HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Plan; Zoning Review IPZR2006005 - Supporting Documents0
Quinn and Jennifer Johnson
20561 Sandpiper Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
September 22, 2006
VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Tim Flanagan
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Case Number 2006-0187-253
Dear Officer Flanagan,
0
Earlier this week , we received a format response from the Planning department regarding our
IPZR submittal. The response from the Planning department indicated that they did not have
enough information to determine whether they would support our request for a variance for our
side yard structures. Pursuant to this letter, we have spoken with a city planner about the
process for seeking a variance for said structures and will appeal this to the Planning
Commission via a formal variance.
Gathering the information required for the variance, including but not limited to the radius map
and the detailed site plans the city requires, will take some time. We have started our consultants
working on both and they should be ready soon . As both of these requirements of the city are in
process but not completed, we again need to ask you to delay the reinspection date of our
property unfit the variance appeal process has completed. We intend to submit the variance
application as soon as we get the radius map and detailed site plans finalized. Once submitted,
according to the planner on staff, a variance hearing can take three months or longer. Since the
variance submittal is also causing us damages in the form of the above mentioned site survey
and radius maps, in addition to the filing fee for the variance, we also again ask you to rethink this
violation in an effort to mitigate our damages as required by law. We will keep you informed of
the progress of our appeal so as to mitigate any further action on the original citation.
Regards,
Quinn Johnson
Jennifer Johnson
Residents Huntington Beach
cc: Tess Nguyen, Scott Hess
j J& City of Huntington Beach
Phone
Fax
51-
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
536-5271
374-1540
September 14, 2006
Quinn Johnson
20561 Sandpiper Lane
Huntington Beach CA 92648
RE: Initial Plan Zoning Review IPZR No. 06-05
Storage Shed and Trellis in the Required Street Side and Rear Setbacks
20561 Sandpiper Lane
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Based on the information submitted for the Initial Plan and Zoning Review on August
18, 2006, staff does not have sufficient information to make the required findings to
support a Variance for the storage shed and trellis in the required street side and rear
setbacks. If additional information were to be provided as a part of a Variance
Application in the future, staff would evaluate the request to determine if the required
findings to support a Variance could be made.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 374-1744.
Sincerely,
TESS NGUYEN
Associate Planner
C: Scott Hess, Acting Director of Planning
Tim Flanagan, Code Enforcement Technician
G:\Nguyen\lnitial Plan Zoning Review\20561 Sandpiper-Letter.doc
t Quinn and Jennifer Johnson •
20561 Sandpiper Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
September 11, 2006
VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Tim Flanagan
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Case Number 2006-0187-253
Dear Officer Flanagan,
As you may recall, my wife contacted you a few weeks back to let you know that we were in
the process of filing for an IPZR to review the above referenced case number. We are still
waiting for a formal response from the planner that has been assigned to our case but we are
nonetheless diligently pursuing this matter in an effort to obtain relief. In furtherance thereof, I
met with the head of planning on Friday, Scott Hess, to discuss this issue in greater detail.
Once we get a formal response from our planner to our IPZR request we intend to file for a
formal variance and or waiver of development standards to the Planning Commission, City
Counsel and beyond if necessary. As our citing officer we feel compelled to give you some
background into the case at hand as this will surely become an issue for all parties involved in
the very near future. Although we intend to diligently pursue relief for both structures that
were cited, the shed is of particular importance to us. As relayed to you in our first
conversation on July 31, 2006, the shed has been on our property in its current location since
before we purchase the house in July 1999. In fact, the shed was constructed by the
previous owner over fifteen years ago, and has never been an issue with the City or our
neighbors before we were cited by you on July 27, 2006.
If that were our only source contention I assure you we would not be willing to pursue matter
this as far as we are currently intending to. The crux of the issue at hand stems from the
various permits we obtained for improvements to the exterior of our house and for the
construction of a new redwood fence in late 2005 (permit #s B2005-007292, B2005-008132
and C2005-007814). During that time we worked closely with the Planning Department in
applying for all the above referenced permits. While applying for the fence permit, the
planning staff member at the counter pulled up an aerial of our house clearly depicting the
shed in its current location. The staff member noticed the shed in the aerial photograph at
that time which is also, not coincidentally I may add, clearly depicted on our permit as well.
No mention was ever made of a potential set back violation at that time, and we were granted
the permit without issue. Later during the construction process, the building inspector came
to our house and inspected the fence. He double checked to ensure the fence complied with
the code requirements specifically ensuring it was in compliance with all required setbacks.
At no time during this or any of his subsequent inspections did he raise an issue with the
shed setback. In fact the inspector recommended that my contractor attach the fence to the
shed to provide it more strural support. My contractor comps with this request and our
permit was finaled.
Approximately six (6) months after getting our fence permit finaled we were cited by you and
were informed to either move the shed or tear it down. At this point the relocation or
demolition of our shed would necessitate the demolition and reconstruction our fence as well.
In addition to the costs associated with removing and reconstructing our fence, we will also
loose a substantial amount of money that was spent remodeling our shed in an effort to
match the exterior of our house. Those improvements include but are not limited to: new
redwood doors, new hardware, paint, and a new roof. All in all, we will sustain damages
equal to our greater than $40,000.00 in construction costs alone (to say nothing of the
forthcoming variance and legal fees) if the City does not either grant us relief or drop this
frivolous citation all together. The fact that both planning, and building approved of the fence,
acknowledged the shed placement in its current location, and instructed us to attach the
fence to the shed only to require us to tear them both down not more than six (6) months later
is an act of gross negligence at best. At worst it is an act of bad faith and willful misconduct
on behalf of the City in a thinly veiled effort to excise fines and fees from its citizens. I have
heard the arguments from Planning and Building and Safety that it is not their responsibility to
ensure the proper setbacks are maintained. That is a nonsensical excuse to a nonsensical
situation created entirely by the City of Huntington Beach. I will not standby idle and allow the
City to penalize us for its own bureaucratic inefficiencies. This is clearly an instance of the left
hand not talking to the right hand. This course of action on the part of the City is an
unconscionable burden to place the citizens that it is supposed to serve.
I'm sure that threats of litigation are common place for you. I am also sure those threats are
almost never realized. I would like to assure you that is not the case in this situation. This is
our home, and we feel that we have been single out and victimized by the City. Whether
these actions were based in negligence or were deliberate in nature is of no consequence to
us. Due to my education and professional background as both a real property attorney and
real estate developer, I feel it is my civic duty to cast the eyes of scrutiny on the City to ensure
that this type of injustice never happens again. In fact we would have already filed suit were it
not for the fact that California law requires us to exhaust our administrative remedies before
doing so. Accordingly, once my formal IPZR response comes back, we will be filing for a
variance or waiver of development standards to the Planning Commission, and will appeal it
to the City Counsel thereafter if necessary. If we have still not received the relief we are
seeking we will formally file for relief in Orange County District court not only seeking the
requested relief, but also seeking compensation for damages associated with our good faith
attempt to resolve this situation.
In light of the forgoing, we see this proce ss dragging on for months and even years until it is
finally resolved. As such, the purpose of this letter is twofold:
#1: to keep you informed of our progress as you requested while creating a paper trail
to aid in our defense in the event you choose to site us for a violation during our
appeals process, and
#2: to ask you to rethink this violation in an effort to mitigate our damages as required
by law. This will save us a substantial amount of money in variance fees, court costs,
and legal fees. In short this is as our final effort to avoid an otherwise inevitable legal
dispute which we feel we have an excellent chance of winning.
We truly wish it didn't have to come to this, but based on the feedback we have received from
the City to date, the apparent unwillingness of the City to accept responsibility for its part in
this situation, and our resolve to rectify this injustice, we hold out little hope for an amicable
resolution. Unfortunately for the City, it decided to pick a fight with perhaps the we
fight household in our neighborhood that possesses the means, will and wherewithal to this
injustice to the bitter end. In light of the forgoing we hope the City's rethinks its actions and
does the right thing by dropping this citation.
Best regards,
Quinn Johnson
Resident
Huntington Beach
City of Huntington Beach (Remote)
Su> Gity Code Enforcement Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
HHN,it nciuck:r
1 Notice of Violation
I
To:Quinn & Jennifer Johnson
20561 SANDPIPER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646-5539
Violation Address: 20561 Sandpiper In., Huntington Beach, CA
Case Number. 2006-0187-253
APN: 151-314-10
Date: 0 712 712 0 0 6
An inspection of the subject property was conducted by a representative of Huntington Beach and as a result of
this inspection, the following Huntington Beach Municipal/Ordinance Code Violations(s) were observed;
Date Noticed Violation # of Days to Comply Status
0712712006 51 HEZSO 230.08 Accessory Structures` 30 Open
Location: Except as provided in this
section, accessory structures shalt nct
occupy a required front, side or street
side yard or court, or project beyond the
frost building line of the principal
structure on a site. An accessory
structure shall be setback 5 feet from the
rear property line except no setback is
required for accessory structures,
excluding garages and carports, which
abet an alley
In order to achieve compliance with the above code (s), please complete the required action(s) listed below:
Number Requi red Action
1 Side yard structure must maintain 3 feet setback for overhang and 5 feet setback for structure from
property line. Remove sturctures or obtain permits from Planning and Building depatments.
You are hereby ordered to correct the violation(s) as noted above. A further inspection will be made to assure
all corrections/repairs have been completed. ALL CORRECTIONS (REPAIRS) MUST BE COMPLETED OR A
$163.00 REINSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Failure to abate the violation(s) will also result in the
issuance of an Administrative Citation and other applicable fines. Each day that the violation(s) continues
constitutes a new and separate offense.
For further assistance in this matter, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience, Phone
contact is available between 8:30 to 9:30 am or 4:00 to 5:00 pm. An appointment is required to meet directly
with the officer.
Z.+^-'-
GaS
NOTE TO FILE
20561 Sandpiper Lane
MEETING: September 8, 2006
IN ATTENDANCE: Quinn Johnson, property owner
Scott Hess
Tess Nguyen
DETERMINATION:
The IPZR fee of $252 can be applied towards the fee for a
Variance
The property owner can apply for a Variance to the Zoning
Administrator
or
The property owner can apply for a Variance to the Planning
Commission in order to avoid the potential need to appeal the
Zoning Administrator's decision to the PC at a later date
20561 SANDPIPER LANE
APPLICATION: Initial Plan Zoning Review IPZR No. 06-05
(Storage Shed and Trellis/Patio Cover)
DATE OF SUBMITTAL: August 18, 2006
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Quinn and Jennifer Johnson
20561 Sandpiper Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
REQUEST:
PROJECT LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ZONING:
To appeal a violation for setbacks for accessory structures
(storage shed, trellis/patio cover) in the street side and rear yards
20561 Sandpiper Lane
(corner of Sandpiper Lane & Reilly Drive)
RL-7 (Low Residential - 7 du/ac max)
RL (Low Density Residential)
Accessory structure-Storage Shed (230.08.A)
5' setback from rear property line
10' setback from street side property line
10' separation b/w house and accessory structure
Trellis/Patio Cover (230.08.E, 230.68)
5' clearance to all property lines (street side, rear)
0' separation b/w house and trellis/patio cover
WAIVER OF STANDARDS: improves project design, not to exceed 10%
(not applicable in this situation)
ISSUES:setbacks for accessory structure and patio cover
currently-storage shed and trellis/patio cover are located
on the street side and rear property lines
code-storage shed (5 ft from rear, 10 ft from street side);
trellis/patio cover (5 ft from rear, 5 ft from street side)
drainage of the accessory structure onto the public right-of-way
visibility window (wooden fence)
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: the applicant has two options:
1. comply with Zoning regulations
visibility window (wooden fence)
drainage onto the public right-of-way (slipping hazard on
sidewalk)
2. apply for a variance-a discretionary action that may or may
not be approved
Variance-Planning Commission (more than 20% deviation)
Application Fee $3,455
Page 1 of 2
20561 SANDPIPER LANE
APPLICANT RATIONALE: Storage Shed
110 sf, 7.5 ft high
structure does not require a permit (one-story detached
accessory building that does not exceed 120 sf) Section
17.02.030
(no building permit required but compliance with zoning is still
required)
located in the rear two-thirds of the lot and more than the
required 5 ft from the dwelling (section 230.08)
(CI-44R 1-the storage shed is more than 64 sf (110 so in floor
area and more than 6 ft (7.5ft) in height-therefore it is subject
to the accessory structure requirements, not the minor
accessory structure requirements)
no citation for storage shed when inspected for the exterior
remodel-was told to attach fence to shed-de facto City
approval of storage shed setbacks
(the inspection was only for the exterior remodel)
other properties in the neighborhood have storage
structures-de facto waiver of setbacks
(don't know the circumstances surrounding other accessory
structures in the neighborhood)
CI-44R1-minor accessory structures that are complimentary
to or decorative in nature may be located anywhere on the
property
(landscape garden walls, fire pits, freestanding
barbecues/fireplaces, sculptures, and fountains)
Trellis/Patio Cover
23.5 ft long, 16.5 ft wide, 14 ft high
trellis is considered a patio cover
CI-44R1-minor accessory structures that are complimentary
to or decorative in nature may be located anywhere on the
property
(patio cover 5 ft from street side and rear yards)
variance-
1. other properties in the neighborhood have storage sheds
in the side/rear yards
2. being singled out because of corner lot and entrance to the
neighborhood
3. remove the structure would be selective enforcement of
zoning code
4. improvements to the house increase curb appeal and
neighborhood charm
variance-related to the physical hardships that may result
from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of
existing structures
Page 2 of 2
N u en, Tess
From: Nguyen, Tess
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:02 AM
To: Hess, Scott
Cc: Fauland, Herb
Subject: 20651 Sandpiper Lane--Quinn Johnson
hi Scott,
(just want to give you a heads-up regarding Mr. Quinn Johnson (714/3 74-8 104) because lie might 6e
calling you today. I spoke to Quinn Johnson regarding 651 rZKto appeal a setbacks violation for
accessory structures (storage shed, trellis/patio cover) in the street side and rear setbacks. These
structures are currently located on the property lines in the street side and rear setbacks. The Code
requires that the storage shed be setback 5 ft from the rear property line and 10 ft from the street side
property line and the trellis/patio cover be setback 5 ft from both the rear and street side property lines.
I told him that after reviewing his IPZK, I have concluded that he has two options: 1/ comply with Code
and relocate his storage shed and trellis/patio cover or 2/ apply fora variance but a variance is related to
the size, shape, or topography of the site and not related to the circumstances of his situation.He was
upset and asked to talk to the Department Head. I gave him your name and phone number so he may be
calling you soon. He also indicated that he is a real estate attorney and he will sue the City if he has to in
order to keep his storage shed and trellis/patio cover.
Tess
1
N u en, Tess
From: Nguyen, Tess
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:29 AM
To: Flanagan, Tim
Subject: 20561 Sandpiper Lane
hi Ti m,
I talked to Quinn Johnson today about this IPZKto appeal his setback violations. I told him that he has two
options: i/ comply with Code which means relocating this storage shed and trellis outside of the required setback
area or 2/ apply for a Va riance.
He is upset and said that he will be seeking otheravenues in order to keep his storage shed and trellis. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Tess
1
•j n SN(I'rr I
3 ` sides
&,is` 5h ,t A,
` &r
p(N (5 j 7 l 4-i t)
rto
ld s
a f 'd 11611-1-
I
CLCso \s ' re
Afflpjll
Va.. A-.
Iri(
,%I-OLcu y2v) C-,"RAY J - -{-, Side O r--4rek- ke Or 6Atrf-, or pvf -eC,4-
v "Jo rid -j4n e •(,f Ll b n C4 `fit cI u K o 1 a s
SGfao- rJ -p-e t-€ r ?r T e Lvw', k1 c)
a C ce.ss" s ' s dvL.-7 be lv d r 5,
Y\ti
a,cc as-c (r u v d -rell lS
'Drrf, PL
0
S21.SV7'd (2 )
2 j\,b l 5e J3 29 Z 2M
jts '12L`cti.S1`L'e)N-J (LM
7O.%6 /L6J6a
-501010)
,vvl AAJPV
0 • ?05&15 ,td j ra",
6"t &4 )JO (,ti4t
115 '
I.o9ar #A
/ . a 7-2- 1'f,
V 1Dkfrb-`l 2-311- 05 zv¢t,f. mot.S
( tGcGS c (tee 3 cf--(br Uver {r L L
vVt SGt c
- kup)A-;;qUg S, oy-I-C1/1ce -',
I7
20561 Sandpiper Lane
Map produced by information contained in the City of
Huntington Beach Information Services Department
Geographic Information System. Information warranted for
City use only. Huntington Beach does not guarantee its
completeness or accuracy.
Map Produced on 8/29/2006
0 22
One inch equals 22 feet
44
STREET NAMES
CI T'( BOLINDAR'
d
STREET CENTERLINES ICLSI
Srnartsfreet
Major
Collector
,e Primary
Secondary
Residential
Travelway
Alley
ISOBATHS
HARBOR
A
4
TIE! MAP WAS FREPARD FOR ORANGE COUNTY
EON SUM NOGUARANTEE AS TOO NEEACCURACYNOR ASSUYFA ANY LWYLRY FOR 0861 USEL
OOCCOPOYRNYIT COUNTY ESSOR ®•
60"
INDIANAPOLIS
4/86' 40'
TRA T
OI uO O 40 O O O O O 10 II 8 12
11/ '/7 /5 /4 /3 /2
41 R ALLEY
40
h
6 6
Q
7o.9e'/B / 20 2/ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
g 24 c 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 $ 13
P Sa 2o'
REILLY
9e
9,/00• $07
O O
B/ 78
62 77
O O
0 O
83 76
O 6
O 84 75 p0
Ptiop
60'
79.8/' B4.ro'
70 69
// /0
06
O O
7/
72 67
J
'yo
7
Re•
Go O
70' 5
AVENUE
60• 60 ' 2A67 JI.RS 73.43'
O O °°
2
9/.76'Jq9 9.
PAR /
O ry
LOT/
•R = ALLEY $P M. 2 -4`
Q ~ 70' 30 3/ 32 2s•,.r r 4J33 PAR2 . PARS
O O O O `5 ° 6 7 ; g ; 31 O 1",
0p \PAR.4
o do \V.•iati nr- `n2- ! G0' a 64" 3L
DRIVE
79.0/' 69.24'
V O
60'
0 °
R 1O
co 59 00.66"
24.15
O m
58
625
7
,Y S46w'
15 14 13 ` 12
a
n
my
^ 418' 40 39 38 37 36 63'
70.98 4/ 42 43 44 45 63
0 17 00
M1°5e.ao' 40' / GO
73 66
0e' 74 65
63 56
O
60 00' 64 55
32
TERN $CIRCL E
30.79 ' 60' // 60' 3r R,4a
30 $
60.
29 28
A 151°
27 0° 26
70.61
82
W
0
V
35 345204/00' 46 476706
70• 4 53 2 5/ 63' 50 /00' 49 4807 0 62'
151-31
CEN. SEC. 12-6-1/
01
NOTE-ASSESSORS BLOCK B ASSESSORS MAPMARCH 1969 TRACT NO. 3977 MM. /4 1-25,26 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 151 PAGE 31
PARCEL MAP P. M. 21 - 44 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE