Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-27MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2002 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Ron Santos, Rami Talleh, Jane James, Paul Da Veiga, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: February 27, 2002 and March 6, 2002 APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE Item 3 was moved to the end of the agenda Please note that the Minutes will reflect actions taken in their original order. • ITEM 1: VARIANCE 01-18 (MASTERSON RESIDENCE — CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 13, 2002 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) APPLICANT: Karen Otis, 16871 Sea Witch Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 PROPERTY OWNER: Bruce Masterson, 16256 Tisbury Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: Variance to: (a) construct an approximately 53 sq. ft. garage addition and 53 sq. ft. 2nd story deck addition at a 7-ft. 1-in. front yard setback, in lieu of 20 ft. and 15 ft., respectively; and (b) to allow 54% lot coverage in lieu of the existing 53%. LOCATION: Location: 16256 Tisbury Circle (Huntington Harbor, north side of Tisbury Circle, west of Mistral Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs stating the purpose, location and zoning of the requested project. Staff stated that the item was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans that would demonstrate parking in front of the garage without obstructing the sidewalk. Staff recommended a denial of the proposed project based upon the revised suggested findings for ® denial as outlined in the staff report and because the revised plans would not meet parking requirements. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE -OPENED. Karen Otis, 16871 Sea Witch Lane, applicant, approached the plans, presented photographs and urged the Zoning Administrator's approval stating that they are not opposed to moving the garage thereby eliminating parking concerns. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, stated that given the existing layout of the dwelling and by extending the driveway and the garage as proposed, there are too many constraints. Ms. Broeren stated that the site is not laid out to accommodate a three -car garage and does not present the ability to make findings to support the proposed variance. VARIANCE NO. 01-18 WAS DENIED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - VARIANCE NO. 01-18: The granting of Variance No. 01-18 to: (a) construct an approximately 53 sq. ft. garage addition and 53 sq. ft. 2nd story deck addition at a 7-ft. 1-in. front yard setback, in lieu of 20 ft. and 15 ft., respectively; and (b) to allow 54% lot coverage in lieu of the existing 53% would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with dwellings with a front yard setback of sufficient depth to allow for parking of a vehicle between the garage • and the public sidewalk. The City has not granted a comparable variance under similar circumstances in, at minimum, the previous five years. 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance will not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The project site is developed with a single-family dwelling, with an attached two -car garage, and a driveway of sufficient depth and width to accommodate three parked cars. The size of the existing dwelling and the available space for on -site parking is comparable with that of other dwellings existing in the vicinity. Although the property's street frontage is irregularly shaped, the curvature of the front property line does not present insurmountable constraints to development which justify approval of the proposed setback variance. This assertion is evidenced by the fact that the subject dwelling meets setback and parking requirements in the existing configuration. Moreover, no other special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, topography, location or surroundings, exist which justify approval of the proposed variance. The size, topography, location and surroundings of the subject property is comparable to that of other parcels existing in the vicinity. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The subject property currently provides the on -site parking spaces required by the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, the site provides at least one viable alternative for constructing the proposed third car garage in conformance with the required . front yard setback. ZA Minutes 03/27/02 2 (02zm0327) 4. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project would allow insufficient driveway ® depth for parking of a vehicle between the proposed garage and the public sidewalk, and consequently may result in the obstruction of the public sidewalk by a parked car; or in the alternative design, which proposes a landscape planter intended to discourage parking over the sidewalk, the proposed garage space would be accessible only at the expense of the availability of a required driveway parking space, since the path of travel to the proposed garage would be blocked by any car parked in one of the two proposed/required driveway parking spaces. In addition, the project proposes elimination of one required on -site open/driveway parking space. The granting of the variance will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL-7 on the subject property, including the following General Plan Policies: LU 9.1.2: Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. LU 9.1.2: Modulate and articulate building elevation, facades, and masses (avoiding undifferentiated "box -like" structures. The proposed reduced setback would emphasize the garage as the predominant feature of the dwelling as viewed from the street, and would result in the elimination of an existing offset in the dwelling's street -front fagade. The proposed design would result in a less -articulated building elevation. ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-76 (AT&T WIRELESS) ® APPLICANT: W. Dean Brown, The Planning Consortium, 1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 38, Orange, CA 92868 PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Beach Union High School District, 10251 Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2999 REQUEST: To permit a 15 ft. extension to an existing forty-five (45) ft. wireless monopole. The total height of the proposed monopole is sixty (60) ft. in lieu of the maximum allowed height of fifty (50) ft. LOCATION: 17071 Gothard Street (southwest corner of Gothard Street and Warner Avenue; Ocean View High School) PROJECT PLANNER: Rami Talleh Rami Talleh, Staff Planner, displayed project plans stating the purpose, location and zoning of the requested project. Staff presented photos and photo simulations stating that the proposed extension in height would increase the visibility of the monopole, but could be alleviated if the monopole's design were to be enhanced. Staff stated that the Design Review Board (DRB) approved the proposed project conditioned on a palm tree design and a maximum height of 75 feet. Staff presented a review of the maximum height for the surrounding structures in the area. Staff recommended denial of the project as proposed by the applicant and based upon the findings as outlined in the staff report. ® Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, confirmed with staff that the original approval for the existing wireless monopole in 1992 was conducted by a State architect and that the City had no ZA Minutes 03/27/02 3 (02zm0327) mechanism in place at that time. Discussion ensued with Ms. Broeren and staff concerning the type and height of the monopole and the finished grade of the wireless communication facility, which would be located approximately ten (10) feet lower than the grade level of Gothard Street. Ms. Broeren confirmed with staff that no written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. W. Dean Brown, The Planning Consortium, 1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 38, Orange, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project and urged the Zoning Administrator's approval emphasizing the grade differential. Mr. Brown explained in detail why the 75-foot height is necessary to allow more cell phone coverage as well as less interference by the surrounding trees. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren and staff discussed the DRB's reason for agreeing to the height of 75 feet. Ms. Broeren confirmed with staff that all of the neighboring mobile home park tenants were noticed of today's hearing. She asked if the project had been evaluated against the proposed wireless communication facilities ordinance, and staff stated that the height restriction requires a conditional use permit. Ms. Broeren asked staff if the City has approved similar projects. Staff responded with a summary of similar projects stating the height, location and dates of approval. Staff presented alternate findings and conditions of approval. The applicant came forward to review • the foregoing and discussion ensued concerning the suggested conditioned height of 60 feet. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to approve the proposed project as recommended by the DRB. She stated that the existing trees within the area and the setback from the property line minimize the impact of the monopalm. Ms. Broeren stated that the suggested findings for approval as presented by staff will be revised to reflect the 75-foot height as requested by the applicant but with the monopalm requirement. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-76 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. 0 ZA Minutes 03/27/02 4 (02zm0327) FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: ® The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the proposed project consists of alteration to an existing facility. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-76: Conditional Use Permit No. 01-76 to permit for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seventy-five (75) foot high wireless communication facility in lieu of the maximum allowed height of fifty (50) feet, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The monopole will be disguised as a palm tree located within the Ocean View High School parking lot and will be shielded by the existing sixty (60) to seventy (70) foot high trees minimizing the visual impacts to adjacent properties. The wireless communication facility will not generate noise, traffic or other impacts that would be detrimental to surrounding commercial and residential uses. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed wireless communication facility will be setback substantially from the limits of the site (over 220 feet) and, as modified, will be disguised as a palm tree, which will blend into the surroundings. In addition the finished grade of the wireless communication facility is located approximately ten (10) ® feet lower than the grade level of Gothard Street. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 01-76 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance allows wireless communication facilities to exceed the base district height limit with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Public on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Goal LU2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. b. Objective U5. l: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunication, and electrical systems are provided. Policy U5.1.1: Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The proposed new wireless communication antennas facilitate telecommunication service and ® improve wireless communication coverage for the community. ZA Minutes 03/27/02 5 (02=0327) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-76: 1. The site plan received and dated January 9, 2001, and the floor plans and elevations received and • dated March 27, 2002, shall be the conceptually approved. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 3. The use shall comply with the following: a. The existing landscaping shall be maintained, if any of the landscaping is damaged during the removal of the antenna and/or installation of the antenna, the City's Landscape Architect shall be notified. (PW) b. If the facility use is discontinued, the equipment and antenna shall be removed within thirty (30) days. (PW) c. If the facility is going to the street to obtain power and/or service, the applicant shall submit plans to Public Works for review and approval. (PW) d. The wireless communication facility shall be disguised as a palm tree. e. The maximum height of the proposed facility shall be seventy-five (75) feet. 40 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-76 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-76 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is March 27, 2002, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 01-76, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $43.00 for the posting of the Notice of • Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the Count ZA Minutes 03/27/02 6 (02zm0327) 11 of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. 7. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Zoning Administrator. 8. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) ITEM 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 02-04 (HUNTINGTON CENTER MALL) CO -APPLICANT: J. H. Snyder Co., Milt Swimmer, 5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse 30, Los Angeles, CA 90036 CO -APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, David Biggs, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Center Associates, LLC, c/o The Ezralow Company, Scott Dinovitz, 23622 Calabasas Road, Suite 100, Calabasas, CA 91302-1549 Sears Roebuck & Co., 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates, IL 60179- 0001 Southern California Edison Co., Mike Orduno, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 REQUEST: To assess the environmental impacts of a request to renovate an approximately 63 acre existing mall into an open-air retail dining and entertainment complex. The project includes partial demolition, facade remodel, renovation, and new construction of regional commercial uses. At project completion the mall will total approximately 982,828 sq. ft., which is approximately 39,803 sq. ft. less than the existing mall. LOCATION: 7777 Edinger Avenue (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Jane James Jane James, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs stating the purpose, location and zoning designation of the proposed project. Staff stated that the request is to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and presented a review thereof. Staff reviewed the mitigation measures as set forth in the staff report and recommended changing Condition No. 7.a as follows: a. Reimburse the City for all costs of designing, permitting, and implementing signing and striping changes on Beach Boulevard from Stark Street to the Interstate 405 ramps to provide for a fourth northbound through lane on Beach Boulevard in conformance with the recommendations of the approved Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff stated that an environmental assessment was sent to the State Clearing House for a 30-day review period and to allow Cal Trans the opportunity to review the proposed project. The i surrounding communities in Westminster were noticed and a 30-day public comment period was held. ZA Minutes 03/27/02 7 (02zm0327) Staff presented a review of the four letters received from the County of Orange, the Environmental Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Sears. Staff recommended approval of the environmental assessment because all of the potential environmental impacts have been mitigated to less than significant with the exception of air quality, which is covered under the provisions of the General Plan. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, asked staff whether or not there were any issues from an environmental perspective that could potentially remove the project out of the floodplain such as the proposed hydrology study, and if it would be appropriate to add a mitigation measure concerning the foregoing. Staff concluded that the foregoing would not be an environmental consideration because the standard conditions of approval, at issuance of the building permit, would require the project's compliance with the floodplain regulations. Ms. Broeren and staff discussed the proposed traffic improvements as set forth in mitigation measures number Ta and 7.b. and whether or not the current less than acceptable level of service would be improved. Bob Stachelski, Public Works, stated that the mitigation measures proposed for the traffic improvements fully mitigate the impact of the project. Ms. Broeren and staff reviewed the mitigation measures that were expanded, added or modified as a result of the comment letters, specifically numbers 9, 10 and 11. Further discussion ensued concerning comments received by Sears, and staff concluded that the comments don't affect the environmental consideration but are site -planning issues. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Staff stated that they had numerous conversations with Cal Trans and that March 22, 2002, was the close of the comment period. Staff stated that the deadline for Cal Trans to comment was extended to March 26, 2002, but no comments have been received to date from Cal Trans. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.02-04 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AS SUBMITTED. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 02-04: 1. The Environmental Assessment No. 02-04 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Zoning Administrator prior to action on the Negative Declaration. ZA Minutes 03/27/02 8 (02=0327) 2. Mitigation measures, attached herein and ultimately incorporated into conditions of approval for any development approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Zoning Administrator that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, the applicant shall provide proof that driven friction piles extending into the stiff and/or dense natural soils encountered below depths of about 45 to 50 feet below the existing grade are to be utilized in order to provide support for the proposed buildings. This mitigation applies to the proposed buildings at their current locations or at other locations within the project site, for minor structures such as low retaining walls and freestanding walls, as well as for building floor slabs and other concrete walks and slabs adjacent to the buildings, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, the applicant shall submit a soils study demonstrating that the existing piles at the site that are intended to support some of the new buildings possess structural integrity and capable, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 3. During grading, the applicant shall ensure that disturbed material and unsuitable natural soils such ® as peat deposits encountered immediately below the fill should be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. All required additional fill should be properly compacted, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 4. During grading, the applicant shall ensure that the excavated soils be allowed to dry prior to placement as compacted fill, and that the soils at the bottom of the excavations also be allowed to dry as necessary prior to placement of compacted fill. As an alternative to drying the exposed natural soils at the bottoms of the required excavations, the exposed soils shall be over -excavated and replaced with I to 11/2 feet of 1 '/2 inch crushed rock to provide a base for the compaction of the required backfill. Compliance with this mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, the applicant shall ensure that any required import material consists of relatively non -expansive soils with an Expansion Index of less than 35. The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. All import materials shall be approved, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 6. The applicant shall submit a drainage/hydrology plan demonstrating that any effects to the City and County existing drainage systems resulting from the proposed development are reduced to a level less than significant (by implementation of proposed drainage system improvements), subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. ZA Minutes 03/27/02 9 (02zm0327) 7. Prior to final building permits, the applicant shall: • a. Reimburse the City for all costs of designing, permitting, and implementing signing and striping changes on Beach Boulevard from Stark Street to the Interstate 405 ramps to provide for a fourth northbound through lane on Beach Boulevard in conformance with the recommendations of the approved Traffic Impact Analysis. b. Restripe the westbound approach on Edinger Avenue at Beach Boulevard to convert existing right turn lane to a third westbound through lane. Prior to issuance of Site Plan approvals within the Huntington Center Specific Plan, a Shared Parking Study shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Transportation Manager and the Director of Planning. The applicant shall submit a parking plan identifying proposed parking that meets parking requirements consistent with ratios identified in the approved Shared Parking Study. This parking plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. 9. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. e. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. 10. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Caltrans District 12. The Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis shall analyze the traffic impacts of the project without the proposed direct access from the southbound 405 Freeway off -ramp into the project site and shall also address comments and concerns raised by Caltrans District 12. 11. If during grading and construction any soil and/or groundwater contamination are found or suspected on -site, construction in the area shall cease, appropriate Health and Safety procedures shall be implemented, and appropriate agencies shall be notified. Any hazardous substances ZA Minutes 03/27/02 10 (02zm0327) 0 • rI L contained on the site shall be identified and removed in compliance with City, State, and Federal standards. ITEM 4: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-05 (BEACH BOULEVARD WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY — CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 27, 2002 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN) APPLICANT: The Consulting Group for Cingular Wireless, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 PROPERTY OWNER: Executive Park Huntington, 16181 Beach Boulevard, Suite 200, Glendale, CA 92647 REQUEST: To permit a wireless communications facility consisting of six (6) antennas and associated equipment cabinets. The antennas are proposed to be mounted on the roof of an existing three-story office building. LOCATION: 16162 Beach Boulevard (west side of Beach Boulevard, north of Stark Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of this item in order to allow time to redesign the proposed project. Staff recommended a continuance to the April 17, 2002 meeting subject to a review by the Design Review Board. AS THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS NOT OPENED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-05 WAS CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 17, 2002 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:25 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2002 AT 1:30 PM. Ma Beth roeren Zoning Administrator : rmk ZA Minutes 03/27/02 11 (02zm0327)