Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-28MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1987 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Crosby, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Phillips MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1987, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Crosby REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 86-92 (Cont. from 1/14/87) NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-2 Applicant: Cora Gaslawski A request to permit twenty-four (24) hour board and care for six (6) elderly people. Subject property is located at 19632 Occidental Lane (East side of Occidental Lane approximately two hundred feet (200') North of Madeline Drive). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 87-2. Staff member, Laura Phillips, reported this was a request to have twenty-four (24) hour care in a single family home for six (6) elderly people. The residence is located in a single family residential neighborhood and the elderly people would be cared for in a family -like atmosphere. The residents of the home will be ambulatory and will be cared for by a full-time caretaker. The applicant will be renting the residence from the property owner. The Fire Department has stipulated several safety measures which the property owner is not aware of such as outside doors to the bedrooms, smoke alarms, etc. Staff has received several calls from neighbors who are in opposition to the request because of a business being conducted in a residential area, additional traffic, parking problems, disturbances from ambulances, upkeep and maintenance of the house, and revocation of the license if conditions are Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 2 violated. Staff is recommending denial because of these concerns and the fact the operator is not owner of the property. Staff has, however, prepared Conditions of Approval if the Board should so desire but would recommend that only five (5) residents be allowed as occupants. Glen Godfrey asked if Staff had an opportunity to check the property and Ms. Phillips stated she had driven past the property the previous day. She added the house did not appear to be any less kept up than others in the neighborhood. Dennis Krejci asked about the difference in the number of patients Staff was recommending for handling in the residence and the number requested by the applicant. Staff replied there were six bedrooms - five of which could be occupied by patients and one would be needed for the caretaker. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Dennis Krejci and the applicant, Cora Gaslawski, was present. Mrs. Gaslawski stated she had been a private nurse for twenty-one (21) years and knew there was a definite need for this type of care service in the Huntington Beach area. She said the residents would be over fifty-five (55) years of age, ambulatory, and many would not yet be qualified for Medi-Care but would still be unable to live alone. Daryl Smith asked if Mrs. Gaslawski intended to live on the premises and serve as caretaker for the patients, and Mrs. Gaslawski replied in the affirmative. The owner of the property, Satish Kumar, stated his was one of the best homes in the neighborhood and had recently received a lot of improvements - new carpeting, paint, wallpaper, and landscaping. He added these tenants would be much better than some he had previously had in the house. Tom Poe asked Mr. Kumar if he understood the requirements the Fire Department would be placing on the project and Mr. Kumar said he did not. Mr. Poe explained the requirements and said he was sure the applicant was aware of what the State Fire Marshal required for operations of this nature. Mr. Kumar then asked if this was required of all families who had elderly people living with them. Mr. Poe said only if it was a commercial type of occupancy where permits were required. Peggy Freeman, 822-A Eighteenth Street, spoke in favor of the project even though she did not live in the neighborhood. She said her Mother -in -Law was in a similar establishment and it had worked beautifully for them. Mrs. Freeman added that other such facilities were needed in the Huntington Beach area. I� -2- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 3 Warren W. Cowden, 124 Sixteenth Street, stated it was ridiculous that this type of thing could be done in the City of Huntington Beach and wondered if something like this could happen next door to him. Glen Godfrey explained the State of California and the State Legislature had provided legislation to the individual cities mandating these types of care facilities for six (6) or less residents and other types of care facilities for more than six (6) up to twelve (12) residents. Mr. Godfrey continued that this City has an Ordinance requiring a Use Permit for such facilities and there are certain requirements that this City can apply such as traffic, parking, hours of visitation rights, etc., but the State regulates the Fire Standards. Mr. Cowden then said if it required a business license, it was a business and should not be allowed in a residential district. Ronald G. Rodgers, 19621 Occidental Lane, stated he lived directly across the street from the residence in question and the business license was not the issue. He added he had also had an office and business out of his home, but the issue here was one of neighborhood tranquility. Mr. Rodgers said he understood Mrs. Gaslawski had been a nurse for many years but wondered if she had complied with other requirements for elderly care facilities regardless of where they were located. He expressed concern about whether the applicant had sufficient liability insurance to insure hospitalization for the individuals in the event of illness or accidents and whether she could make arrangements for relocation of the patients if needed. Mr. Rodgers continued that the property had not been well maintained in the past and, since the houses were almost twenty years old, repairs were frequently needed. Gwen Randall, 19622 Occidental Lane, stated she had lived in the tract since 1968 and that, in the years the Kumars had owned the property, tenants had seemingly had problems getting repairs made. She added that the Yucca trees were a problem, painting had not been done, and the sprinkler system apparently did not work. Ms. Randall stated she bought her home because she wanted to live in a nice residential area and she did not approve of granting the request. Another resident, Colleen Talbot of 9192 Madeline Drive, said that points were brought out today that had not been mentioned at the previous meeting, and she added that several people had recently been cleaning the house and yard. Mary M. Abegg, 9172 Madeline Drive, expressed concern that an outside stairway on the Gaslawski residence would affect the value of her property. Tom Poe assured her that any architectural changes would receive proper review. -3- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 4 Mrs. Gaslawski asked to read a letter into the record and it is as follows: "19631 Occidental Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 January 27, 1987 To Whom It May Concern: We reside at 19631 Occidental Lane, which is across the street from 19632 Occidental Lane. We are in favor of the proposed variance to permit twenty-four hour board and care for six elderly people. In the past few years, many different families and extended families have occupied the said residence. Because this house has an upper level addition with a kitchenette, multiple families seem to be attracted to occupy the house. This has produced more traffic and noise than one family would normally produce. Both my wife and I have older parents and realize the need for good board and care facilities for the elderly. We would not mind having elderly neighbors. Thank you for allowing us to share our opinions with you. Sincerely, /s/ Myron J. Eppley/Penny S. Eppley Myron J. Eppley and Penny S. Eppley" Chairman Krejci said he would leave the Public Hearing open until after the Board held a discussion. Daryl Smith said the history of this residence had indicated renters living there who had created problems in the neighborhood with hot rodding cars, loud parties, etc., and these elderly people would not be causing these types of disturbances.. Mr. Smith continued that the Board could condition the operation to bring the house up to the standards of the residential area, and the home occupation permit could be revoked if these conditions were not honored. Ronald Rogers spoke again, stating he was a police officer from Newport Beach and the police had ways of dealing with neighborhood disturbances such as loud parties, hot rodding, family arguments, etc. He added that, in the event of problems with the elderly care operation, revoking a home occupation permit would be a lengthy and time consuming process through City channels. 1 -4- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 5 After questioning by Daryl Smith, Mr. Rogers said increased traffic would still create problems even with staggering visitation hours, and property maintenance had been and probably would continue to be a problem since the residence was not owner -occupied. Mr. Kumar stated he had owned the property since 1980 and he had not received a single complaint from residents of the neighborhood about the property or its maintenance. He invited the neighbors to inform him of any future problems. Daryl Smith said he had strong feelings about the rights of property owners having use of their property to the best extent allowed by law, but he also had strong -feelings about the rights of others in the area to peace and tranquility. He added again that the operation could be controlled by proper conditioning. Glen Godfrey asked Mr. Kumar about the letter which had been read making reference to a kitchenette on the Second Floor of the house. Mr. Kumar stated it was just a small stove and did not have a sink or other kitchen facilities. Mrs. Gaslawski added that she would have the elderly people downstairs and not upstairs. After Mr. Smith asked for further explanations, Glen Godfrey explained the relationship between the State and City in this type of operation. He added the City Council had chosen to administer the City Ordinance under a Use Permit process through the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Mr. Godfrey added the City would have less control over the operation since the residence was not owner -occupied. Upon questioning, Mrs. Gaslawski said she would be required, under State regulations, to relocate the elderly persons in the event she could not continue providing care for them. In answer to Mr. Krejci's query, Tom Poe stated the Fire Department would check residences of this type once a year for the State Fire Marshal. Bruce Crosby asked how staggering of the visitation hours would be monitored and Ms. Phillips said the Board would have to depend on neighbors' complaints of violations. Chairman Krejci said many of the concerns expressed had dealt with maintenance of the property and asked the applicant how this would be handled. Mrs. Kumar stated the house had been redecorated with new wallpaper, paint, etc., and looked really nice. Mr. Gaslawski stated he would be able to handle some of the maintenance problems in the future. Mr. Krejci said he did not doubt their integrity but asked what assurance the Board would have that maintenance would be -5- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 6 properly done. He asked if the applicant would be willing to enter into agreements for lawn maintenance, tree trimming, etc., and provide the Board copies of such agreements. The applicant agreed but Daryl Smith stated he did not feel the Board had authority to regulate such agreements. Elizabeth Terry, 19602 Occidental Lane, stated the Kumars had rented to two families at one time - one family upstairs and a second down. Also, the previous owners had their Mother and Father there, along with their own children. There was no one else wishing to speak so the Public Hearing was closed by Chairman Krejci. The Board however, continued its discussion regarding points which had been mentioned during the Public Hearing. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, USE PERMIT NO. 86-92 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-2 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed use will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 4. The subject property would not be owner -occupied and operated and, therefore, the City would have more difficulty monitoring the maintenance and upkeep of the property and enforcing compliance with applicable Codes. 5. The use of the second story with regard to fire safety and regulations would be difficult to monitor, and would be hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of elderly residents. AYES: Crosby, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: Krejci ABSENT: None 1 -6- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 7 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 87-1 USE PERMIT NO. 86-94 Applicant: Adel M. Zeidan CE REQUEST: To permit five (5) parking spaces in lieu of the required twelve (12) spaces. UP REQUEST: To permit the sale of beer and wine at an existing mini -market that is nonconforming for lot size and setbacks. Subject property is located at 301 Seventeenth Street (Northwest corner of Seventeenth Street and Olive Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Ms. Phillips reminded the Board the original Use Permit covering this mini -market had been approved in 1985. At that time, it was covered by C-3 Zoning standards but the Code has since changed it to C-2. The applicant now has a building which is nonconforming for the lot size and setbacks and is asking to sell beer and wine at the location. He is also asking for a reduction in parking spaces from the twelve (12) which would be required to five (5) which he currently has at the market. There is a five foot (5') wide landscape planter instead of the required ten foot (10') and the market was originally approved for only a grocery market with no alcoholic beverage sales. Notices were mailed to surrounding residents and Staff has received several phone calls from neighbors expressing concerns. Staff recommended denial of both the Conditional Exception and the Use Permit. The Public Hearing was opened and Dan Carlton, 695 Town Center Drive, #301, Costa Mesa, stated he was an attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Carlton said the applicant needed the parking space variance in order to sell the beer and wine at the existing market. He added he could not understand where the automobile traffic would be much worse than at present because it was a neighborhood -type market with mostly "walk-in" traffic, and there was another liquor store within two blocks which handled most of the beach traffic. Mr. Carlton further stated the applicant would monitor the location to make sure there was no loitering or littering. Ms. Phillips stated letters had been received in opposition to the project and she would like to read them into the record. Daryl Smith said the names could be read and the letters could be put into the file for reference. Glen Godfrey said he would like to at least hear the reasons for objections. Mr. Carlton stated he would be concerned about the letters being made a part of the record since the people who had written them were not present to be questioned -7- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 8 for rebuttal by him. Mr. Smith reminded the attorney these notices were sent to surrounding property owners, but this did not disallow someone else from speaking or writing regarding the project. Wendy Menker, 218-D Eighteenth Street, expressed concern about the additional traffic which would be generated in the alley adjacent to the market and her property. She added people going down Seventeenth Street to the beach would be stopping there for beer and wine and continuing on down the alleyway. Kenneth J. Golden, 1717 Park, said he was an attorney representing the owner of,the liquor store mentioned earlier. He said Mr. Zeidan had been aware that he would not be allowed to sell beer and wine when he was issued the Use Permit for construction of his building and he should not now be allowed to change those restrictions. He further mentioned how the liquor store owner had obeyed the zoning restrictions regarding parking, landscaping, etc., for his location and now Mr. Zeidan was requesting special privileges which would give him an unfair business advantage. Mr. Golden asked that the Board deny the applicant's request. Another resident, Frank Zappa, 226 Seventeenth Street, said the attorney for the applicant did not want the letters read; however, Mr. Zappa added, the notice he received had stated feelings could be expressed in person or in writing. Mr. Zappa continued he had rearranged his business schedule to be present and personally express his concerns regarding the parking deficiency. He stated proper parking had been required for the proposed "Pierside Village" and other new construction and the applicant should not be granted special privileges. Mr. Zappa added he had not been aware that a market was going in on the lot at the time it was being constructed and had assumed it was a residence; but, he had since learned to check on new construction and not make assumptions. Mr. Zappa added he did not feel the beer and wine sales would benefit the neighborhood. Kay Seraphine, 509 Seventeenth Street, reported that the Alcoholic Beverage Control said the applicant had been granted a full liquor license and not just a beer and wine license. She expressed concern about drinking on the "non-alcoholic" beach which the City had just taken over and noise which would be generated by people leaving car motors running while they made their alcoholic purchases. Paul Columbus, 305 Seventeenth Street, stated he owned the office next door to the market. He said the applicant was asking for special privileges for himself. Mr. Columbus added he did not see a preponderance for granting the variance when there was another facility (liquor store) so close. C -8- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 9 Peggy Freeman, 222-A Eighteenth Street, reiterated the issues concerning parking, loitering, running motors, etc., and objected to allowing the variance. Richard Doran stated he lived across the street from the facility. He said the market already generated a good deal of traffic, that bottles and other debris are thrown on his property, and the five (5) parking spaces which the applicant has are very hard to get into the way they are positioned. He added that the roof of the building extends over the sidewalk and there is not the required five feet (5') of landscaping now. He did not feel the applicant should be granted further variances. Mike Zeidan said his family had built the structure at a cost of over one-half million dollars, they had worked on it fifteen to sixteen hours a day, and had built a very nice building which was an asset to the area. He added many of the neighbors had commented that the area was much safer with a store at the corner - that they had previously been afraid to walk along the street. He stated they would prevent any loitering, there would be no handouts, and they would keep the store area clean and nice. Michael Alley said he had over twenty years experience in the liquor business and the Zeidans presently had a good business within a nice building. He added the Zeidans had received permits from the City for their building and his recommendation was that the Board grant permission for beer and wine sales at the establishment. Mike J. Morelli, 405 Fifteenth Street, stated he had been going to the market since it first opened and there was no apparent parking problem - that the lot was never more than half filled. He added that he lived more than two blocks away but had never driven to the market - he always walked. Mr. Morelli said the market should be granted the liquor license. Adel Zeidan, 18382 Patterson Lane, #1, said he had walked door to door when constructing the building and the people had welcomed the opportunity to have a market there. He added that at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the customers walk to the store and he did not feel parking was a major issue. Mr. Zeidan continued that the building had been approved by the Building Department, Fire Department and Safety. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Daryl Smith then asked that the Staff member read the letters which had been submitted to the Board but not entered into the records earlier. He added the letters had been used previously by Staff and -9- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 10 by the Board today in reviewing the request, and he believed the applicant and his attorney should be apprised of the information in the letters. UPON'MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, LETTERS WERE READ AND ENTERED INTO RECORD AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Crosby, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None "Joseph and Marie Rebhun 1481 Lafayette Road Claremont, California 91711 Phone 624-1792 Board of -Zoning Adjustments City of Huntington Beach, Gentlemen, In case of Adel M. Zeiden (sic) 18382 Patterson Lane #1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 applying,for permit to sell beer and wine at the existing -mini -market at 301 Seventeen (sic) Street, I Joseph Rebhun, owner of the,adjoining residential property, appeal to you to deny such a permit,�since it would attract noise and misbehavior of drunkards in this quiet, residential section of the city,. Sincerely, /s/ Joseph Rebhun" "Huntington Seacliff•Corporation January 28, 1987 Huntington Beach Board of Zoning Adjustments 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Conditional Exception 87-1 Use Permit 86-94 Gentlemen:; Huntington Seacliff Corporation urges the Board to deny the above application and requests for exceptions from the City's parking, lot size, and setback requirements. -10- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 11 HSC manages the Beachtown Center at Orange and Seventeenth Streets, and requests the City to impose consistent development standards on all businesses in the area. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. /s/ W. R. Ellis/KA W. R. Ellis Vice President WRE/j" "BY MESSENGER 26 January 1987 City of Huntington Beach Board of Zoning Adjustments P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Conditional Exception No. 87-1 in conjunction with Use Permit No. 86-94 Gentlemen: We have received notification of the pending public hearing which is scheduled to consider the above -referenced Use Permit and CE Request. We wish to go on record as being in opposition of both the CE and UP Requests, inasmuch as the physical location and requested uses are not, in our opinion, compatible. The provision of beer and wine in this location does not lend itself to the health, safety and/or welfare of the neighborhood and could be considered "over -kill" in view of the fact that this commodity (or product) is available one block away at the corner of Orange and 17th Street. We are particularly concerned as to the request for a variance in the required number of parking spaces. To allow a use which will potentially create additional traffic and congestion in this location will compound an already existing unsafe condition at this intersection. At present, the presence of the existing structure creates a "blind spot" for vehicular traffic turning right on Olive Avenue from Seventeenth Street. An addition in on -street parking would further aggravate an unsafe situation. -11- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to express our views as to the requested uses in our immediate neighborhood. Yours very truly, /s/ Linda L. MacFarland Linda L. MacFarland Paul G. MacFarland 225 18th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 /lp" "January 26, 1987 Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Laura Phillips, Project Coordinator Re: Conditional Exception No. 87-1 Use Permit No. 86-94 Location: 301 - 17th Street Dear Ms. Phillips: I am unable to attend the Public Hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 1987 in regard to the above petition. However, I am a homeowner at 326 - 18th Street and would like to express my opinion against the proposed petition. I do not understand why the City permitted a mini -market and liquor store to be built at the subject location. As an immediate area resident, I was not given any notice of this construction or its purpose. There is already a large mini -market and liquor store at 17th and Orange, just one block from the new one. The addition of another one will only add to the existing heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area. Additionally, the parking lot for the new location has its entrance/exit to the alley which serves the private residences on 18th and 17th Streets. This will further increase the traffic and congestion in the alley for which there is already excessive parking of residents cars and oil well service vehicles. -12- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 13 Further, I understand that the City will be taking control of the nearby public beach area and will prohibit alcoholic beverages on the beach. It would not seem to be in the City's best interest to permit another liquor store to be established in the immediate beach area. The subject area has been primarily a residential area with several new homes built or in process. Believe it or not, there is some pride of ownership in the area. The addition of a market and liquor store does not enhance the area. Thank you for receiving my comments. Sincerely, /s/ Calvin T. Meeks Calvin T. Meeks 326 - 18th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648" "January 28, 1987 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RE: 87-1 I own property at 309 & 311 17th Street and also operate a business (Ellsworth Products Co.) at 311 17th Street. I have no objections to the granting of a parking variance to the applicants. (310 - 17th) Sincerly,(sic) /s/ Jack H. Ellsworth" "January 22nd, 1987 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE 2000- MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. TO WHOME (sic) IT MAY CONCERN, My name is Daney Salrno, I currently on live 211- 18th Street, Huntington Beach and I wellcome (sic) a new convenient store located -13- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 14 on the corner of 17th Street and the Olive. I urge your support to grant the store the sales of alcoholic beverage. Thank You. Yours Truley,(sic) /s/ Daney Salrno Daney Salrno." In rebuttal, Dan Carlton, attorney for the applicant, said valid concerns had been expressed but the main issues were the beer and wine sales and the parking. He said the first lady had problems with traffic in the alley; however, this was all approved by the City Engineering Department. Mr. Carlton continued that Mr. Golden's concerns were expressed because he represented the commercial interests of the owner of another liquor store a block away and Mr. Golden was not particularly concerned with the issue of parking.. Mr. Carlton reiterated earlier statements that only about ten percent (10%) of the business would be from automobile traffic - it would be mostly "walk-in" business. He added that young people can and do purchase beer and wine at other locations so this particular market would not create more problems for the City. Mr. Golden rebutted by saying he was concerned about the traffic and parking situation, as well as other things. He said the City Council had passed ordinances to require adequate parking for businesses in the City and he felt one business should not be given an advantage over another by variances to these requirements. The Chairman said the Board had heard the concerns of the attorneys, the residents, and the applicants and asked if a motion was forthcoming on the request. Four people in the audience asked that it be noted they had not had an opportunity to speak but had nothing additional to mention. Daryl Smith said that one lady had mentioned that the applicant's license was a full liquor license and not just for beer and wine sales. Mr. Zeidan said he had drawn a license from the lottery for off -site liquor sales from the State of California. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CROSBY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 87-1 AND USE PERMIT NO. 86-94 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1 -14- 1/28/87 - BZA 1 Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 15 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 87-1: 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. 2. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 87-1 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - USE PERMIT NO 86-94: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. On -site parking and circulation are inadequate and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard. AYES: Crosby, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen Godfrey noted his "NO" vote had been in accordance with his vote on the original Use Permit request. Dennis Krejci added that the City had been "up front" on the project and the applicant knew from the start his original approval was for a mini -market without alcoholic beverage sales. There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their review. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY KREJCI, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1987, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -15- 1/28/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 28, 1987 Page 16 AYES: Crosby, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jgh (7286d) 1 -16- 1/28/87 - BZA