Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-281 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS WEDNESDAY, JULY :28, 1982 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Webb, Evans, Smith, Cooper Kelly, Vogelsang AGENDA ITEMS" TO BE CONTINUED: USE PERMIT NO. 82-22 Applicant: Donald W. & Catherine Mac Leod To permit an addition to a residence on property with a non -conform- ing yard, located at 712 Delaware Street (Oldtown Specific Plan). Acting Secretary Webb stated that Use Permit No. 82-22 was continued for two weeks, to the meeting of August 4, 1982, but that she was in receipt of a letter from the applicants requesting that they be heard at the end of today's hearing as new information is avail- able for presentation. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-43 Applicants: Robert and Mary Trout To permit a reduction in open space dimension from 20 foot minimum to 17 foot 4 inches. Property located at 14831 North- ridge Lane. Acting Chairman Evans informed the applicants of guidelines necessary whereby allowing the Board to grant Conditional Exceptions or Use Permit Applications provided that in so doing, the general purpose of the Ordiance Code is not affected. Staff outlined the proposal and stated that this request is categorically exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. - Acting Chairman Evans opened the public hearing with Mr. and Mrs. Trout present to speak in favor of their application. Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July •,28, 1982 Page Two The applicant, Mr. Trout, introduced himself to the Board and stated that they are able to meet the open space required by Code but are unable to meet the open space minimum dimension of twenty (20) feet, being short by two (2) ft. 8 inches. He mentioned that presently they have a separation structure which is a 36 inch thrall in their front yard setback. Pictures were submitted to the Board for review showing an existing enclosed patio which essentially filled their back yard. He stated that the former owner of the property who built the patio was allowed to avoid the building code open space requirements for his patio by constructing -the patio enclosure using plastic windows. He said they wish to completely demolish this patio allowing for the addition of two bedrooms and a small patio area using the same concrete slab. The applicant stated that the only way he can meet the open space dimension would be to relocate the existing laundry room presently attached to their kitchen. The -applicant felt that his'hardship was created by the placement of his home on his corner lot allowing majority of open space area and dimensions to•be located:;in!his.sideyard. Acting Chairman Evans closed the public hearing with no one else present to speak in favor or opposition of the proposal. The Board Members reviewed the plan submitted and concurred with the applicants hardship. ON MOTION BY WEBB AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-43 WAS APPROVED WITH REASONS, FINDINGS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED FOLLOWING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS AND REASONS: 1. The placement of the applicants home on a corner lot, with a small rear yard and majority of open space area and dimensions located in his sideyard, have created his hardship. 2. Total square footage for open space area is met (in excess of 900 square feet) . 3. Minimal reduction in open space dimension of 2 f t. 8 inches. 4. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under idential zone classifications. 5. 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. -2- BZA 7/28/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 28, 1982 Page Three 6. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 7. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations received July 12, 1982, shall be the approved layout, subject to the following: a. The existing patio cover with enclosure shall be removed from the site. In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the conceptual plan: - 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. AYES: Webb, Evans, Smith, Cooper NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-36 Applicant: Business Properties To permit construction of a 7,040 square foot financial building (Bank), located at 16892 Golden West. Staff introduced the proposal and stated that this request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 82-36. On February 1, 1982, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency reviewed and approved a conceptual plan for a commercial center at the northeast corner of Goldenwest•Street and Warner Avenue in the Warner/Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area. Use Permit No. 81-46 was approved for the project, with conditions imposed, by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on February 10, 1982. Upon the Board's review of the site plan submitted covering -"Pad J" only, it was noted that the parking spaces on the northeast side of subject pad were removed and replaced with access lanes to the Drive-Thru window proposed for the bank and that the 8,400 square -3- BZA 7/28/82 Minutes; H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 28, 1982 Page Four footage originally allotted for "Pad J" was reduced to 7,040 square feet. Mr. Joseph Walthour addressed the Board and stated that the bank wishes to have the front of the building facing south, fronting on Warner Avenue, in lieu of original layout on conceptual plan showing the building fronting either east or west. He further stated that when the conceptual plan was submitted for approval it consisted of many pads to be individually approved at later dates as at that time they were unaware of the types of businesses which would be going into the commercial center. Mr. Walthour was questioned on the trash enclosure which was not shown on the site plan being reviewed by the Board previously shown - on the -conceptual plan located on "Pad J". Mr. Walthour explained that the need for a trash enclosure on "Pad J" for the bank's use was not as important as it'would be for other businesses as banks do not have very much waste. The trash enclosure has been relocated behind "Pad -A" which will service both areas more efficiently. Mr. Walthour displayed renderings covering the proposed bank building. The Board Members felt it was architecturally compatible with the first phase of the development. Conditions of Approval were discussed between the applicant and the Board Members. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY COOPER, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-36 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations depicting colors and materials received July 16, 1982, shall be the approval for "Pad J" only, subject to the following: a. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board for review and approval showing the windows of the Drive-Thru portion of the bank building moved eastward at least 23 feet. b. The site capacity shall accommodate emergency vehicle access in the stacked parking -area for "Pad V . c. The applicant shall be credited with twelve (12) parking spaces created by the use of the Drive-Thru Window. If the above plan complies with the modifications outlined by the Board', said plan shall be approved and made a permanent part of the administrative file. -4- BZA 7/28/82 G' Minutes: H,B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 28, 1982 Page Five In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the conceptual plan: Traffic circulation and drives; Parking layout; Pad area; Type of use and its relation in the immediate vicinity; to property and improvements - Past administrative action regarding this property. AYES: Webb, Evans, Smith, Cooper NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-35 Applicant: Mr. Jack Schroeder To permit the construction of a 6 ft. x 16 ft. storage shed (equip- ment shed). The sheds -location is at 17851 Jamestown Lane. Staff introduced the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 3, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. The applicant was informed by .the Board that a field inspection of the site revealed that the existing plywood shed, built without a permit, is not architecturally compatible with its surroundings located in the Huntington North Business Center. Mr. Jack Schroeder introduced himself to the Board. He stated that they do light manufacturing and engineering of lighting products for radar and that as these products require storage in an air conditioned building maintained dust free, they take up alot of space inside of his building. They have built the shed to house equipment when not in use. Discussion pursued with regard to upgrading of the equipment shed as the applicant stated he did not know exactly what was required. The applicant was informed that an elevation plan depicting materials and colors to be used,allowing the shed to have architectural and aesthetic compatibilities with the surrounding industrial area, would be required prior to the Board taking action on his request. WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-35 WAS CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS, TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 11, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: �5-� BZA 7/28/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 28, 1982 Page Six AYES: Webb, Evans, Smith, Cooper NOES; None ABSTAIN; None' MISCELLANEOUS ITEM: USE PERMIT, NO. 82-22 Applicants':' Donald W.' & Catherine H. Mac Leod To permit an*addition to a residence on property with a non- conforming yard. Staff stated that on July 21, 1982 subject application was heard by the Board of Zoning Adjustments and that the proposal was continued for a two week period, to the meeting of August 4, 1982, as many concerns of the Board Members needed to be resolved. On July 23, 1982 a meeting was held with Mrs. Mac Leod at which time a letter was given to the Secretary of the Board requesting that her date for hearing of her application be changed from August 4, 1982 to July 28, 1982. It was stated by staff that in the meeting of July 21st there was some question as to whether the attic above the existing home was residential floor area. This was important, because if it was, it would have to be counted toward a calculation for the total ,open space area.- It was determined by pictures taken by Pat Duggan, of Housing & Community Development, along with measurements that the attic is not a habitable area. It was stated that the studio unit over the applicants garage is legal, with a permit having been issued in September, 1951, at which time the zoning was R-2, since changed by the City Council to Oldtown Specific Plan. The applicant was informed that 2-1/2 feet of alley dedication is required which will have to be handled through Public Works by an irrevocable offer to dedicate. Mrs. Mac Leod-addressed the Board stating that as they are willing to dedicate the property to the City, the Board should grant her the Use Permit. The Board explained to Mrs. Mac Leod that as there are two existing units on her property -that an additional variance is required for parking. - two parking spaces provided'with 3/l/2 being required. The variance would have to be handled through a conditional exception heard by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Mac Leod stated that she got the impression from the meeting of July 21, 1982, that she would not have to go through the Planning Commission if the attic was not found to be habitable floor space and if the lot coverage was less than 50 percent. The Board informed the applicant that when additions are over ten percent of the total floor area, when added to a nonconforming use, a resolution must be submitted to the -6- BZA 7/28/82 v L, Minutes: H.B. July 28, 1982 Page Seven Board of Zoning Adjustments Planning Commission. The applicant was informed that when the Use Permit was originally applied for, staff was unaware that there was an additional unit above their garage -which has created the necessity of a resolution. The Board informed Mrs. Mac Leod that her property is non -conforming due to density - now multi- family. The applicant was informed that the Board of Zoning Adjustments is not the appropriate body to take action on her proposal. ON MOTION BY WEBB AND SECOND BY COOPER, USE -PERMIT NO. 82-22 WAS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RESOLUTION BY THE APPLICANT AND A CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Webb, Evans, Smith, Cooper NOES: None ABSTAIN: None THEIR BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. Florence Webb, Acting Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments -7- BZA 7/28/82