HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-25MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
Room B-8, Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1981 - 1:15 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS: Lipps, Tindall, Kelly
MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1980,
FEBRUARY 4, FEBRUARY 11, AND FEBRUARY 19, 1981 WERE DEFERRED
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-8
Applicant: Pacific Vacation Vehicles
To permit a five (5) foot fence at 0' front property line within
fifty (50) feet of front setback and sight angle. Subject property
is located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Heil and
Chrysler Circle (16555 Beach Boulevard)
This request is a Categorical Exemption Class 5, California Environmental
Quality Act.
Chairman Tindall introduced the application to the Board. Secretary
Lipps briefly outlined the application, stating that the applicant was
requesting a fence of approximately 60 inches high, eighteen (18) inches
higher than allowed by Code. He noted that the Board had not previously
granted a request of this type. Chairman Tindall opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ray Soto was present to represent the application. He stated that
the addition of the fencing would discourage theft, damage to cars on
display and would prohibit children leaving school to come onto lot.
Further, the fencing is decorative in design and would not detract from
the appearance of the area (wrought iron design).
Chairman Tindall questioned the applicant regarding the type of gates
to be located at the entrance. Mr. Soto stated that the gates would be
security type gates on rollers. Mr. Soto submitted photos of sites in
Midway City where such security fences are located.
Mr. Soto stated that the cost of security is escalating due to the
constant pilfering during evening hours.
Fire Representative Kelly noted that the request did not constitute a
hardship, as other recourses were available.
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 2
Secretary Lipps stated that the request was not compatible with highway
zoning, therefore setting a precedent. He recommended that the applican
meet with other dealerships in the area and collectively approach the
City Council to revise the Code to allow for this type of security fencing.
There being no othet persons present to speak on the request, Chairman
Tindall closed the public hearing.
Further Board discussion followed.
ON MOTION BY LIPPS AND SECOND BY KELLY, THE BOARD DENIED CONDITIONAL
EXCEPTION NO. 81-8 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, WITH REASONS AS FOLLOWS:
REASON FOR DENIAL:
There is not sufficient hardship demonstrated to justify approval
of this proposal. Approval of this exception would be a grant of
special privileges inconsistent upon other similar uses in the area
and would set an undesirable precedent.
In addition, granting of this exception would create a hazardous
traffic problem as well as fire protection difficulties.
AYES: Lipps, Tindall, Kelly
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-9
Applicant: Thomas L. Jacobs
To permit a two foot encroachment into required main access and a
nineteen (19.) foot front yard setback to allow access to a front on
garage located at 207 Alabama Street.
IN CONJUNCTION WITH:
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-11
Applicant: Thomas L. Jacobs
To permit a two (2) foot encroachment into required main access at
209 Alabama Street. This request is a Categorical Exemption Class 5,
California Environmental Quality Act, 1970.
1
Mr. Thom Jacobs was present to represent the application. Secretary
Lipps briefly outlined the application. Chairman Tindall opened the public
hearing.
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 3
Secretary Lipps noted that approval had been granted to other properties
in the same vicinity. Further, the subject location does not have alley
access, which is restrictive to the applicant.
Chairman Tindall expressed concern regarding the nineteen (19) foot set-
back. He noted that the particular area lacks adequate on street parking
and approval of the setback would further impact the parking problem.
Chairman Tindall recommended rearranging the buildings further back on
the lot to accommodate front on garages with the proper amount of setback.
Mr. Jacobs stated that the buildings were placed on the lot to allow for
the maximum amount of back yard area, the view would be obstructed
if structures were set back, not to mention the appearance of row housing
which would be created. He further stated that the Code identifies
detached qarages as accessory buildings. The subject garage is attached
to the home, therefore, the Code does not apply.
Chairman Tindall granted that the Code is not specific, and the Board
must regard each request as it affects the surrounding area. Chairman
Tindall closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION BY LIPPS AND SECOND BY TINDALL, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-9
WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE WITH FINDINGS, REASONS AND CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL AS FOLLOWS:
REASONS FOR APPROVAL:
1, The Code section pertaining to the side yard setback was written
to apply to lots having alley access. In the absence of such
access on the subject property, the applicant suffers hardship
not contemplated by the drafters of this Code section.
2. A precedent has been established by Conditional Exception No. 78=27.
3. This approval is for that portion of the request dealing with the
side yard setback only.
FINDINGS:
1. The grantinq of the Conditional Exception will not constitute a
grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties
in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification.
2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under identical zone classifications.
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 4
3. The granting of a Conditional Exception is necessary in order to
preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
4. The granting of a Conditional Exception will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in
the same zone classifications.
5. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations received February 25, 1981
shall be the approved layout.
In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the
following issues relating to the conceptual plan:
Traffic circulation and drives;
Parking layout;
Lot area;
Lot width and lot depth;
Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in the
immediate vicinity;
Past administrative action regarding this property.
2. The following plan shall be submitted to the Secretary of the
Board:
a. A revised plan showing a twenty-two (22') foot setback to the
garage door shall be submitted at the time an application for
building permit is made.
AYES: Lipps, Tindall, Kelly
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ON MOTION BY LIPPS AND SECOND BY KELLY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-11
WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, WITH REASONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL AS STATED:
REASONS FOR APPROVAL:
1. Code section pertaining to the side yard setback was written
to apply to lots having alley access. In the absence of such
access on the subject property, the applicant suffers hardship
not contemplated by the drafters of this Code Section.
2. A precedent has been established by Conditional Exception No. 78+127.
1
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 5
FINDINGS:
1. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not constitute
a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties
in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification.
2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under identical zone classifications.
3. The granting of a Conditional Exception is necessary in order to
preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
4. The granting of a Conditional Exception will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in
the same zone classifications.
5. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations received February 25, 1981
shall be the approved layout.
In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the
following issues relating to the conceptual plan:
- Traffic circulation and drives;
- Parking layout;
- Lot area;
- Lot width and lot depth;
- Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in the
immediate vicinity;
- Past administrative action regarding this property.
AXES: Lipps, Tindall, Kelly
NOES: None
ABSENT; None
MINUTES: H.B, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 6
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-9
Applicant: Rainbow Disposal Company, Inc.
To permit an expansion of present facility from 1.81 acres to 4.65 acres
located on the west side of Nichols Street at 17121 Nichols Street.
This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 81-4.
Mr. Stan Tkaczyk was present to represent the application. Chairman
Tindall requested the applicant to briefly explain the request.
Mr. Tkaczyk stated that several new buildings would be constructed, in
addition to various services to be offered, such as a transfer station,
recycling center and office buildings.
Secretary Lipps stated that the Board was not aware of the addition of
services, additionally, landscaping requirements are deficient, and the
Board had some concern regarding turning radius' and on -site traffic
flow. It was recommended that the request be continued one week in order
to allow the applicant to meet with the Board to discuss the proposal.
ON MOTION BY TINDALL AND SECOND BY KELLY, ACTION ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 81-4 WAS DEFERRED UNTIL ACTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-9 WAS
TAKEN.
AYES: Tindall, Kelly, Lipps
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-13
Applicant: The Systems Investment Group
To permit the construction of an 11,837 sq. ft. industrial building
located on the south side of System Drive, approximately 115 feet east
of Chemical.
This request is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 73-16
previously approved.
I
LJ
Secretary Lipps briefly outlined the application, noting that the proposal
was substantially in compliance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
Fire Representative Kelly recommended that drives be widened to meet
Fire Department requirements. Conditions of Approval were discussed.
Chairman Tindall noted that the plan was nicely layed out.
�I
LJ
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 7
ON MOTION BY LIPPS AND SECOND BY KELLY, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO.
81-13 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AS FOLLOWS:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations received February
5, 1981 shall be the approved layout.
In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the
following issues relating to the conceptual plan:
- Traffic circulation and drives;
- Parking layout;
- Lot area;
- Lot width and lot depth;
- Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in the
immediate vicinity;
- Past administrative action regarding this property.
2, The following plans shall be submitted to the Secretary
of the Board:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article
979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscaping
specifications on file in the Department of Public Works.
b. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan. Said plan shall
indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and
shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen
said equipment.
c. A revised plan to show drive approaches to conform to
Public Works Standards 212 A & B.
AYES: Lipps, Tindall, Kelly
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
USE PERMIT NO. 81-4
Applicant: James Marino
To permit the construction of a 2,030 sq-: ft. addition to an existing
automobile sales agency located at 19711 Beach Boulevard.
This request is a Categorical Exemption Class 1, California Environmental
Quality Act, 1970.
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 8
Secretary Lipps introduced the application to the Board. Mr. Perry
Mansell was present to represent the application.
It was noted that the submitted plot plan did not correspond with
the acutal buildings on site. Chairman Tindall opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mansell stated that a temporary building had been erected by a
previous owner, further the proposed addition will be reduced.
Secretary Lipps recommended continuing the application to March 4, 1981
in order for the applicant to submit a revised plan reflecting actual
dimensions. The public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION BY TINDALL AND SECOND BY LIPPS, USE PERMIT NO. 81-4 WAS
CONTINUED TO MARCH 4, 1981 IN ORDER TO ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT
REVISED PLANS.
AYES: Lipps, Kelly, Tindall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-6
Applicant: Eric Mossman
To permit the construction of a four (4) story 62,000 sq. ft. office
building located at 19671 Beach Boulevard, approximately 300 feet
north of Utica.
This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 81-3.
ON MOTION BY LIPPS AND SECOND BY TINDALL, THE BOARD HAVING FOUND THAT
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-3 WITH THE
FOLLOWING MITIGATING MEASURES CONTAINED IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO.
81-6 GENERAL CONDITIONS 5,6 & 7 IMPOSED ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO.
81-6 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Tindall, Kelly, Lipps
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Secretary Lipps introduced the application to the Board, stating that
the proposal was substantially within Ordinance Code conformance.
Eric Mossman was present to represent the application. The applicant
was advised that retail uses and medical related business' were prohibited.
Conditions of Approval were discussed.
ON MOTION BY LIPPS AND SECOND BY KELLY, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-6
WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS NOTED:
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 9
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
1. The conceputal plot plan and elevations received February
20, 1981 shall be the approved layout, subject to the
modifications described herein:
a. Applicant shall submit a lighting plan showing
illumination pattern.
A plan delineating said modification shall be submitted to the
Secretary of the Board. If such plan complies with the modifi-
cations outlined by the Board, said plan shall be approved and
made a permanent part of the administrative file.
In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the
following issues relating to the conceptual plan:
r Traffic circulation and drives;
Parking layout;
Lot area;
Lot width and lot depth;
Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in the
immediate vicinity;
Past administrative action regarding this property.
2. The following plans shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of
the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscaping specifications
on file in the Department of Public Works.
b. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan. Said plan shall
indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall
delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment.
c. Revised plan to show parking and landscaping in compliance
with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
B. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Uses will be restricted to general office uses. No retail uses
or medical offices will be permitted.
2. Approval and recordation of a parcel map combining the two
parcels shall be completed prior to finalling of the building
permit.
3. Curbs along Beach Boulevard shall be painted red to prohibit
parking near driveway entrys. Area shall be designated by the
Department of Public Works.
4. This application shall meet all Fire Department standards.
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 10
5. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an
offsite facility equipped to handle them.
6. If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation
area, energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g. high pressure
sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be
directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties.
7. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered
soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil
sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties,
foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities.
AYES: Tindall, Kelly, Lipps
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
USE PERMIT NO. 81-6
Applicant: Carlos Cella/Victor Correa (individ.)
To permit establishment of an auto repair/restoration facility in the
Ml-A zoning district located at 5842 J McFadden Avenue, approximately 763
feet west of Springdale Street.
This request is a Categorical Exemption Class 1, California Environmental
Quality Act, 1970.
Secretary Lipps briefly outlined the application to the Board, noting that
approval had been granted to similar uses in the same facility.
Chairman Tindall opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present.
Fire Representative Kelly stated that he had field checked the site,
noting that an accumulation of trash, parts, and junk was being stored
at the rear of the building. Chairman Tindall expressed his concern over
the growing number of like uses in the area. Further, that many of the
business given approval by the Board with Condition prohibiting outside
storage were in violation.
Chairman Tindall recommended denial of the request, citing that the use
was not compatible with adjacent uses, in addition, that the particular
zoning was not intended for this type of use.
Secretary Lipps noted that the denial of this request would be denying
the applicant of privileges given to other applicants in the immediate
area.
MINUTES: H.B. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
February 25, 1981
Page 11
ON MOTION BY KELLY AND SECOND BY TINDALL, THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD
WAS TO DENY THE REQUEST BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE
WITH ADJACENT USES.
AYES: Kelly, Tindall
NOES: Lipps
ABSENT: None
REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT - DECISION ONLY
Applicant: Charlie Brown and Sons
Review of construction type business being conducted from the home located
at 1102 Pine Street.
Secretary Lipps stated that a field check had revealed building materials
still being stored in the back yard area. The applicant, when questioned
about the remaining material had stated that it was for personal use only.
Fire Representative Kelly stated that the large trucks and employee
activity had been eliminated. He recommended that the applicant be allowed
to continue operation.
Secretary Lipps stated that complaints had been received as early as
1977, and had continued to be a problem off and on since. He recommended
that the permit be revoked.
The applicant was not present. Board discussion followed. It was
the consensus of the Board to allow the applicant to continue operating
from the home.
Secretary Lipps stated his intentions of filing a letter of opposition
regarding Board action.
Chairman -Tindall stated that the ap-licant be informed that compliance
with all applicable ordinance codes is advised.
ON MOTION BY KELLY AND SECOND BY TINDALL, THE BOARD VOTED TO ALLOW THE
APPLICANT TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING BUSINESS;,FROM THE HOME BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Tindall, Kelly
NOES: Lipps
ABSENT; None
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
Kl)dlt� Loe�
alter Lipps, Actin Secretary
Board of Zoning Adjustments