Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-19MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1986 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith, Strange STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hess MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY STRANGE, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 29, 1986, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Poe, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: Evans ABSTAIN: Godfrey, Krejci UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH, MINUTES OF THE -REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1986, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Evans ABSTAIN: Krejci, Strange REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-6 Applicant: David P. Oddo A request to maintain existing garage with zero foot (0') side yard setback on the West side and three foot (31) side yard setback on the East side. Subject property is located at 902 Main Street (Northeast corner of Main Street and Tenth Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Scott Hess reported the subject property is zoned R2 (Medium Density) and presently contains a single family residence with.a two (2) car garage at the rear -of the lot. The size of the property allows a maximum of three (3) units. The applicant proposes to retain the single family home on the front and build a two-story Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 2 duplex behind this residence. There will be a two (2) car garage in the rear and a one (1) car garage and parking space in the front. The main issue involved in this request is the zero foot (01) setback for the existing two (2) car garage at the rear of the lot. Staff might suggest an alternative which is that the applicant could reduce the setback on the South side of the property to three feet (31) and maintain the three foot (31) setback on the North side. However, due to the configuration of the lot and the fact the garage has existed for over thirty (30) years, Staff is recommending approval of the request for the zero foot (01) setback. Staff further reported that a petition had been presented at the beginning of this meeting which bears, according to the home owners making the presentation, forty (40) signatures in objection to approval.of this project. Daryl Smith reiterated the fact the zoning does allow the property to be legally developed without coming before this Board except for the zero foot (01) setback on the garage which, because of changes occurring in the Zoning Code over the years between the lot split in 1952 and today, now makes it nonconforming. Mr. Smith further stated, which was verified by.Tom_-Poe, that if, the garage remained in its present state with the zero foot (0').setback, an one -hour fire wall would be required. Les Evans arrived at the meeting at this time - 1:45 P.M. It was explained by Glen Godfrey that City ordinances did not exist to prevent this type of situation when. -the -lot was split in 1952. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Tom - Poe and Ernest Oddo was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Oddo explained he was a co-owner of the property in question and they would like to -develop the lot to its fullest capabilities in order to make this a viable project. Daryl Smith mentioned to Mr. Oddo the possibility of cutting off a portion of the garage to meet the three foot (31) setback and that this would still leave them ample space for a two (2) car divided garage. Mr. Oddo agreed with this statement. Cae Brummett, 19792 Quiet Bay Lane, said she was speaking for her Mother who was against the request. Ms. Brummett mentioned this project had previously been turned down by the Planning Commission and City Council after approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. -2- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Poe explained this was an entirely different proposal which Mr. Oddo was now presenting than the original one, and the only issue involved at this time was the zero foot (01) setback on the existing garage. Ms. Brummett expressed further concern relative to the parking situation which would exist after construction of these additional units, the fact that most of the other property in the area contains single family homes, and the fact their property will be depressed by this multiple unit construction in their neighborhood. Dr. Donald D. Shipley, 829 Main Street, presented a letter which he had written relative to this proposed property. He stated he was strongly in opposition to granting of this Conditional Exception, that the property had originally been subdivided illegally, the parking problems in this area had become tremendous (he named the number .of cars, trucks, truck/trailer rigs, motor homes, etc., he had counted parked in the area recently), and other problems created because of the increased density in the area such as the number of garbage cans being left out and swimming pools being drained into the alley. Dr. Shipley further stated he considered this the finest residential area in the City and that many of the longtime residents had put their life savings into these homes for their own use, not just as an investment, and they all desired to maintain the quality of life in their small section of the City of Huntington Beach. Michael Strange left the meeting at this point - 1:15 P.M. Another woman, Arlene Howard, 917 Tenth Street, stated they had lived in the area for over thirty years and her husband had purchased the property before they were married. She said she and her husband both opposed the request, and she had accompanied Cae Brummett in obtaining the signatures on the petition presented to the Board in opposition to the project. Mrs. Howard further stated she thought home owners should be on the Board of Zoning Adjustments - not just City employees - and the meetings should be held at a more convenient time. She also mentioned problems which currently exist with the renters who live in Mr. Oddo's existing residence on the property in question such as parking automobiles where they could be knocked into her wall, automobile parts -being left strewn on the lot, etc., and she and her husband strongly opposed the request. Harold Ewell, 914 Tenth Street, said he'was concerned mainly with the parking issue because of street sweeper problems. He said he could not visualize what the project would look like and also asked about the cost of appealing the project to the Planning Commission. Scott Hess explained the cost and procedures involved in an appeal. -3- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 4 Jerry Galich, 939 Tenth Street, also opposed the project because of the parking and felt the project would be detrimental to the existing area. Carolyn Beaton, 909 Tenth Street, objected to the request because of the additional units and allowing the old garage to remain. She mentioned the petition and said almost everyone they had spoken with had wanted to keep single family residences in the area. Another resident, Idelle Yungbluth, 908 Main Street, said she lived directly North of this property and agreed concerning problems with the current ---tenants. She --said the tenants were using the Yungbluth's gate for access to the property. Marcus Howard, 917 Tenth Street, stated this was -his life's investment at stake here but he was being forced to take Mr'. Oddo's word for what the outcome would be. Mr. Oddo was given an opportunity for rebuttal. He stated the neighbors had a right to appeal but he and his son also had a right to develop the R2-property they had purchased and to create a viable project on it. Mr. Oddo stated his son, the applicant, owns and lives in property at 815 Main Street so he is also concerned with maintaining the -area -so -property values will not be depreciated. He further stated -the. -present tenants mentioned -at this Hearing will be moving and new tenants would be carefully screened. Dennis Krejci asked if the property was zoned for three (3) units, if two (2) stories were allowed, if there was sufficient parking, and if a building permit could be issued without coming before this Board if it. were not for the zero foot (01) setback; and Scott Hess replied in the affirmative to each question and that, in fact, the applicant could -;even go three (3) stories high -if he so desired. There was no.one-else present -to speak for or against the project so the Public_Hearing_was_closed. Daryl Smith said it -appeared this -project -would be -appealed -to the Planning Commission regardless -of the Board's decision - either by the applicant or -by the home owners who had appeared here today - so he felt the -Board should -just -refer -it -to the Planning Commission and save the involved parties the $165.00 appeal fee. MOTION WAS MADE BY -SMITH AND SECONDED BY POE FOR REFERRAL OF CONDITIONAL, EXCFPTION NO. 86-6 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Les Evans stated the Planning Commission did -not, -need to review this project since these -citizens appeared to -be concerned -about the proposed three (3) units rather -than the setbacks, and he would be inclined to -deny the request. -4- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February, 19, 1986 Page 5 Daryl Smith said the applicants had a land -related hardship because of the size and configuration of the lot and many variances of this nature had been granted previously by this Board. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Poe, Smith NOES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci ABSENT: None Les Evans said he would make a motion for denial with findings that there were no special circumstances which the applicant could not overcome by redesigning and the granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-6 would constitute special privileges to this applicant. MOTION WAS MADE BY EVANS AND SECONDED BY KREJCI FOR DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-6. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Krejci NOES: Godfrey, Poe, Smith ABSENT: None Glen Godfrey stated he would move for approval of the Conditional Exception based on Staff's alternative recommendation for three foot (31) setbacks on each side of the existing garage instead of the zero foot (01) setback. This motion was seconded by Daryl Smith. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-6.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 regarding 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 property is L-shaped and narrows to approximately twenty-six feet (261) in the rear. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property permittedTby1Codeytoghavees on a threeefootfive(31 e foot lots are yard setback. -5- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 6 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-6 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. A three foot (31) side yard setback on each side of the garage will permit adequate room for maintenance and fire separation. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington -Beach. - Zoning on the property is R2-(Medium density residential). - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February-3, 1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. The existing two (2) car garage -at the.rear-of the site shall be set back three feet (31) from the South property line. - b. A division wall and two (2) single car garage doors shall be provided secured garage in the garage spaces - to create two (2) separate and' minimum of nine feet by nineteen feet (9' x 191). c. The roofing material of the existing two (2) car garage shall match the proposed duplex addition. . d. The garage shall be painted to.match the proposed duplex. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant -shall have recorded Tentative -Parcel Map No. 86-103. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable -provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire -Department, except as noted herein. 4. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. AYES: Godfrey, -Krejci, -Poe, Smith — NOES: Evans ABSENT: None Daryl Smith said to the audience -he -honestly believed that the variance granted under this Conditional Exception was similar to those which were before this Board each week, and the neighborhood would be better protected by this approval -than what the applicant could actually build if he demolished the two (2) car garage, built -6- 2/19/86 --BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 7 1, a new two (2) car garage in the front, and built a three (3) story structure which would be completely within the legal bounds of the property. This would be more detrimental than what the Board has approved here today. Several members of the audience asked if Staff would explain exactly what had been the final outcome of the Hearing and what the applicant would actually be allowed to do under the approval, and Scott Hess gave a detailed explanation to them of the proposed project. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-7 Applicant: John V. and Pamela R. Swanson A request to construct a room addition to a single family residence which encroaches four feet (41) into the required ten foot (101) rear yard setback. Subject property is located at 8902 Bosun Circle (South side of Bosun Circle approximately two hundred feet (2001) West of Westwinds Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff stated there is currently on the subject property a single family residence with a two (2) car garage. The applicant is proposing an addition of six hundred sixty-one (661) Square Feet at the rear of the existing residence which will encroach four feet (41) into the required ten foot (10') rear yard setback. Staff has reviewed the project and is recommending approval with conditions. The Public Hearing was opened by Tom Poe, Chairman, and Pamela Swanson was present. Mrs. Swanson stated she had owned the property for twenty-four (24) years and needs the additional space. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-7 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, and location, 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 triangular in shape. -7- •2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 8 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. 86-7 will not be materially -detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. The minimum open space area of nine hundred (900) Square Feet will not be affected by the addition. 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 February 3, 1986, 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. i 3. The proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure in terms of building materials and colors. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 86-8 Applicant: George A. Pearson/G & M Oil Company A request to establish a snack shop within an existing gas station. Subject property is located at 15971 Golden West Street (Northwest corner of Golden West Street and Edinger Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported the existing gas station is a Mobil station and is zoned C4. The applicants want to establish a snack shop and cooler area and Staff is -recommending limiting the size to one hundred and forty (140) Square Feet in size. The applicant will provide five (5) parking spaces --four (4) in'the front and one (1) in the back. The site is deficient in landscaping and they will have to add approximately five hundred (500) Square Feet of landscaping on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the project with conditions. -8- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments bruary 19, 1986 ge 9 Daryl smith asked about the condition concerning the forty-two inch (42") height of the wall along the property line, and Mr. Smith stated that typically the portion nearest the street area would be dropped to about one foot (11) in height for visibility in exiting the station. Mr. Smith also asked if the sales room area was being limited to one hundred forty (140) Square Feet and the Staff member stated it was; however, the applicant would have about four hundred (400) Square Feet of storage in the building. Glen Godfrey explained Staff would like to specifically limit the size of the sales area so it could not be converted to a larger area at a later date without a new entitlement for a mini -market. Mr. Godfrey also asked about the landscaping deficiency and Scott Hess explained they were almost fifty percent (50%) deficient. The Public Hearing was opened and Diane Bramlett was present to represent the applicant. Ms. Bramlett asked if a compromise could be worked out on the landscaping - it would be very difficult to find space on the site for that much additional -landscaping. She further stated she did not understand''all of the conditions and Glen Godfrey gave her a copy of the conditions to read. Ms. Bramlett was advised to work with Staff on the placement of the landscaping, and e had no further questions of the Board. ere was no one else present to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Tom Poe mentioned the Fire Department would have a requirement concerning the trash enclosure being so close to the building. There would have to be a non-combustible adjacent wall or a fire sprinkler system would have to be installed. Ms. Bramlett said she believed there was a metal wall in that area of the building. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY KREJCI, USE PERMIT NO. 86-8 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a snack shop 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. y -9- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 10 2. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Landscaping in compliance with Section 9482.1.1. 2. Beer and wine sales shall be prohibited per Section 9730.84. 3. A revised Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued when all conditions have been met and improvements have been made. 4. If the wall at the westerly property line near Edinger Avenue is on the applicant's property, it shall be reduced in height to forty-two inches (420) for a distance of twenty-five feet (25') from Edinger Avenue, and then stepped up to its current height for another distance of twenty-five feet (251). 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Depar-tment of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. 6. Landscaping shall comply -with Section 9482.1.1-of the -- Huntington Beach Ordinance Code._ 7. The development -shall -comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 8. The snack shop and -cooler sales area shall be limited 'to one hundred forty (140) Square -Feet in -size. -- 9. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 10. All signs shall comply with-Article_9-76 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs -shall be -low -profile, monument -type signs.- -10- 2/19/86 - BZA 1 Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 11 11. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties, or submit proof of such easement. AYES: Evans, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-9 Applicant: Nick J. Gorely/Norman Burnam A request to establish model homes within a condominium development. Subject property is located on Seabluff Drive (South side of Seabluff Drive approximately forty feet (401) from Ranch Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff explained the applicant wanted to establish new model homes within a condominium development currently being constructed in phases. Staff has reviewed the plans,and project and is recommending approval with conditions. The applicant's representative, Michael Kelly, was present and stated the applicant should probably be listed as Mansion Hill. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-9 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The -conceptual plot plan dated February 5, 1986, shall be -the approved layout. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval, and installed prior to final inspection. 3. A plan delineating various directional signs and guest parking signs shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Development Services and Public Works, and installed prior to final inspection. 4. Project identification (subdivision directional) sign shall comply with Article 976 (Sign Code) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. -11- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 12 5. All roads (including fire access) shall be of hard surface, all weather construction meeting Public Works requirements and installed prior to combustible construction.- 6. All water lines and fire hydrants shall be installed and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of permits for any temporary or permanent structures. 7. Security fencing, gates, locking devices, ingress and egress from streets and parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire, Police and Development Services Departments prior to issuance -of building permits. 8. The office=use shall be discontinued -within thirty (30) days following sale of the last on -site unit. A surety bond of $1,000.00 shall be -posted -with -the City for the sales --office and for each -model -home to -guarantee compliance with -all provisions of the Code and the Huntington Beach Building Code. Such model homes -shall only serve the tract specified -in subject Administrative -Review application. 9: Sales office shall -not -be converted or expanded into -a -general business office. 10. Fire lanes, as determined -and approved by-the•Fire Department, shall be posted -and signed. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, -Krejci, Poe, Smith =- NOES: None - ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 86-107 Applicant: Emil I. Ratsiu A request to combine --two -(2) lots and -divide into -three (3). Subject property is located on the South side of Dunbar Drive approximately seven hundred seventy feet (7701) East of Bolsa Chica Street. This request is covered by Categorical -Exemption, Class-15; California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff said the applicant is -proposing to consolidate two (2)-parcels and divide them into three (3) lots. The property is zoned R2 and the applicant can build multiple units on the property. Tom Poe mentioned -that the Fire Department might have a problem with access to any units built on this property because of lack of a turnaround area. Any units built here will probably have to have [l I -12- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 13 fire sprinklers installed. Scott Hess explained that could be handled when the lots were developed. Glen Godfrey asked if the lots met the minimum size for zoning and Scott Hess replied they did. The applicant's representative, Ron Warrecker, was present and said the applicant proposes to have a common driveway between pairs of apartments when developed so they will require reciprocal easements. The applicant's representative agreed to the conditions as presented by Staff. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 86-107 WAS APPROVED 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 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 consolidation 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCEL(S) FOR ANY PURPOSE: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map received by the Department of Development Services on January 21, 1986, shall be the approved layout (with the amendments as noted thereon). 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. -13- 2/19/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 19, 1986 Page 14 - 3. Dunbar Drive shall be -dedicated to City 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. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district -at the time said parcels)"is/are developed.- (Contact the Department of Public Works -for -additional information). 9. A copy of -the -recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. 10. Dunbar Drive shall be improved (including street lights) to Public Works standards. 11. A soils report -shall be submitted for --review and approval by the Public Works Department. AYES: Evans, -Godfrey, -Krejci, Poe-, Smith -" NOES: None ABSENT: None There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their consideration. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, FEBRU_ARY 24, 1986,,AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE'FOLLOWING VOTE:- _ AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Kre-jci,-Poe, Smith - NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary - Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (4292d) -14- 2/19/86 = BZA Fi