Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-02 (6)MINUTES : HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1981 - 1:25 PM BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meetings of July 1, 1981, were approved as transcribed. Minutes of the meetings of August 5, 12, and 19 were continued to September 9, 1981 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-575 Applicant: Warren H. Lortie To permit the consolidation of three (3) separate parcels of land into one parcel on property located on the west side of Huntington Street apprgximately 330 feet north of Main Street. This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 81-28. Chairman Spencer noted that this map has been filed in compliance with a condition of approval imposed on Administrative Review 81-28. Bill Hartge, engineer, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Hartge said that he has seen and does concur with the sug- gested conditions of approval forwarded to the applicant. Street dedication was reviewed by the Board. Secretary Spencer informed those present that the applicant has refiled another plan with a slightly higher intensity of use -for the subject site, which will be heard by the Board at its next meeting. (A prior project was approved under Administrative Review No. 81-28.) ON MOTION BY TINDALL AND SECOND BY SPENCER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-28 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Spencer, NOES: None ABSENT: None Tindall, Kelly Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 2 ON MOTION BY TINDALL AND SECOND BY SPENCER TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-575 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 2. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for R5 development was placed on the subject property. 3. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and sepcifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCEL FOR ANY PURPOSE: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Dev- elopment Services on August 14, 1981, shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange Countf Recorder. 3. Huntington Street shall be dedicated to City standards. 4. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Depart- ment of Development Services. AYES: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. PLOT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-3 Applicant: Huntington Intercommunity Hospital To permit a 60 by 60 foot modular office structure to be located on property at 17772 Beach - Boulevard—' - This request is a categorical exemption, Class 1(e), California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. -2- 9- 2-81 - BZA 1 Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 3 A representative of the hospital was present at the meeting. Noting that a revised plan has just been submitted, the Board determined that additional time was required to analyze that layout. The applicant was advised that elevations of the build- ing would also be required, and if any colored renderings are available they would be helpful in the Board's consideration of the item. Dimensioning on the plan will also be required. Frank Kelly informed the Board that meetings have been held be- tween his department and the applicants to try to work out the circulation on the site, resulting in the relocation of the pro- posed building. ON MOTION BY TINDALL AND SECOND BY SPENCER PLOT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-3 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1981, TO PERMIT FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE PLOT PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Spencer, NOES: None ABSENT: None Tindall, Kelly CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-42 Applicant: Thomas B. Deutsch (Tony Lucia, Agent) To permit an encroachment of three and one-half feet (3 1/2') into the interior side yard setback for a patio cover, located at 8592 Lorraine Circle. This request is a categorical exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Pat Spencer informed the Board that this item had had to be re - advertised because of an error in the earlier mailing. He noted that the code addressed a "covered structure" when dealing with side yard setbacks, whereas the subject structure is a lattice - type construction and not a solid roofed or decked patio cover. The public hearing was opened. Tony Lucia addressed the Board to explain his client's applica- tion. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Frank Kelly announced that he has field checked the project and sees no problems in terms of fire safety. The Board discussed the extent of encroachment and type of con- struction. -3- 9- 2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 4 ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY KELLY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-42 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The code which specifies setback addresses a "covered" structure, and it has been found that the subject structure is a lattice- work -patio and not -a solid -roofed or_ decked patio cover. 2. The patio structure is an existing -use, and -no objections have been -received from surrounding property owners. 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 identical zone classification. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including location and 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 classification. --:- -- - - 5. The granting of a conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach., -- CONDITIONS OF -APPROVAL: 1. A building permit shall be obtained--from-the Building Division of the Department of Development Services. 2. The rafter configuration shal-1 comply -'with building - code requirements. 3. The roof and sides of the structure -shall remain in an -open or lattice -work state, and shall not be covered by any solid covering. 4. A copy of this action -by the Board shall be placed in the appropri- ate Building Division files (i.e., microfilm file) for future guidance of future owners of the subject property. LJ -4- 9- 2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 5 5. The patio structure shall meet all applicable requirements of the building and fire safety codes. AYES: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-58 Applicant: Roger C. Cole To allow a windscreen to be constructed ten (10) feet in height in lieu of the allowed eight (8) feet on property located at 3772 Ragtime Circle, Huntington Beach. This request is a categorical exception, Class 3, California Environmental Quality ActC_1970.✓,y��,._ Secretary Spencer reported that the request is to cover a pro- jecting deck over a portion of the bulkhead in the rear yard of the subject property. The code allows a deck to be roofed with "non -permanent" material, with sides not to exceed a height of eight feet to provide protection from the elements for decks. The issue in this request is the height variation and not the roofing, which the applicant is proposing to be glass or acrylic The public hearing was opened. Mr. Roger Cole explained that the reason he is requesting the 10 foot height is because the ceilings in his house are that height and if the deck drops down to eight feet the plate will be at about six feet, resulting in a very low ceiling for the deck roof and an architecturally undesirable construction. Ken Bourginon, builder, addressed the Board to report that he has taken out four building permits for identical structures to the one Mr. Cole is requesting. He also noted that there are many other such structures in the harbor area. He outlined the building constraints in dropping the roof down to eight feet, and stated that in his opinion denial of the request would be perpetuating mediocrity in construction. Mrs: Cole pointed out that a jacuzzi is located on the deck which she needs to use for medical reasons, and that the use is denied her because of the constant wind conditions on the existing deck. It was her contention that this could be construed as the neces- sary finding of hardship in order to approve the request. It was noted by the Board that no objections have been received on this matter, and that a letter is in the file from the adjac- ent property owner expressing concurrence with the proposal. There were no other persons to speak on the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. -5- 9-2-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 6 Extensive discussion took place between the Board members and Mr. Bourginon in regard to the intent of the ordinance allowing the windscreens, the design of the proposed structure, and the finding of hardship which the Board is required to make before approving a conditional exception. Also reviewed were the varying interpreta- tions of the code which Mr. Bourginon reported receiving from differ- ent persons in the Department of Development Services., ON MOTION BY TINDALL AND SECOND BY KELLY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO:- 81-58 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1.. The code provisions allowing for windscreens -did not intend that any sort of closed, habitable room should result -.from their in- stallation, but only that a screening structure be -allowed -to protect a deck area. 2. Granting of the conditional exception by the Board of Zoning Adjustments would establish an undesirable precedent. 3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship related to the subject property. AYES: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None The applicants were advised of the appeal period and procedure. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-59 Applicant: Michael H. Molde To permit an existing patio cover to encroach into the required rear yard setback on property located at-20332-Lighthouse Lane. This request is a categorical exemption, Class 5, of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Mr. Molde was present at the meeting. Pat Spencer briefly outlined the proposal, -noting that the patio exists in the field. Frank Kelly said he had checked the structure and found that it poses no.problem from -a fire safety standpoint._ The public hearing was opened. Mr. Molde pointed out that his lot is of an irregular shape with the house set very close to the street, making it difficult to place the patio in any other location. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project, and the public hearing was closed. I 1 -6- 9-2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 7 Board review ensued. Taken into consideration was the intent of the code to provide protection to neighboring properties through the setback requirements, the size and shape of the subject property, the orientation of the dwelling on the lot, and the location of the patio cover directly abutting an arter- ial highway, Newland Street. ON MOTION BY KELLY AND SECOND BY TINDALL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-59 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDI- TIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The intent of the code provisions on setback is to protect neigh- boring property rights; the location of the subject structure in the rear yard of a lot backing up to an arterial highway (Newland Street) precludes any infringement on the peace or privacy of ad- jacent lots. 2. The orientation of the dwelling unit on this irregularly shaped parcel is such that the only practical area for a patio is in the rear yard, and the encroaching location is the only reasonable siting for said patio. FINDINGS: 1. The granting of the conditional exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the size and shape of the subject property, the strict application of the zoning ord- inance 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 a conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A building permit for the existing structure shall be obtained from the Building Division of the Department of Development Services. -7- 9-2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 8 2. The structure shall comply with all applicable requirements• of the building and fire safety codes. 3. The roof and sides of the patio structure shall remain in an open or lattice -work state, and shall not be covered by any solid covering. 4. A copy of this action shall be placed in the appropriate files of the Building Division (i.e., microfilm files) for the guid- ance of future owners of this property. AYES: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-60 Applicant: Charles A. Renard III To permit a patio cover to be located five (5) feet from an exterior side property line on property located at 8651 Marvale Drive. This request is a categorical exemption, Class 5, of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Charles Renard was present at the meeting. Secretary Spencer described this existing patio construction and ad- vised the Board that a code amendment is under consideration to allow covered patios to encroach within the ten foot setbacks. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Renard spoke in support of his request, noting that if he is forced -to comply with the 10 foot re- striction he will end up with a five-foot wide patio cover. He also assured the Board that the upright supports for the patio will be moved back so that they are five feet from the property 1}ne. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Board reviewed the request and discussed conditions of approval. ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY TINDALL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-60 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS: 1. The patio structure will not impact any adjacent property own- ers, as the street width provides adequate separation from neighboring lots. -8- 9-2-81 - BZA I 1 Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 9 2. The height of the patio from the existing block wall is insignificant. FINDINGS. 1. The granting of the conditional exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the location of the subject property, the strict application of the zoning ordin- ance 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 the 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. A building permit for the existing structure shall be obtained from the Building Division of the Department of Development Services. 2. The structure shall comply with all applicable requirements of the building and fire safety codes. 3. The roof and sides of the patio structure shall remain in an open or lattice -work state, and shall not be covered by any solid covering. 4. A copy of this action shall be placed in the appropriate files of the Building Division (i.e., microfilm files) for the guidance of future owners of this property. 5. The vertical members of the patio structure shall be relocated to provide a five (5) foot setback from the property line to said vertical members. AYES: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None -9- 9-2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 10 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-61 Applicant: Miller Truax Associates To permit usage of existing Orange Street access instead of alley parking access and zero lot line fencing at the alley on property - located at 327 Seventh Street. This request is a categorical exemption, Class 5, California En- vironmental Quality Act, 1980. Jay Truax, architect, and Roger Anderson, owner, were present at the meeting. Secretary Spencer reported that the application concerns the rehab- ilitation of an existing dwelling unit on Seventh Street, as well as an existing bachelor apartment over the garage. The status -of Orange Avenue as an arterial and its future widening preclude con- tinued access off that street to the lot; the project is subject to making all required dedication because of the percentage of improvements taking place on the property. He noted that there is room on the property for the garage to be reoriented for alley access. The public hearing was opened. Jay Truax addressed the Board to describe meetings he had with City staff at which the question of Orange Avenue access was not raised, and informed them that plans were drawn and a rehab loan obtained on the basis of information received from City personnel. Roger Anderson also spoke in support of granting the request as presented, saying that if he is forced to tear down and reconstruct the garage he will not proceed with the project at all. There were no other persons present to speak in regard to the pro- ject, and the public hearing was closed. The ensuing Board discussion considered the desirability of upgrading the property as the applicant proposes to do as opposed to main- taining the present use, which was estimated to have a life of about 20 more years; the possibility of providing an onsite turnaround so that cars would not have to back out onto Orange Avenue; the treat-_ ment of the alley fence and the provision of a cutoff for the purpose of visibility; the possibility of providing a drive -through to the alley as well as using the Orange Avenue access; and the possibility of jeopardizing street funding by permitting continued access from Orange Avenue. Frank Kelly stated his objections to granting the request even at the cost of termination of the project because of the precedent - setting nature of any approval for other properties in the same area. -10- 9-2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 11 ON MOTION BY TINDALL AND SECOND BY SPENCER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-61 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The existing structures on the property appear to have a future life span of at least twenty years, and it is felt that the rehabilitation and upgrading of the property is an important con- sideration. 2. To require that the existing garage and unit above the garage be torn down would impose an unreasonable hardship on the applicant. 3. The widening of the drive and the provision of 'an onsite turnaround as required by the conditions of approval on this request should mitigate many of the traffic problems -inherent with exiting onto the arterial. FINnINrS_ 1. The granting of the conditional exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the location of the subject property, the strict application of the zoning ordin- ance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges en- joyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 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 detri= mental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. 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 access drive off Orange Avenue shall be widened to a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. 2. An onsite turnaround shall be provided to allow vehicles to turn around and exit the property without having to back out onto Orange Avenue. -11- 9-2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 12 3. The second unused existing curb cut on Orange Avenue shall be eliminated. 4. A corner cutoff at the intersection of the alley and Orange Avenue shall be provided for the wall; said cutoff to be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. AYES: Spencer, Tindall NOES: Kelly ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEP MAP NO. 81-574 Applicant: RAAB Engineering, Inc. To create four new parcels of land on property located at 5126 Dunbar Street. This request is a categorical exemption, Class 15, California Envir- onmental Quality Act, 1970. Mr. Grosman was present to represent the applicant. The Board reviewed the application, discussing location of the blue border of the map and the possibility that -dedication might be re- quired. Pat Spencer indicated that Public Works says no alley dedication is necessary. ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY KELLY TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-574 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision of property into four (4) lots for the purpose of residential construction is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementatioxYbf this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for R2, Medium Density Residential (apartment buildings) was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design and improvements features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. -12- 9-2-81 - BZA Minutes, H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCELS FOR ANY PURPOSE: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Development Services on,August 12, 1981 shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Dunbar Drive shall be dedicated to City standards. 4. Compliance with all applicable City ordinances. 5. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. AYES: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-66 Applicant: Sam F. Heyman To permit construction of an 8,445 square foot industrial build- ing located on the west side of Enterprise Lane north of Mount - joy Drive. This project falls within the scope of previously adopted ND 74-150, and no further environmental review is required. Secretary Spencer reported that AR 79-36 approved previously had been for two buildings on two separate lots. The application has expired and the applicant has come in for plan check on the second building with no entitlement. Improvements are in and this request is for the Building B on Lot 2 of the earlier request. The project complies with code, the landscaping and parking comply, and there is a joint easement between the two buildings. ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY KELLY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 81-66 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations received August 21, 1981 shall be the approved layout. -13- 9-2-81 - BZA Minutes,,H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 2, 1981 Page 14 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 vicintiy; • 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 pro- pgsed to screen said equipment. B. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. A reciprocal access agreement between Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on Tentative Parcel Map No. 79-564 shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Development Services. AYES: Spencer, Tindall, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. es Spence Secretary :df -14- 9-2-81 - BZA