Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-11MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS ' Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1982 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-44 Applicant: B & B Development Company To permit a front entrance garage door to encroach 12'0" into the required 2210" front setback. Chairman Kelly informed the applicant, as well as others present of guidelines necessary whereby allowing the Board to grant applications provided that in so doing, the general purpose of the Ordinance Code is not affected. Chairman Kelly outlined the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that this request for a twelve (12) foot encroachment into the required twenty-two (22) foot front setback would, if granted, allow the applicant's garage to sit at a ten (10) foot front yard setback. All of the lots in the tract were developed to accommodate at least two on -site guest parking spaces. It was felt that if this request was granted it would set a precedent in this particular tract and would greatly impact on -street guest parking on a cul-de-sac. Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Two Chairman Kelly opened the public hearing. Mr. Yhenez, representing B and B Development, introduced Mrs. Cleveland, the property owner. She stated that the driveway is very difficult to pull in and out of. Mr. Yhenez explained that Mrs. Cleveland's lot is pie -shaped and that when the developer constructed their home he put as big a home as possible on the lot with a five (5) foot sideyard setback on both sides. He said their hardship was created by the fact that when they purchased their home, prior to its being built, when they visited the site all they could see were stakes signifying where their house was going to sit. After construction, they realized their driveway was too small. In addition, when their neighbors moved in it was revealed that Mr. & Mrs. Cleveland's driveway apron encroached one and one- half (1-1/2) foot into their neighbors property which was later corrected by the developer. The public hearing was closed by Chairman Kelly with no one else present to speak in favor or opposition of subject request. Board discussion ensued. The overhanging of automobiles in the street,allowed by a ten (10) foot in length drive apron,was explained to the applicant. It was felt by the Board Members that by granting o this request, a hardship would be afforded to the public allowing an unsafe condition to pedestrians and force additional'on-street parkt. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-44 WAS DENIED, WITH REASONS AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. No hardship was demonstrated regarding the accessibility to the driveway approach and into the garage. 2. With approval of the applicant's request, guest,parking,, would not be provided. 3. The proposal would allow for an unsafe condition with the drive apron at a length of approximately.ten (10).feet. 4— The granting of the Conditional Exception would constitute a grant of a special privilege. 5. The granting of the Conditional Exception would adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -2- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B, Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Three CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-47 Applicant: Webb Morrow To permit a 318" garden wall encroachment into the front yard setback (15 ft.). Chairman Kelly introduced the request and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Mr. Art Folger, Legal Council, informed all concerned on background leading up to subject Conditional Exception. Mr. Folger stated that this matter is currently under litigation in Orange County Superior Court. There was a Court hearing on June 4, 198Z, wherein the Court indicated that they felt it was a proper case for the granting of a variance and they ordered that the plaintiff re -apply to the Board of Zoning Adjustments and have the Board take another look at this matter. The Court further ordered that if the matter was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments that the plaintiff should come back to Court on October 8, 1982, for further hearings on the matter. The Court also ordered that there would be no need to appeal from this hearing because, if that was necessary, we would -go back to Court. He further stated that pursuant to the Court order, the problem got into administrative remedies. To get to the Court you must exhaust your administrative remedies. They have been through the process once. The Court feels there is no need to make them go through our entire appeal process a second time. One year has passed since the original application was acted on. Mr. Folger stated that should the Board approve Conditional Exception No. 82-47, if appealed by any interested party, he would recommend to the Planning Commission that they continue any appeal until after the Court date. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustments, Planning Commission and City Council previously denied Mr. Morrow's application (C.E. No. 80-29) based primarily on the mandatory finding of hardship. He stated that on August 10, 1982, he received a telephone call from Mr. Yaryan, 3782 Ragtime Circle (adjacent neighbor on the south side of Mr. Morrow's residence) stating that he had previously appeared at the hearing of July 16, 1980 in opposition of the encroachment and still felt the encroachment should be denied. Mr. Spencer_stAted that we are faced with the same situation in finding a hardship, although other properties in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Morrow's home,which do not have irregular shaped lots, can conform to the Code requirement allowing others the privilege of having codrtyards in their front yard setbacks. -3- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Four Chairman Kelly opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Boyd, Attorney representing Mr. Morrow, addressed the audience. He stated that Mr. -Morrow's lot is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and is irregularly shaped. While the lot enjoys some 162 feet of frontage on the channel at the rear of the lot, it has only approximately 46 feet of curving frontage on the street. The side lot lines are 147 feet on the north and only 86 feet on the south. Thus, the lot compresses toward its southwest corner, where the entry courtyard is located. He stated that if this conditional exception is granted, it-wi11- put Mr. Morrow's -property in parity with numerous other homeowners on Trinidad Island who apparently have received exceptions in'similar circumstances. Trinidad Island was designed with a number of cul-de-sac streets to take maximum advantage of possible lot frontage on the channels at the rear of the lots allowing for many irregularly -shaped (pie - shaped) -lots.' The difficulties of designing and constructing large homes on these types of lots has led to numerous homes on the island being forced to encroach some structures i.e. garages, walls, pillars, awnings,= etc. Pictures submitted to the Board were discussed. He stated that the entry courtyard front wall is much less of an encroachment into the front setback than already existing structures on many other'hoines'on Trinidad Island. The island is virtually built -out. Thus, in granting this conditional exception, the Board will only be allowing the Morrow's to do something many other home- owners have done.,''He felt the'Board would not be setting any "precedent" which is against'the'trend in the neighborhood. There being no one -else -present to speak in favor or opposition of the applicant's 'request, the -public hearing was closed. Board discussion- ensued,. - `It was felt by some of. -the ,Board .Members that the existing courtyard is•.not any isort: of� safety, or sight hazard. Neither ,of',Mr. °Morrow's neighbors. -have. garages ;or driveways contiguous°either=-to the courtyard or Mr. Morrow's side lot lines. It was felt that the design and location of the courtyard are such that neither -pedestrians on- the ; sidewalk: nor. motorists , exiting . from the Morrow'-s garage or those,of his neighbors.will-,have their views obstructed by the courtyard in any unsafe manner. The brown slump stone wall was discussed in detail as outlined in the following Conditions of -Approval:. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND 'SECOND -BY` EVANS;,� CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-47 WAS APPROVED�WITH REASONS,-'F.INDINGS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS AND REASONS:- .,- Hardship"created by the -,irregular -shape of the applicant's 1. lot. 2. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity. 1 -4- BZA 8/11/82 1 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Five 3. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property (size and shape), the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 4. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 5. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAT.! The conceptual plan received July 27, 1982, shall be the approved plan. 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. GENERAL CONDITION: 1. Mr. Morrow shall make a good faith effort to extend the brown slump stone wall, located on the south side of his property, allowing this wall to be constructed only to the edge of the white garden wall in his front yard setback. This attempt shall be handled by a letter from Mr. Morrow to his neighbor with a copy of same to be forwarded to the Secretary of the Board. If Mr. Morrow's neighbor does not concur with the extension of the brown slump stone wall as designated above, this condition shall be alleviated. AYES: Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: Spencer ABSTAIN: None -5- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Six CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-48 Applicant: Mr. Thomas L. Wickstrom To permit a twelve (12) foot garage setback in'lieu of'the Code permitted 22'foot setback. Property located at 20522 Salt Air Circle. Chairman Kelly introduced the proposal with Mr. Thomas L. Wickstrom, property owner, present to speak in favor of his proposal. Acting Secretary Spencer explained the proposal stating that, the property was -developed some time back- with standard setbacks which accommodated two (2) on -site guest parking spaces with one and one-half off-street parking spaces. "It was mentioned that although the applicant's property is located on the knuckle of a cul-de-sac in a tract, that if the requested' dimensions br a- tweive (12) foot garage setback were approved-,- the Board would be setting -a precedent for this particular tract. The applicant's"plans-were reviewed by the -Board -Members discussing°other=alternatives available to the applicant3in a effort to bring"his plan into conformance with the Code. Chairman Kelly opened' the -public• hearing":" Mr. Wickstrom-introduced'himself'to the audience: He stated"he desires to add ten (10) ' feet- to ­the front part: of'his` garage. ' Due to his.location on a cul-de=saci,;the right-side:of his driveway is presently 33-1/2 feet; the -left' -side is' 25- feet;'arid'-the' width is 15 feet. -The- addition would 'be'°legal -'ori'the''right'side' (exceeding the 22-foot requirement by'-l-i/2 feet)';' but`,�ihlegal on", the _ left side by 7 feet. • He 'said he- has an`additional'-10 fe'et,' presently in grass, on the right hand-iside' of his- drive. ' " He ' said he is proposing to meet the Code requirement of a 22-foot driveway by extending his driveway- 10, feet to: the, right. '1 this wi11I'a110''w` a double drive which exceeds :the �2,2-foot -Code, requirement. Mr. ''Wic'ks'troni further stated that he would install & 'garage td'oor 16prerier to',facilitate ' - entry into , the 'front=on garage`: The public -hearing -was closed by Ch�airman. Kelly "with' 'no ohe '.else" present, to speak,in, : favor or 'opposition 16f sub`j ect 'request. Acting. Secretary Spencer :suggested 'th`e 'pl'acement `of the"' applicant's garage with tthe center' port ion"at''a ' twe'nty ' (2'0) 'foot setback.' By extending the driveway southerly, it 'would 'also 'ac`commodate a' -total on -site parking area of 19' x' 20'-: , The applicant concurred, with the Board's -suggestion. By 'this restructure -,,the applicant's' request will be changed from a 10 ft. encroachment to a 2 ft. encroachment into his front yard setback. This change will allow the applicant's proposed front -on garage to be consistent with -6- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Seven original construction in his tract having 20 ft. setback for a front -on garage. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-48 WAS APPROVED AT A 20 FT. SETBACK WITH REASONS, FINDINGS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: REASONS AND FINDINGS: 1. Garage approved at a twenty (20) foot setback with the applicant's concurrence. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 5. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1. The conceptual plan received July 29, 1982, shall be the approved layout, subject to the following: a, A revised detailed site plan shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board for review and approval showing placement of garage with center portion at twenty (20) foot setback. Also, the driveway shall be extended southerly as to accommodate a total on -site parking area of 19 x 20 feet. If such plan complies with the modifications outlined by the Board,'said plan shall be approved and made a --- permanent part of the administrative file. -7- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Eight AYES: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith NOES: Evans ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-35 (Con't, from 7/28/82) Applicant: Mr. Jack Schroeder To permit the construction of a 6 ft. x 16 ft. storage shed (equipment shed). Location for shed is at 17851 Jamestown Lane. Chairman Kelly introduced the proposal. It was stated that on July 28, 1982, the applicant appeared before the Board of Zoning Adjustments and was informed 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. As Mr. Schroeder did not understand what exactly was required, Administrative Review No. 82-35 was continued two (2) weeks, to allow the applicant additional time to work with staff, should their services be required, in upgarding of his equipment shed and to submit a revised site plan along with an elevation plan depicting materials and colors to be used. Mr. Brown, A.I.A., and Mr. Schroeder were present. Mr. Schroeder submitted his revised site plan and elevation plan to the Board. Upon the Board's review of the plans submitted, it was the unanimous opinion of the Board that the proposed appearance of the equipment shed has architectural and aesthetic compatibilities with the surrounding industrial area. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 82-35 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The revised plot plan and elevations received August 11, 1982, shall be the approved layout. In its approval action, the Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the revised plan: - Lot area; - Lot width and lot depth; - Type of use and its relation to property and improvements in the immediate vicinity. AYES: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None w.;8- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Nine USE PERMIT NO. 82-25 Applicant: Mr. Ronald K. Holben To permit an automotive repair (engine and transmission work). Location - 18081 Redondo Circle - Unit "E". The Chairman informed the Board that this request is a Categorical Exemption, Class. 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. The public hearing was opened with the applicant, Ronald Holben, in attendance. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that buildings within an Ml-A district are not designed for outside storage. Further, the applicant was cautioned that the Conditions were strictly enforced regarding storage of equipment outside. Mr. Holben addressed the Board and stated that his automotive repair work will be strictly for servicing and repairing of Mazda automobiles. Mr. Holben assured the Board that the size of his building was ample to accommodate storage of vehicles and equipment inside. He mentioned that on both sides of his proposed site are auto body shops with a spa manufacturer also in' the complex and railroad tracks to the East. He felt this particular location was appropriate for his proposed automotive repair shop. The public hearing was closed by Chairman Kelly. The proposal was reviewed by the Board and found to be in sub- stantial ordinance code conformance. Findings and Conditions of Approval were discussed. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY KELLY, USE PERMIT NO. 82-25 WAS GRANTED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED FOLLOWING, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not -be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use .or building. 2. The granting of a use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. -9� BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Ten 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The conceptual plot plan and elevations received July 21, 1982, 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. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. There shall be no outside storage or repair of vehicles, parts or equipment. 2. Repair and'maintenance work shall be conducted -wholly within the building. 3. A six (6) month review'shall be conducted'to `erify�compliance with these conditions; 4. Applicant shall meet all'applicable'local, State'and'Federal fire codes, ordinances and standards.'' AYES: °Spencer,'Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None' USE PERMIT NO. 82-27 Applicant: Mr. Terry Otis - '- To permit an auto repair; Location-11809i Redondo Circle - Unit #K. Taking into consideration that the previous applicant's request was identical to Mr: Otis' request, the public hearing was -'opened . by Chairman Kelly. Mr. Otis introduced himself to the Board and stated that the only -10- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Eleven difference between his application and Mr. Holben's is that he will be repairing and servicing all types of automobiles in lieu of one specific type. The public hearing was closed. Conditions of Approval were discussed. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY KELLY, USE PERMIT NO. 82-27 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED FOLLOWING, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of a use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The conceptual plot plan and elevations received July 30, 1982, 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 in the immediate vicinity; - Past administrative action regarding this property. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. There shall be no outside storage or repair of vehicles, parts or equipment. 2. Repair and maintenance work shall be conducted wholly within the building. -11- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Twelve 3. A six (6) month review shall be conducted to verify compliance with these conditions. 4. Applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal fire codes, ordinances and standards. AYES: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-50• Applicant: Mr. Odilon Cardenas To permit encroachment of structure into exterior side and rear yard setbacks: structure -encroaches 5 ft. into required 10 ft. exterior sideyard setback and encroaches 5 ft. 'into'required 5'ft. rear yard setback. Property located at 21702 Polynesian Lane. Chairman Kelly introduced the pr_oposal'and'stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act', 1970. Acting . Sec retarIy Spencer submitted pictures for the Board's review showing the applicant's existing patio cover exposed'at'a zero rear yard setback and with an encroachment of five (5) feet into his sideyard setbacks. The Board was informed,that should the application be acted on favorably, necessary fire code and building code requirements must be satisfied. Chairman•Kelly opened the public'hearing'with!Mr. and Mrs. Cardenas in attendance. Betty Kassel, who,lives directly behind the'Cardenas',,addressed the Board.' She •said the 'only objection she has 'is' -that is the patio cover is located at a zero rear yard setback water runs off of Mr. Cardenas patio cover into a rain gutter which drains into her property and, in addition, looks unsightly. She•said she had discussed the problem with the Cardenas' and that they, have both agreed that if they were allowed to•extend the height of their common rear wal'l,'their problem would be resolved. She further stated that she has no objection to.the structure being -at a zero rear yard setback. Ms. Kassel'wa`s informed that aii extension of the wall would require an additional variance and that the Code violations with regard to the encroachment into the setbacks needed to be resolved. Mr. Cardenas spoke. He said the structure in his rear yard was built for the purpose of providing'shade and wind protection in -12- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Thirteen the area adjacent to his swimming pool. He said the patio cover was built without a permit and that he did not realize until he received a "notice of non-compliance" from the City that, technically, the patio cover is considered a "structure", The public hearing was closed. Extensive Board discussion ensued. The applicant was informed that if he would bring his support columns for his existing patio cover within five (5) feet of his rear property line and eaves within 24 inches from his property line, a variance for encorachment into his rear yard setback would not be required. The necessary requirement of a one (1) hour rear fire wall was discussed with the applicant. The Board took action to deny the applicant's request as hardship could not be justified. The services of the Planning staff were offered to Mr. Cardenas. By redesign, the applicant's existing patio cover can meet the necessary requirements of the Code. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0, 82-50 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. Applicant unable to demonstrate hardship. 2. The granting of the Conditional Exception would constitute a grant of a special privilege. 3. The existing patio structure appears to be in violation of the Building Code and Fire Code. 4. There are other alternatives available to the applicant wherein the Code requirements can be met. AYES: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None The appeal process was explained to Mr. Cardenas. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-51 Applicant: Alamo Construction To permit a reduction in rear yard setback from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet. Property located at 17821 Cardiff Circle. Chairman Kelly introduced the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. -13- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Fourteen Acting Secretary Spencer explained that the request for a sixty- three (63) square feet encroachment into the applicant's rear yard setback would allow for a reasonable size rear room addition to a single -story structure. Open space area and open space dimensions will be met. He further stated that the applicant's lot is an irregular shaped parcel with the structure, basically, rectangularly shaped. No objections were received from neighboring properties. The public hearing was opened by the Chairman. Mr. Roy Mandry, of Alamo Construction, was present to represent the application. The applicant outlined justification for the conditional exception by stating that the unusual shape of the property in conjunction with.the rectangular shape.of the applicant's home makes development difficult. He said the proposed location for the room addition is the only one available allowing the addition to be usable The public hearing was closed. Board review 'of ,the applicant's plan submitted revealed that the configuration of the applicant's lot has created his hardship and that as the encroachment of sixty-three.(63)- square feet was minimal, it was the-unanimous,feeling of all,the,Board Members that Conditional Exception No. 82-51 should be granted. ON MOTION -BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-51 WAS APPROVED, WITH REASONS, FINDINGS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPLICABLE AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS AND REASONS: ; 1, Open space and open space dimensions are met. 2. As -the applicant's lot is irregulir,'W shape,,the encroachment of approximately sixty-three (63) square feet•into the required rear yard setback is necessary in allow subject property the same privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. 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, The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 5. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, -or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. -14- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Fifteen 6. 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 August 3, 1982, shall be the approved layout. 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. AYES: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MISCELLANEOUS ITEM: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-568 (In conj. with N.D. No. 82-28) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company To permit the creation of one (1) lot for Seacliff Office Park expansion. Property located at 2124 Main Street. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-568 WAS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1982, TO BE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-21/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-28 REQUESTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING LOT PURSUANT TO SECTION 9331(a) OF THE H.B.O.C. AYES: Spencer, Kelly, Vogelsang, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-42 Applicant: Mr. John L. Peterson To permit a six (6) inch encroachment into required five (5) ft. sideyard for a length of 20 feet along both property lines. Acting Secretary Spencer stated that at the last Board Meeting C.F. No. 82-42 was denied for the following reasons: -15- BZA 8/11/82 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 11, 1982 Page Sixteen 1. Self-imposed hardship. There are other alternatives available, by redesign, that would allow the applicant to accomplish his proposal meeting Code requirement. 2. The granting of the Conditional Exception would constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent upon other properties - in the vicinity. As the applicant was out of town when the notice of -hearing arrived and did not"return until after the Board had acted on his application, Mr. Peterson is asking for reconsideration of his request_as he has information which he feels will-justify"his proposal. - - It was -the consensus of all of the Board Members that Mr. Peterson should be allowed to address the Board and present his case. Mr. Peterson felt that the following,issues were not examined - thoroughly: 1. The hardship created by the "no parking" zone along the frontage of the -property and the attempt to -alleviate same by,, -providing off-street parking. ­�_. .-.- .- - 2. The inequity created by the lack of any allowance in the zoning ordinance for a recreational facility in -the necessary compliance with the open space requirement.- 3. , The nominal -nature of the -, request,_ particularly,,in view of -the many allowances made for.,sideyard encroachments, such as, chimneys, block walls, masonry veneers, and other architectural features. Board discussion carried between the applicant and the Board. The Board felt hardship was"still mot demonstrated by the applicant as by redesign, he could accomplish -his proposal. The appeal process -was explained to -the applicant.° THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. ar es P: Spe er, Acting Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments 1 -16- BZA 8/11/82