Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Plan; Zoning Review IPZR2006005 - Project Description1 August 17, 2006 City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Huntington Beach Planning Staff, of Huntington Beach AUG 182006 This letter is a request for an IPZR to review case number 2006-0187-253 as dated July 27, 2006; a copy of which is attached hereto for ease of reference (see tab 1). We are seeking a staff level review to determine if we are eligible for a waiver of development standards as it relates to the two (2) structures located in our side yard which were cited in the above referenced case number (see tab 2, photo bank A of a storage shed and a light gage metal trellis), or if we will be required to file for a variance. Storage Shed 1 The storage shed has been in its current position on our property since before we purchased the house in July of 1999 (see tab 2, photo bank B). This structure does not require a permit; per Section 17.02.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, as it is a one-story detached accessory building that does not exceed 120 square feet (floor area measurements are 89" x 178" for a total of 110 square feet). In addition, it is located in the rear two-thirds of the lot and more than the required five feet from the dwelling (required as per HBZSO 230.08). We have tenaciously maintained the appearance of the shed and strongly feel it is an integral component of the overall architectural feel of our property. We have invested a substantial amount of time and money into the upkeep of the shed ensuring that it ties into the overall theme of our property. We have painted it to match our residence, and recently installed custom-made redwood doors with dark metal accents to match the redwood and metal accents that adorn our fence and house. As the attached pictures will demonstrate, we have taken painstaking measures and spared no expense to maintain the architectural integrity and continuity of our property; ensuring the shed is compatible with the aforementioned fence, redwood accents, and metal accents that were added to the exterior of our residence this year (see tab 2, photos C - I). In addition to the forgoing, the shed neatly stores out of common view many otherwise unsightly objects that if stored in our garage or elsewhere on our property would substantially degrade the appearance of our house. If the aesthetic appearance is not sufficient in and of its self to necessitate a waiver of development standards, we feel that the following facts will show that it would be patently unjust to require the removal of the shed for the following reasons: 1. As mentioned previously, the shed has been in its current location since before we purchased the house. The City never cited us for having the shed located within the side yard setback until we installed the metal trellis earlier this month. In fact, your records will indicate that various permits were obtained for both the exterior remodel of our house and the construction of a new redwood fence (permit #s 62005-007292, 82005-008132, and C2005-007814). At no point during the construction process, or during any of the multiple inspections, was mention made of a side yard violation by the city inspector. In fact, during one inspection, the inspector actually recommended that we attach the fence to the shed (see tab 2, photo X on the last page of the picture exhibit). As the fence is now constructed around and attached to the shed, the removal or relocation of the shed will necessitate the partial destruction and reconstruction of the approved fence. We 1 strongly feel the approval of the fence as attached to the shed serves as a defacto waiver by the City of any setback requirements as it relates to the shed. 2. Storage sheds are a common accesso ry throughout our neighborhood. Most the houses built in our tract are small and do not provide much storage thereby necessitating the construction of accesso ry sheds. We have documented other properties in our neighborhood which have far less attractive sheds (some are metal, while others are dilapidated, and in a state of disrepair) all of which are located in both the side and rear yard set backs (see tab 2, photos J - P of other properties). As other property owners are able to enjoy the use of a storage shed within the aforementioned setbacks without consideration from the City, we feel this also constitutes a defacto waiver of the setback as it relates to the structures, and ask the City for that same privilege. 3. Per the terms of the Inter Office Communication dated October 30, 2001 from Planning Director, Howard Zelefsky to the Planning Staff (Document # CI-44R1 r). Section B of that Memo provides that accessory structures that are complimentary to or decorative in nature may be located anywhere on the property. As the attached pictures demonstrate, the shed is clearly complimenta ry to our house and is decorative in nature. It has been painted to match our house, and has custom made redwood doors with matching metal accents which architecturally integrates it with our house and fence. Decorative Metal Trellis: In regard to the decorative light gage metal trellis that was recently erected in our side yard; we are also seeking relief and waiver of development standards per the terms of the Inter Office Communication dated October 30, 2001 from Planning Director, Howard Zelefsky to the Planning Staff (Document # CI-44R1 r). Section B of that Memo provides that accessory structures that are complimentary to or decorative in nature may be located anywhere on the property. As is evidenced from the attached photos (see tab 2, photo bank A), the light gauge metal structure is purely decorative in nature. It does not have a solid roof and therefore does not provide shelter from the sun or rain. Further, the metal trellis was specifically purchased because of its architectural compatibility with the metal accents located on the shed, house, and fence. The height of the structure should not be an issue either as there are no height limitations under Section B of Memo CI-44R1 r so long as the structure is not located within the front yard setback. In addition to the forgoing, the trellis does not pose a fire life safety threat as: 1) The structure is constructed of non-flammable metal, and 2) There are two (2) unobstructed points of ingress and egress from our backyard. There is a gate on the front side of our house that has no limitations for access (refer to tab 2, photo G, and tab 3, the site plan which is being submitted herewith). There is a second gate adjacent to the structure as well (refer to tab 2, photo bank A, and tab 3, site plan). If it is determined that a waiver of development standards is not a possibility, we intend to file for a formal variance. We truly hope this will not be necessary but if it is, we feel that we easily meet the four (4) requirements necessary to obtain staff approval for a variance. To whit: 1) The granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity under an identical zone classification. a. As evidenced by the attached photos J - P in tab 2, the location of sheds and accessory structures (i.e. wood trellises, etc.) within side and rear yard setbacks -2- t are common place in our neighborhood. In fact we feel that by causing us to remove the shed and trellis, we will be denied the same use and enjoyment of our property that has been granted to others in our neighborhood. Accordingly, requiring us to remove these structures is tantamount to selective enforcement and overly strict application of the zoning code. b. More on point however is the exception provided in section 230.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Paragraph two (2) of subsection A provides the following: "Location... no setback is required for accessory structures, excluding garages and carports which abut an alley" 1 As demonstrated by tab 2, photos Q - S attached hereto, no less than three (3) houses in our neighborhood, one within a stones throw of our front door, have accessory structures (sheds and wood trellises) located within their side/rear yard setback. All of these houses are located on a corner similar to ours yet abut an alley. The aesthetic impact of these structures is no different from that of ours as the accessory structures are plainly visible from the street, and all are located within the aforementioned setbacks. The fact that adequate ingress and egress is provided only bolsters our position as there is no fire life safety issue associated with the location of our accessory structures. By requiring us to remove our accessory structures through strict application of the zoning ordinance we are being deprived of the same privileges other property owners enjoy (namely those that abut an alley, and those that are less distinctive and visible from the street) in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification as our property. 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 classification. a. Location: We feel that we have been singled out as a result of our property's prominent location as our house is seen immediately upon entry into our tract. We are located on the first corner off a busy arterial and our house is extremely visible due to its two (2) street frontages and distinctive design and color. As mentioned before, other homes in our neighborhood which are not as distinctive due to their aesthetic and locational qualities have avoided the scrutiny of code enforcement and have therefore not been cited. Also related to location is the argument presented under item 1 above. Because our property does not abut an alley, we are not allowed to enjoy the same privileges and benefits as those homeowners whose properties do abut an alley. As mentioned above there is no difference in the aesthetic impact so we are perplexed as to why we are being singled out. b. Surroundings: We hate to keep repeating the same argument, but the fact remains the same, accesso ry structures are commonly located in surrounding properties. In addition to accessory structures, RVs, boats, huge antennae, etc. are all commonly found in our neighborhood. By requiring us to remove our structures we are being denied the same privileges that other in our neighborhood are enjoying. I -3- 3) The granting of a variance is necessa ry to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial prope rty rights. a. The granting of this variance is absolutely critical to protect and preserve our substantial and Constitutionally protected rights to improve and quietly enjoy our property. As mentioned above, requiring us to remove the structure would be tantamount to selective enforcement of the zoning code. The fact that our house does not abut an alley should not deprive us of the same rights to quiet enjoyment and improvement of our property as those enjoyed by homeowners whose homes abut an alley. Further, the fact that our house is so distinctive and visible from the street due to its prominent comer location should not subject it to selective enforcement on behalf of the City's code enforcement division. 4) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. a. It's hard to argue that the improvements we have made to our house have not been extremely beneficial to our neighborhood, both in terms of surrounding property values and overall neighborhood charm. We have received numerous compliments from neighbors and visitors to the neighborhood regarding the improvements we have made. One visitor even remarked Your house doesn't just have curb appeal; it gives your neighborhood 'neighborhood appeal'." The structures can in no way be classified as detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification as they are both structurally sound and consistent with other accessory structures in the surrounding area. In reviewing our application, we would ask that you consider the character and demographics of our neighborhood. We live in a modest but close knit neighborhood that was built in the early 1960s'. The majority of the houses are still in their original state; however a few property owners, including ourselves, have recently begun to restore their homes. As stated repeatedly throughout this letter, sheds, trellises, RV and boat covers are common place in our neighborhood. Further, architectural diversity and a sense of individualism abound in our neighborhood as each house has taken on the particular taste, style, and hobbies (i.e. boats, and RV covers) of their owners. This diversity has, in our humble opinion, contributed greatly to the charm of our neighborhood. We are not Sea Cliff; rather, we are a sleepy bedroom community in a casual beach town that has a strong sense of place, and an excellent sense of community. This fact is supported by our neighbors' support of our citation appeal to the City as evidenced by the attached signed petition (see tab 4). All of the immediately adjacent neighbors have signed this petition and every person we have talked to vehemently supports our decision to appeal this citation. To that end, regardless of your determination, we would request that you not turn this document over to code enforcement as we would hate to have our neighbors go through the same process as their sheds, structures, RVs, and boats are most certainly in violation of the City code as well. We would also ask th at you consider each of these structures independently in your review and our ongoing effort to improve the visual appearance of our property for the betterment of our neighborhood and the city. Further, if there are any other avenues for relief that we can appeal to (i.e. a conditional use permit, which would allow the City to approve said structures on a case by case basis) we would gladly pursue those options in an effort to obtain relief, please let us know. We are throwing ourselves at the mercy of the Planning staff in hopes that you will recognize the pride that we have in our house and the thought and dedication that we have put into its restoration. Please reference the before and after pictures of our property (tab 2, photo banks T - W) to see the improvements we have made to our property and our neighborhood. -4- We have included an electronic copy of this letter, the pictures, site plan, and signed petition on the enclosed CD to aid in the preparation of your staff report. Please feel free to cut and paste as you deem necessary. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I Sincerely, Quinn and Jennifer Johnson Residents Huntington Beach -5- i