Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-09MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-8, Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1981 - 1:15 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS: Webb, Crosby, Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang STAFF PRESENT: Truppelli MINUTES: ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY KELLY, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1981, WERE APPROVED AS TRANS- CRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Webb, Crosby, Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tindall REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-49 Applicant: Kenneth Reynolds To permit proposed room addition to encroach five (5) feet into the rear yard setback and a proposed garage addition of 12.5 feet which would reduce the required garage front setback from 22 feet to 7.5 feet and a five (5) foot wall to encroach into the front yard setback, zoned Rl - Single Family Residence, located at 9421 Leilani Drive. Acting Chairman Crosby stated this request is a Categorical Exemption, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Acting Secretary Webb introduced proposal and Acting Chairman Crosby opened the public hearing. Kenneth Reynolds was in attendance to speak on his application. Acting Secretary Webb explained that existing garage front setbacks in Mr. Reynold's tract of homes were at twenty-two (22) feet with rear yard setbacks at twenty (20) feet from property line. She addressed the applicant, speaking for the Board, stating that with reference to the garage addition it was felt his application should read "to encroach 12.5 feet into front yard setback." The applicant responded saying "No, he wished to leave his request as submitted." The applicant was questioned by the Board as to whether or not there were other homes in,his general vicinity with such large encroachments in front yard setbacks with five (5) foot walls in their front yard setbacks. He said he knew of none. It was mentioned to the applicant that this large of an encroachment Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 9, 1981 Page Two in front yard setback would change his neighborhood as far as configuration, and that variances from the Code must be justified. It was further stated that justification must be made to increase the height of a front yard fence from the allowed 42 inches to five (5) feet and to reduce required rear yard setback from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet. Mr. Reynolds asked the Board if they had received any appeals as this was a public hearing. With none received, the applicant stated he felt his neighbors were not aggrieved over his proposal. Mr. Reynolds was asked if he had considered going up with his proposed addition. He said it was of no particular benefit to his as a new development with two-story homes had been built which destroyed the ocean view from his home. He pointed out that the five (5) foot wall encroachment into the front yard setback was to surround a patio allowing privacy. He said the proposed garage addition would provide him the required number of enclosed parking spaces and, with parking function moved forward, would create additional living space. His home is on a 60 x 100 foot lot. He said with the high market cost of homes and financing he felt to move was not -practical when he could make his own property more useful. He mentioned he was aware of the proposed Ordinance Code Amendment presently in the hands of the Planning Commission. He said he applied for subject application in July, prolonging same, in hopes that the Code amendment would have been handled by this time. Mr. Reynolds was told that today's economy does not constitute a hardship for a front yard variance of this size. The Board felt this proposal would negatively impact surrounding properties, change the nature of the neighborhood, set a precedent, and was not keeping within the intent of the Ordinance Code. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY CROSBY AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-49 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY VOTES AS FOLLOWS: REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. Approval would grant a special privilege as no exceptional circumstances were shown, such as, size, shape or topography applicable to subject property. 2. Other alternatives are available to bring the proposed additions into conformance with the Ordinance Code. 3. Sufficient hardship has not been demonstrated. -2- BZA 12/9/81 Minutes: H.B. Board of -Zoning Adjustments December 9, 1981 Page Three AYES: Webb, Crosby, Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang NOES: None ABSTAIN: None The applicant was advised of his rights to appeal the Board's decision within ten (10) days in writing to the Planning Commission. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. �1 0,,,J,� t"Id4 Florence Webb, Acting Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments 1 -3- BZA 12/9/81