Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-03MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-8, Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1982 - 1:15 P.M. -BOARD MEMBERS: Webb, Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang, Crosby .STAFF PRESENT: Folger, Zelefsky, Cooper MINUTES: ON MOTION BY WEBB AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1982 WERE APPROVED AS TRANS- CRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Webb, Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang, Crosby NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT:, None The procedure of the Board of Zoning Adjustments was outlined to the applicants by Chairman Kelly. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-88 (Appeal) Applicants Kenneth E. Holmes :-- Consideration of revised plan by Board of Zoning Adjustments to Planning Commission for Public Hearing on March 16, 1982. _ Property located at 16891 Saybrook Lane, zoned Rl, Single Family Residential. Chairman Rally requost6d that staff give a brief history covering, -Conditional Exception No. 81-88 (Appeal)"to update the Board%,_ Mr. Zelefsky stated that on December 23, 1981, the Board of honing Adjustments acted on C.E. No. 81-88, a request to permit the relocation..-Cf a garage deer at 15.6 foot setback and a 12 foot -high wall -at 16:-6Icot -setback from the front property liner - and allow encroachment of a structure -into the side yard setback. This request was unanimously denied by the BZA and subsequently appealed to -the -Planning Commission. Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 3, 1982 Page Two At the February 2, 1982 Planning'Commission meeting, the applicant presented the Commission with a revised site plan which would also require a conditional exception. The Commission referred the revised plan back to the BZA for reconsideration. - On February 10, 1982, the BZA reconsidered the -applicant's revised plan for C.E.- No. 81-88 (the applicant was notified, but not present for the hearing): The revised plan was a request for a relocation of a garage witha 16 foot front yard setback and, in its discussion, the BZA indicated that the applicant failed. to demonstrate -a hardship as outlined in Section 9832 of the Ordinance•Code; thus, recommending denial of the request. On February"17, 1982, the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission and --asked for reconsideration. The Planning -Commission sent him back to the BZA for reconsideration of his revised plan. Today the Board is merely recommending action to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holmes addressed the -Board -and commented on his -misunderstanding z._ of how -the system works for obtaining a conditional exception. He submitted to -the -Board pictures showing homes in his neighborhood, all of which have direct front entry access into their garages with 26-'foot setbacks in lieu of present•code requirement of 22 feet. He said his home is the only one on his block which. has a side entry garage and that he would like to have a front °'entry garage like the other homes shown in the pictures allowing .easier access into -his garage. Mr. Holmes mentioned that his new 'revised plan shows proposed garage at 1616" front garage setback with a,­2.' 6" encroachment into -his side yard -setback. However, he would like to -locate it at 7-1/2 f t. setback from the right of way)to the front of proposed garage like approximately twenty (20) other homes in his neighborhood. The Board expressed their concern to the applicant with regard to_the�514" encroachment into the front garage setback and 2'6".-•encroachment into his side yard. Mr. Holmes asked the Board if he could resubmit another revised .plan to the Board (which he could do by March 5th) allowing adequate time for the'Secretary of"the Board to make recommendations to the Planning Commission for public hearing on March 16th. He said this revised plan would allow him extra storage space,in his garage and a larger courtyard. The Board concurred based on conditions as follows: 1.: A--new-plan shall be submitted showing a 7-1/2 foot setback from right'of way -to the front of proposed garage. -2- BZA 3/3/82 . minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 3, 1982 Page Three 2. The new plan shall reflect a minimum five (5) foot sideyard setback from property line. 3. The applicant shall be required to install an electrical garage door opener. 4. The driveway and right of way improvements shall meet -Public Works standards. The existing garage door is to be removed as per the applicant's agreement and a wall installed in its place as per all applicable requirements of the Ordinance Code and Uniform Building Code. 5. All applicable Ordinance Code and Uniform Building Code - requirements shall be met in the construction of the new garage. 6. Architectural features shall be compatible to the existing -- residence and surrounding vicinity. 7. The new'plan shall be reviewed and approved.by the Secretary of the Board of Zoning Adjustments prior to the plan being - forwarded to the Planning Commission with recommendations. - AYES : Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang, Crosby NOES: None -.ABSTAIN: Webb CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-7 Applicant:-. Jeffrey and Lauretta Stansfield ..To permit a garage addition to encroach 9+ ft. into the 22-ft. front yard setback for garage and to permit a residential addition over the garage to encroach -two (2) ft.-into the 15 ft.-' front setback. Property located at 16191 Santa Barbara Lane, zoned R1 - Residential'(Single Family). Chairman Kelly informed the Board that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5,-California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff outlined the proposal and stated that in subject area original approval for garage setbacks from public -right of way was at: 7-1/2 ft. and 20 ft. in lieu of 22 ft."now required by code. Mr. Stansfield is requesting a variance for his garage -addition to encroach two (2) feet into the 15 ft. front yard setback. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Kelly with Mr. Jeffrey- Stansfield present to speak in favor of his request-. .Mr.' Stansfield addressed the Board saying that.he submitted plans for a garage addition and discovered his setback requirements -3- BZA 3/3/82 Minutes:, H.B. March 3, 1982 Page Four - Board of Zoning Adjustments would not quite accommodate his addition without requesting a variance and that, in order to bring his garage addition out to the 7-1/2 ft. setback like many of his neighbors, he would run into his neighbors property and would have no space for a side yard. He mentioned that his lot is very long and narrow and is pie -shaped with the narrow portion being on the street side. Immediately the Board noted that the plan submitted showed the exact opposite with the larger portion being shown on the street side. The applicant was questioned on this fact.. Mr.-Stansfield stated the plan submitted was what he thought was the-legal.boundary-for his property as recorded by the City but was not actually the way the home was situated on the property; that the sideyard setback shown as ten (10) feet - on the North side of his house is actually not there. The public -hearing was closed by Chairman Kelly. - The applicant was advised, after discussion, that without an exact plot plan showing correct setbacks, dimensions,=and lot size, -there was no way the Board could take action. Mr. Stans- field asked fora one week continuance which would allow him adequate time to submit a revised plan drawn to scale. ON MOTION BY KELLY'AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-7 WAS CONTINUED ONE (1) WEEK, TO THE MEETING OF MARCH-10, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Webb,- Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang, Crosby NOES,:- None. -ABSTAIN:. None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-8 -Applicant:- Mr. Paul W. Connors To permit a reduction in open space from required 900,sq. ft. to 812,sq. ft.- Property located at 6562 Edgemont Drive, zoned R1, Single Family Residence. The Chairman informed the Board that this request is a Categorical Exemption, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff -introduced --proposal with Mr. Paul W. Connors present"to speak in favor-ofa-his request. Chairman Kelly --opened the public hearing. 'Mr.. Connors introduced himself to -the Board and stated his reasons for requesting a variance. Due to the layout of his home on his property, his rear yard is not deep enough -for an addition -as his home was built allowing an 18 foot front'yard setback'in lieu of code -allowed 15 feet: He stated there is 1 I -4- ' BZA 3/3/82 Minutes:. H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments - March 3,-1982 Page -Five not"enough-side yard space'to allow for his addition; that open space requirement for his side yard is met but this area does .not meet required dimensions. Mr. Connors mentioned that"an upstairs addition would not be feasible -as he could only build to the rear of his home due to its layout. Mr. Connors -submitted to the Board letters"from his neighbors stating their concurrence with his front addition. The public hearing was closed by the Chairman. The -Board reviewed and discussed Mr. Connors site -plan taking into consideration the magnitude of the encroachment into open space of 88 square feet, other alternative locations on the -site, -and the mandatory finding of hardship necessary for granting,of Mr. Connors request. ON MOTION"BY"CROSBY AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.-82-8 WAS GRANTED WITH FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS'AND REASONS: A. Open space dimension is adequate meeting standards of the code. 2. As the existing -house has an 18 foot front yard setback in lieu of 15 feet like others in the vicinity, had'the developer moved the house forward with a 15 foot front yard setback, the applicant could have built addition in -rear -.yard without issuance of a conditional exception. 3... 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 classifications. 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, 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. 5.- The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The conceptual -plot plan -and elevations received February 16, 1982,,shall be the -approved layout. -5- BZA 3/3/82 0 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments -March 3,-1982 Page Six 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 iri;the`immediate vicinity. - The Department of Development Services will perform a comprehensive "plan"check-relating to all Ordinance Code requirements upon submittal=of your completed"structural drawings. Please be advised that the Board of Zoning Adjustments reviews the"conceptual-plan as a basic request -'for entitlement of`the use applied for -in -relation to the'vicinity in which it is proposed. ".The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan"reflecting conformance -to all Ordinance Code --requirements-.- I hereby -certify that Conditional Exception No. 82-8 was approved by'the-Board'of Zoning Adjustments of.the City of Huntington Beach, California on March 3, 1982. AYES: Webb, Kelly, Smith, Vogelsang, Crosby NOES: -None ABSTAIN: None THERE BEING -NO FURTHER -BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. Florence Webb, Acting Secretary Board.of,Zoning Adjustments -6- BZA 3/3/82