Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-08MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1986 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Franklin, Phillips, Pierce MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY EVANS, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 1986, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cranmer REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-28 Applicant: Bonnie Cicoletti A request to permit enclosure of approximately three hundred sixty (360) Square Feet of an existing deck area. Subject property is located at 4082 Figaro Circle (South side of Figaro Circle approximately eighty feet (801) West of Edgewater Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff member, Robert Franklin, reported the proposal does conform to the procedures for a Coastal Development Permit. The subject enclosure does not represent any additional floor area as far as lot coverage is concerned but will enclose the existing balcony area. The project is located in an R1 Zone and the applicant has obtained signatures of adjacent property owners stating they are in favor of the proposal. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Chairman Tom Poe opened the Public Hearing and the applicant, Bonnie Cicoletti, was present. Ms. Cicoletti said she had no comments other than hoping the Board would approve her request. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 2 UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CRANMER, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-28 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed single family residence 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. 3. The proposed single family residence can 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 site plan, floor plan, and elevations dated September 17, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. The addition shall match the existing development in terms of building materials, colors and architecture. 3. The addition shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Building Code. 4. 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: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-49 Applicant: Robbie L. Worley A request to permit the reduction of the required five foot (51) rear and side yard setbacks to zero feet (01) and four feet (41). Subject property is located at 6471 Sundance Circle (North side of Sundance Circle at end of cul-de-sac). -2- 10/8/86 - BZA 1 Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 3 This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. According to Staff, the request is to maintain an existing thirty-six (36) Square Foot ground floor area playhouse which is located in an R1 Zone. The Zoning Code would permit a playhouse of less than six feet (61) in height; however, this playhouse is twelve feet (121) high so a variance is required. The playhouse was constructed on zero foot (01) setback without benefit of a building permit. The property is situated on a cul-de-sac lot and Staff can find no land -related hardship. Staff is recommending denial of the request. Glen Godfrey asked if the playhouse would be within the limits of the Code if it were not for the height. Staff replied it would not be subject to Zoning Code requirements if it had been kept to six feet (61) in height. The Public Hearing was opened and Janet Worley, wife of the applicant, was present. Mrs. Worley stated they could not move the playhouse because of the way the yard is situated. She further stated they had a permanent brick fireplace which prevented moving the playhouse forward. She presented a petition from adjacent property owners stating they had no objections to the existence of the playhouse. Mrs. Worley also mentioned that there are cypress trees on the adjacent property which are higher than the playhouse. Upon questioning by Daryl Smith, Mrs. Worley stated someone from the City discovered the structure and turned it in. She said they were informed a variance would be needed for the playhouse. Mr. Smith asked if they were in the process of building the structure when discovered and Mrs. Worley said they had gone ahead with the painting. Also, that it was painted the same color as their home to better blend with it. There was no one else wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Les Evans said he could not see any way the Board could approve such a structure under the Zoning Code. Tom Poe felt this type of structure would be permissible since it was not attached to the residence and did not create a fire access problem. Daryl Smith agreed with Mr. Poe and felt there was no problem involved just because the structure could be seen from Edwards Street. Glen Godfrey asked if the playhouse would have required a building permit if kept under the six foot (61) height and Ross Cranmer said it would not have. Mr. Godfrey reminded the Board the owners of the playhouse had been contacted by the City Attorney's Office before coming in to obtain a permit or variance. -3- .10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 4 Upon questioning by Daryl Smith, Staff explained a nonconforming structure would be one which was constructed prior to a Code change but this playhouse was just an illegal structure - not a nonconforming one. Tom Poe said he would move for approval if findings could be established for approval. Mr. Franklin then suggested findings relating to the project not being detrimental to health, safety and well-being of adjacent residential property owners and a possible land -related hardship because the lot was of an irregular shape with permanent structures on the lot. Mr. Godfrey said those were rather "elastic" findings for approval. Daryl Smith suggested a condition that the property owners build a larger planter for additional screening from Edwards Street. Staff also said a finding could be added that adjacent property owners did not object to the structure, and conditions could be that 1) the site plan submitted September 9, 1986, would be the approved layout and 2) the project should be properly screened to prevent viewing from Edwards Street. Daryl Smith stressed the fact this was not the common type of playhouse but was a substantial and well -constructed structure. He requested a condition be added that no permits be issued for electrical, gas or water outlets for -this building. MOTION WAS MADE BY POE AND SECONDED BY SMITH FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-49. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Poe, Smith NOES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey ABSENT: None Glen Godfrey explained that the City Council, at their meeting the previous week, had entertained a discussion to come up with a Code change which would require any Board of Zoning Adjustments action with a less than four to one (4 - 1) vote be referred to the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Board may wish to refer it up to the Commission but the Board consensus was not to refer. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-49 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 -4- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 5 conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. The existing structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the structure will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 4. ,The establishment, maintenance and operation of the structure will be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 5. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-49 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 6. Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties to the North and East and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon those properties. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey NOES: Poe, Smith ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-64 USE PERMIT NO.,86-63 Applicant: Paul Vong/Fourstar Investment CE REQUEST: To permit private patios and balconies to be allowed for common open space requirements. UP REQUEST: To permit the construction of a seven (7) unit apartment project adjacent to an arterial highway. Subject property is located at 2700 Seventeenth Street (West side of Delaware Street and South side of Seventeenth Street at point of intersection). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported the proposal had been approved by the Board under a previous entitlement but the entitlement expired before building permits were pulled. The Code has changed and the applicant now needs a variance. This is a small lot and the Architect has worked diligently to provide sufficient open space. The applicant is -5- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 6 requesting that the private patios and balconies be considered as open space and they feel these spaces are more beneficial than the common open spaces. This is a seven (7) unit apartment project which will be located on an arterial street. Staff is supporting the project. The Public Hearing was opened on both projects simultaneously and Ming K. Lan, Architect, was present to represent the -applicant. He said Paul Vong, the applicant, was also at the meeting. Mr. Lan reiterated Staff's statements and said the permits had not been pulled during the previous entitlement because of the owner's financial condition. Mr. Lan further mentioned the site was extremely irregular in shape and had presented many difficulties in meeting the Code requirements. He felt he had created a viable project and requested Board approval. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Les Evans agreed that the lot did create a very difficult situation for construction and felt Mr. Lan had resolved the situation very nicely. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-64 AND USE PERMIT NO. 86-63 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-64: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, 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. 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. 86-64 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-64: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 23, 1986, shall be the approved layout. -6- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 7 2. All Conditions of Approval for Use Permit No. 86-63 shall apply. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-63: 1. The establishment and maintenance of the proposed seven (7) unit apartment project 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 Use Permit No. 86-63 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-63: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevatibns received and dated September 23, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 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. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 4. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 5. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 6. 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- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 8 7. Patio and balcony areas shall be provided with water bibbs, natural gas stub -out, and electrical outlet. 8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - USE PERMIT NO. 86-63: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 3. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke Use Permit No. 86-63 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-71 Applicant: D'Ambra, Inc A request to permit reduction of the required twenty -foot (201) open space dimension to sixteen feet (161). Subject property is located at 5851 Trophy Drive (North side of Trophy Drive at the intersection of Greenview Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. According to Staff, the proposal is to reduce the minimum open space dimension from twenty feet (201) to sixteen feet (161). The reduction of this minimum open space dimension will still allow for more than the minimum nine hundred (900) Square Feet of open space. Staff's recommendation would be for approval of the project. Daryl Smith asked whether the addition would be architecturally compatible with the existing residence and Staff stated the elevations did indicate compatibility. Mr. Smith then asked if a finding could be added indicating the property was on a golf course which would create an additional open space feeling. Mr. Godfrey agreed that would be a good finding. -8- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 9 Glen Godfrey questioned whether this was a two story structure with cantilevered area or an open patio. Staff said it was two story and the Code required a clear and open area to the sky. The Public Hearing was opened and Dennis D'Ambra was present. Mr. D'Ambra said he had no questions or comments. 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. 86-71 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 twenty feet (201) to sixteen feet (161) will not reduce the required total open space area (900 Square Feet). 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, 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. 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. 86-71 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. 6. Minimum twenty -foot (201) open space dimension will be provided on the ground level. 7. The property is located adjacent to a golf course which would increase the feeling of open space dimension. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 12, 1986, shall be the approved layout. -9- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 10 2. 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. 3. Proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 5. Prior to 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. 6., All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-75 USE PERMIT NO. 86-68 Applicant: Mary Carlene and Larry Bailey CE REQUEST: To permit an existing driveway on Crest Avenue in lieu of all parking access from an existing alley. UP REQUEST: To permit the addition of an apartment unit to an existing single family dwelling. Subject property is located at 232 Crest Avenue (North side of Crest Avenue approximately eighty feet (801) East of Main Street). These requests are covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 3 and 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported the request is to construct an additional unit on a site with nonconforming setbacks. Garage access for the new unit will come off the alley; however, there is an existing curb cut for a driveway to the applicant's garage as well as to the adjacent -10- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 11 property. The applicant will need to provide a reciprocal access agreement with the adjacent property owner for use of the joint driveway since these are irregularly -shaped lots. With these things in mind, Staff is recommending approval of these requests. Tom Poe inquired as to whether the reciprocal access agreement would need to be recorded and Staff replied in the affirmative. Ross Cranmer asked if the project met Code other than the items mentioned and Staff said it did. The Public Hearing was opened on both projects and the applicant, Larry Bailey, was present. Mr. Bailey said he was prepared to answer any questions the Board might have. Tom Poe asked the applicant if he agreed to the conditions, specifically the access agreement, and Mr. Bailey replied he did. Ernest Gisler stated he could not have a better neighbor than Mr. Bailey and he was sure Mr. Bailey would construct the project the way it should be done. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Daryl Smith said he would move for approval of both requests. Glen Godfrey stated he would second the motion if the maker would accept the additional condition that new construction should be architecturally compatible with the existing. Mr. Smith agreed to the added condition. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-75 AND USE PERMIT NO. 86-68 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 86-75: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, 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. 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. 86-75 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. -11- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 12 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-75: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 29, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement(s) between the subject site and the adjacent property. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to occupancy. 4. All Conditions of Approval for Use Permit No. 86-68 shall apply. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-68: 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 Use Permit No. 86-68 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-68: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 29, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Remove and replace existing driveway per Department of Public Works requirements. 3. 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. 4. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. -12- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 13 5. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 6. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 7. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - USE PERMIT NO. 86-68: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 86-73 Applicant: Joyce Dillenbeck A request to permit exterior architectural improvements to a site with nonconforming front and rear setbacks. Subject property is located at 310 Fifteenth Street (East side of Fifteenth Street approximately forty-five feet (451) North of Olive Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Glen Godfrey called attention to the fact the applicant was not present at the meeting. Bob Franklin stated he had worked with the applicant and he was not conditioning anything of which the applicant was not aware. Staff further stated this was a seven (7) unit apartment building on a nonconforming site on Fifteenth Street and the applicant had hired an Architect to improve the facade. Staff also mentioned he had received calls from adjacent property owners who wished to do the same type of thing. According to Staff, some of the lot lines might need to be cleared up by lot consolidation. Staff also mentioned the applicant and Architect were advised of the meeting by telephone conversations, as well as the letters which were mailed. Staff recommended approval of the architectural facade improvements only. Daryl Smith asked how the project would be monitored to prevent interior work and Staff said the building inspectors would check on the project. Staff mentioned the Code allowed the construction of the seven (7) units when the building permit was issued. Glen Godfrey called attention to the fact the copy of the building permit -13- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 14 in the file indicated eight (8) units which would not be allowed under today's standards. Staff admitted he had made an error on the project and suggested the Board might wish to continue the request so further research could be done. Tom Poe opened the Public Hearing but there was no one present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing remained open. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-73 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-13 Applicant: Huntington Beach Company A request to permit the addition of approximately two hundred seventy-six (276) Square Feet of floor area to an existing structure for office use. Subject property is located at 6501 Palm Avenue (North side of Palm Avenue approximately one-half (1/2) mile West of Golden West Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff said the request was for a minor addition to an existing structure for office use only. The applicant will enclose a portion of an existing porch/patio area of the Seacliff Country Club to be used as offices for the personnel. This project is located in an area where a Coastal Development Permit would be needed and Staff is recommending a condition requiring proof of the existence of such a permit prior to issuance of building permits. Glen Godfrey asked the applicant if an existing walkway would be retained and the applicant's representative, Mark Urban, stated it would be kept. Daryl Smith asked Mr. Urban if he understood the condition regarding the Coastal Development Permit and Mr. Urban stated he was not aware of the situation. Bob Franklin said he had spoken with Bill Holman who was aware of what was needed. Staff said they would probably get a waiver from the California Coastal Commission since the original structure was built several years ago. -14- 10/8/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 8, 1986 Page 15 UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY EVANS, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-13 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Daryl Smith mentioned the Oil/Max appeal and subsequent withdrawal of appeal by Mayor Mandic and said the Mayor had indicated the situation was causing a lot of dissertation relative to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Mayor Mandic and the City Council have requested a report from the Board on actions with less than four to one (4 - 1) votes. Mr. Smith said he would move to have a memo drafted from the Board to the City Council but wanted the Board to have -an opportunity to review the memo and report prior to being sent to the City Council by the Director of Development Services, the official Secretary of the Board. Mr. Smith further stated the Board should be given an opportunity for input into the report to expedite action by City Council. Les Evans said he would second the motion. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, A REPORT AND MEMO ARE TO BE PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY REGARDING PAST VOTES OF THE BOARD AND SUCH REPORT IS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER REVIEW BY THE BOARD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their review. UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY POE, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1986, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments (6426d) -15- 10/8/86 - BZA