty-two foot (221) setback. Staff is recommending denial of the request since the garage would be only eight feet (81) from the corner line. Ross Cranmer asked if there were other variances in the neighborhood and Staff said he had found no similiar cases. The Public Hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Ross Cranmer and the owner of the property, Douglas E. Wood, was present to represent the applicant, Blue Ribbon Builders, Inc. Mr. Wood said there was no viable way of adding a Family Room to the rear of the house since any addition would have to be off of or through the Master Bedroom. Mr. Wood further suggested he might be able to install a roll up door on the garage, and also said he would like to make these changes so they could stay in the area. Daryl Smith stated this was a nonconforming condition which had been created by the new Code. Mr. Smith further stated that a normal parking stall was nineteen feet (191) and the applicant was providing eighteen feet (181). Mr. Wood said he had always owned small cars which would not require the standard nineteen foot (191) parking space. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. A general discussion followed concerning the possibilities of making the garage interior smaller, installing a roll -up door on the inside of the door frame, and location of the sidewalks and curbs. -2- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 3 Michael Strange stated he did not feel the required twenty-two foot (22') front setback should be reduced to eighteen feet (181) and he would be voting against the project. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SHAW, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-92 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, location or surroundings, 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 lot is situated on a corner. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-92 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. 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 December 19, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. A roll -up type garage door with electric opener shall be provided. a. The garage door shall be installed in such a manner that there is a minimum of nineteen feet (19'), plus or minus, from the wall to the property line. 3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith NOES: Strange ABSENT: None -3- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-93 Applicant: Kenneth A. Reynolds A request to permit an addition to a single family residence which encroaches five feet (51) into the required ten foot (101) rear yard setback. Subject prophrty is located at 9421 Leilani Drive (North side of Leilani Drive approximately two hundred fifty feet (2501) West of Bushard Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff stated this applicant is proposing an addition to the existing single family residence which will be used as an "in -home" office with a large closet space. The required setback is ten feet (101); however, in 1982, the applicant requested a similar encroachment into the rear yard setback and also in the front. The Planning Commission approved eight feet (81) in the rear and ten feet (101) in the front. In 1984, the applicant requested an additional three foot (31) encroachment in the rear yard in addition to the two feet (21) already granted by the Planning Commission. This request was denied by this Board because it would be setting a precedent in the area. Staff is recommending denial of this request because of the two foot (21) encroachment which alreads exists and the fact the applicant has a standard sixty foot by one hundred foot (60' x 1001) lot located in an R-1 Zone. Michael Strange asked if the applicant would exceed the site coverage for this lot if the addition was approved and Staff replied the open space requirements and the site coverage would be within the established limits. Mr. Strange then asked if there was any land -related hardship. Staff again explained the lot was a typical lot size and there were other alternatives available to the applicant for expansion such as building a second story addition. The Public Hearing was opened and Kenneth A. Reynolds was present. Mr. Reynolds stated he intended to carry out the present architectural theme of the residence. He stressed the fact there would be no visual intrusion into the neighbor's property. Mr. Reynolds said the house to his North is twenty-two feet (221) away and this, coupled with the five foot (51) setback being requested, would create plenty of space between the units. Mr. Reynolds presented some photographs of the surrounding area and stated his addition would be a great improvement to the area. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. -4- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 5 Daryl Smith asked Staff if notices regarding this proposed addition had gone to the adjacent neighbors and whether there had been any objections. Staff stated the notices had been sent and no objections had been filed with the City. Bill Patapoff again reiterated the fact the applicant could choose other methods of gaining the desired increase in square footage without extending further into the required setback. Ross Cranmer pointed out that, if Mr. Reynolds was granted this encroachment, a future owner could also then build a two-story unit in addition to this proposed encroachment. UPON MOTION BY STRANGE AND SECOND BY PATAPOFF, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-93 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. The lot is rectangular in shape and similar to other lots in the vicinity. 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications because it is a typical sixty foot by one hundred foot (60' x 100') R1 zoned lot. 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. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-93 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Strange NOES: Smith ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-44 Applicant: H. E. "Bill" Hartge A ,request to construct an 11,570 Square Foot industrial building. Subject property is located at 17622 Metzler Lane (East side of -5- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 6 Metzler Lane approximately three hundred twenty•feet (3201) South of Slater Avenue). This request is covered by Negative Declaration -No. 81-27. Staff informed the Board this project was identical to Administrative -Review No. 85-49, the next Agenda item, and both _ projects had been reviewed by the Design Review Board. Their recommendations have been included in the Conditions of Approval; and, based on that review and Staff's review, Staff is recommending approval of both projects with conditions. Bill Patapoff stated the condition relative to requiring a soils report should be included. The applicant,-H. E.: "Bill" Hartge was present and expressed concern about some of the conditions such as the ten foot (101) corner cutoffs at.the Southeast corner -of each -building., Mr. Hartge said he had driven around the surrounding area and could find no precedent for this requirement. He further, stated this drive is into a dead end area and asked that this requirement be deleted from the conditions. Mr. Hartge also mentioned the Edison transformer underground vault and suggested the Board allow him.to pursue this with the,Southern-California Edison Company. _ Upon questioning by Michael Strange, Staff replied the corner cutoffs are needed at -intersecting driveways,:and Mr. Hartge would have to apply for a variance if these cutoffs are removed from the conditions. A general discussion followed concerning the items mentioned relative to both projects. UPON MOTION BY SHAW AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-44 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations for Building No. 2 received and dated December 23, 1985, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Dimensioned office area. b. Ten foot (101) corner cut-off at the Southeast corner of the building or provide other site angle visibility. c. Wood siding stained dark brown. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: 1 -6- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 7 a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and Q approval. Berming shall be used along the front setback area. 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. Landscaping shall comply with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 6. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27 ) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 7. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Development Services a plan for review and approval indicating the location of Edison transformers that are necessary for the building. 8. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, trailers, or materials. 9. All signs shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs shall be low -profile, monument -type signs. 10. Street lights shall be installed to Public Works specifications. 11. A fifteen foot (151) wide storm drain easement along the East side of the property shall be dedicated per Public Works standards. 12. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 13. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 14. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. -7- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 8 15. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 16. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 17. Any electrical panels shall be screened from public visibility. AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-49 Applicant: H.S.T./Stanko-Hartge A request to construct an 11,570 Square Foot industrial building. Subject property is located at 17592 Metzler Lane (East side of Metzler Lane approximately three hundred fifty feet (3501) South of Slater Avenue). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 81-27. Staff reminded the Board this project was identical to the one just reviewed and would be subject to the same basic conditions. H. E. "Bill" Hartge was present to represent the applicants. UPON MOTION BY SHAW AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-49 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations for Building No. 1 received and dated December 23, 1985, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Dimensioned office area. b. Ten foot (101) corner cut-off at the Southeast corner of the building. c. Chocolate color horizontal band instead of grey around the building. -8- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 9 d. Wood siding stained dark brown. e. Relocate one (1) space next to trash receptacle and stripe end stall for turnaround. 2. A Tentative Parcel Map shall be filed. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection. 3. 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. Berming shall be used along the front setback area. 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. 4. Landscaping shall comply with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 7. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 8. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Development Services a plan for review and approval indicating the location of Edison transformers that are necessary for the building. 9. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, trailers, or materials. 10. All signs shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs shall be low -profile, monument -type signs. 11. Street lights shall be installed to Public Works specifications. 12. A fifteen foot (151) wide storm drain easement along the East side of the property shall be dedicated per Public Works standards. -9- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 10 13. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 14. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 15. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall -be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 16. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 17. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 18. Any electrical panels shall be screened from public visibility. AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-45 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-57 Applicant: Bolsa Radiator A request to construct a 45,805 Square Foot, two-story mini -storage building. Subject property is located at 17162 Palmdale Street (Northeast corner of Palmdale Street and Cedar Avenue). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-57. According to Staff, the applicant is proposing a two-story mini -warehouse structure and is proposing adequate landscaping and parking on the site. The second story will cover most of the First Floor area. The applicant is also proposing a security gate system and they will be required to dedicate a fifteen foot (151) right-of-way to the City. Staff reminded the Board that action would be required on the Negative Declaration before the Administrative Review could be approved. Daryl Smith asked how this request and dedication would affect the Pallet Company property directly to the South. Michael Strange and Scott Hess informed the Board that, to their knowledge, the Pallet Company had never filed their agreement with City Council so they do -10- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 11 not have written permission from the City to use that fifteen foot (151) strip. This was follwed by a general discussion of the applicant's responsibility for street improvements, alley dedications, security gate system, trash receptacle location, etc. Bill Patapoff said the applicant could enter into a "Reimbursable Agreement" with the City for paving of the thirty foot (301) alley. Michael Halley and Jorgen D. Hansen were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Halley said the reason there were two entrances shown on the plans is they were told they had to provide access to the rear alley which actually is just a "paper alley". Bill Patapoff said there is a ninety-two foot (921) piece of proprty there and his Department frequently receives inquiries from people wishing to purchase it. Mr. Hansen stated he had owned this property for twenty (20) years. He further stated the City had wanted to abandon the alley in 1968 and he had purchased it from the City. Now the City wants it back for free. The Board discussed these issues at length with Mr. Halley and Mr. Hansen. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CRANMER, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-57 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None Daryl Smith said he would move for approval of the Administrative Review with amended conditions. Michael Strange stated he would second the motion if Mr. Smith would agree to the addition of a condition that the elevations be approved by the Design Review Board, and Mr. Smith so agreed. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY STRANGE, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-45 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated December 13, 1985, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Indicate trash area. b. Ten foot (10') corner cut-off at the East end of Buildings "A" and "C" adjacent to the main driveway. -11- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 12 1- 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. Landscaping shall comply with S. 9792. of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. Special architectural treatment shall be provided on the rear building wall and additional treatment shall be provided along the front. Such treatment is subject to approval by the Department of Development Services and the Design Review Board. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department; more specifically, Fire Department Specification No. 414. 6. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 7. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 8. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 9. An on -site fire hydrant shall be installed in the planter in the alley as specified by the Fire Department. 10. Minimum overhead clearance from ground shall be thirteen feet six inches (13'-6"). 11. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 12. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 13. Stairways must be installed at corridor ends to eliminate dead -ends. -12- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 13 14. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 15. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 16. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 17. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 18. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and -laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and Utilities. 19. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a parcel map or parcel map waiver request to consolidate all the parcels. The parcel map or plat map and notice shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy of the recorded map or plat filed with the Department of Development Services prior to final inspection or occupancy. 21. Details of the security gate system shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services, Engineering and Fire Departments prior to installation. a. The gate shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five feet (251) from the Palmdale Street property line. 22. Fifteen feet (151) along the South property line shall be dedicated for an alley and the entire thirty foot wide alley shall be improved to Public Works standards. 23. Palmdale Street shall be fully improved to Public Works standards. AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None -13- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 14 Daryl Smith stated he wanted Staff to review the Pallet Company file and report back to the Board within the next thirty (30) to sixty (60) days on its status. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-62 Applicant: Daniel J. McKenna A request to maintain existing banners, pennants, and flags for a period of ninety'(90) days. Subject property is located at 18711 Beach Boulevard (West side of Beach Boulevard approximately 1,000 feet South of Main Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff informed the Board the applicant submitted his request on December 23, 1985, but had banners, flags, and pennants up prior to that time. Staff is recommending approval but for only sixty (60) days from the date of application. This would mean the banners, etc., should be removed prior to March 1, 1986. Daryl Smith asked if Staff was recommending only forty-five (45) days because the applicant had already had the banners in place for some time, and Staff replied in the affirmative. Jack Mac was present to represent the applicant and he said they would like to keep the banners up through their fourth anniversary celebration sale which is coming up in March. Mr. Mac further stated they had cooperated with the City completely in applying for approval after they were notified that approval was necessary; however, other dealers have still not done so. Michael Strange said he did want to thank Mr. Mac for being so prompt in cooperating with the City in their efforts to "clean up" Beach Boulevard. Mr. Strange also said several other violations had been referred to the City Attorney's Office for prosecution. Daryl Smith inquired of Mr. Strange whether any substantial improvement was expected on Beach Boulevard within the ninety (90) day period requested by the applicant, and Mr. Strange said some of the banners had already been removed by car dealers. Mr. Mac stated their agency had installed completely new banners in November at a cost of $5,000 to $6,000. Staff explained there had been other requests for banners which the Board had granted and the expiration date on these would coincide with the time limit Staff was recommending for South County. -14- 1/15/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15, 1986 Page 15 UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CRANMER, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-62 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The existing banners, pennants, and flags, as shown on photographs dated January 13, 1986, shall be permitted for a period of sixty (60) days. 2. All banners, pennants, and flags shall be removed by March 15, 1986. 3. No banners, pennants, or flags shall be installed on the subject property without prior Board of Zoning Adjustments approval. AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None There was no further business to be discussed by the Board. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SHAW, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1986, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Patapoff, Shaw, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None -, A-.6,Q ':�- en K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (4131d) -15- 1/15/86 - BZA