The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-01-19MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1983 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Spencer, Smith, Crosby Kelly, Vogelsang LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 82-2 (Con't from 1/12/83) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Reconsideration of a Lot Line Adjustment - Assessor's Parcel No. 23-181-3 and 23-181-4. Acting Chairman Spencer reviewed the history of Lot Line Adjustment No. _82-2. He explained that on January 5, 1983 action was taken by the Board which granted to the Huntington Beach Company incorporation of a 117 ft. strip of property within A.P. #23-181-03 into A.P. #23-181-4. On January 10, 1983 a letter was received from the applicant request- ing a revised amendment to Lot Line Adjustment No. 82-2 eliminating two.(2)-lot lines extending southwest from Parcel No. 23-181-03 to Pacific Coast Highway and, in so doing, would eliminate Parcel No. 23-181-04 allowing consolidation of this parcel into adjoining Parcel #23-181-06. At the January 12, 1983 Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting the requested revision to the previously approved lot line adjustment (#82-2) was discussed. The outcome of the January 12, i983 Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting brought about a one (1) week continuance (scheduled for today's hearing) which would allow staff time to research the applicant's request as two (2) zones are involved (M2-01 - Industrial District and R-4, Multiple -Family Residential District). As a lot line adjustment does not allow an increase in density, the R-4 property must be analyzed prior to the Board taking Action. Mr. Spencer informed all concerned that the eradication of the twenty (20) foot strip (portion of A.P. #23-181-03) and subsequent merger of parcels 23-181-04 and 23-181-06 cannot be accomplished via a lot line adjustment; that a tentative parcel map would be'the Appropriate application. He further informed the Board that he was Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 19, 1983 Page Two in receipt of a letter dated January 19, 1983, from the Huntington Beach Company, wherein they stated they wish to withdraw their recondideration request and asked that the Board uphold its January 51 1983 approval as originally requested. ON MOTION BY SPENCER AND SECOND BY SMITH, RECONSIDERATION OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 82-2 WAS WITHDRAWN. THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST- MENTS SHALL UPHOLD ITS JANUARY 5, 1983, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS IMPOSED APPLICABLE, BY VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Spencer, Smith, Crosby NOES: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 82-30 Applicant: Mr. Lorenzo A. Reyes To permit the addition of 792 square feet of seating area and the addition of a drive-thru window. Property located at 6561 Edinger (zoned•-C-4, Highway Commercial District). Acting Chairman Spencer introduced the proposal. He stated that this request is categorically exempt, Class. 5, California Environ- mental Quality Act, 1970. Mr —Spencer briefly outlined the request stating that Mc Donald's is proposing to add additional dining area for seating and the installation of a drive-thru window on the west end of the property. It was revealed in Plan Check that the applicant's landscape plan is approximately 600 sq. ft. short of required area of site. Mr. Spencer recommended that, should the Board act favorably on this application, that the Landscaping deficiency be modified'on the site plan prior to issuance of building permits. The public hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Spencer.. Mr. Lorenzo A. Reyes, representing Mc Donald's, addressed the Board in support of his request. He stated he had a preliminary meeting with staff and that landscaping for the site has!been increased mbeting the Code requirement of six (6) percent. Mr. Reyes was informed that all existing or proposed signs will have to conform with Article 976, Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. He was further informed that should he wish to review signage as to non-conformity/conformance, staff was available to assist him. Mr. John Linde, 6562 Limerick (residential property located directly behind Mc Donald's, separated by an alley), expressed concern with noise to.be generated from the speaker box proposed for the drive=thru portion of the restaurant. He explained the existing problems with -2- BZA 1/19/83 Minutes: H.B. Baord of Zoning Adjustments January 19, 1983 Page Three traffic and stated it was his observation that on weekendsr parking on site is deficient during the lunch hour. Mr. Linde stated that he has a swimming pool in his rear yard and, although his masonry block wall is 6 or 7 feet in height, individuals driving vans through Mc Donald's can peer into his rear yard rosul-ti.ng in an iftvasion of privacy. Trash, created by people winging styrofoam containers into his rear yard,is also a problem. Linda Moore, 6562 Limerick, outlined the same concerns to the Board with regard to noise. She said'she would be pleased if Mc Donald's would increase the height of her four (4) foot wall to alleviate some of the noise. Mr. Reyes suggested that she contact the businesses adjacent to both sides of Mc Donald's with regard to increasing the height of her wall and, providing they agree,.to help with funding, Mc Donald's will then be willing to participate. Debbie, Manager of subject restaurant, addressed the Board. She - said she had not been informed prior to this hearing of noise problems. She felt it would be a good idea to call a neighborhood meeting one or two months after installation of the speaker box to insure that no disturbance was being created by its audibility. The public hearing was closed by Acting Chairman Spencer. Mr. Spencer questioned Mr. Linde and Mrs. Moore as to why they had not registered their complaints on noise, trash, and traffic and -.informed them of their rights. After a lengthy discussion, as the expansion is well within Ordinance Code conformance, with the applicant's concurrence, it was felt that the location and type, of speaker box, wall separation buffer between residential and commercial properties, circulation, etc. should be extensively reviewed prior to the Baard takinq-action assuring compatibility and all mandatory findings necessary for granting of a Use Permit application. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER, USE PERMIT NO. 82-30 WAS CONTINUED ONE WEEK, TO THE MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Spencer, Smith, Crosby NOES: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT'NO. 83-1 Applicant•: Mr.' Charles L. Halderman To permit an addition to a single-family dwelling along non- conforming setback line. Property located at 621 - 10th Street. Acting Chairman Spencer introduced the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental -3- BZA 1/19/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 19, 1983 Page Four Quality Act,'1970, Mr. Spencer informed the Board Members -that Section:971,9., Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, provides for additions to single-family dwellings, which are non -conforming because -of yard requirements, along existing setbacks, subject to approval of a Use Permit application. The public hearing was opened with Mr. Charles L. Halderman, applicant, present -representing his -application. There being no one -else present,to speak for or in opposition of the applicant's request, the"public hearing was closed. The Board reviewed the applicant's plans and noted that the project 'is a remodel? with approximately seven and one-half square feet of additional floor space being added. Open space and -lot coverage meet the -Code -requirements. Conditions for approval were discussed. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY SPENCER,.USE PERMIT NO. 83-1 WAS APPROVED,' WITH REASON; FINDINGS;- AND CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL FOLLOWING, BY -VOTE AS FOLLOWS: REASON: 1. The_proposed one-story addition would be -compatible with, other structures -in the immediate area. - FINDINGS: 1, .Review -for' 'approval action has found that'proposed.-proje'ct =- will not be -detrimental to the general welfare�of persons residing in the vicinity nor injurious to propeity,or improve- --ments in the vicinity. 2. The-City'-s General Plan will not be -adversely affected. CONDITIONS OF•'APPROVAL: -. - . _ . ... ., _:, - The conceptual plot plan and'elevations_'received January,,11;-1983, shall be the approved plans. _ lh'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. 1 -4- BZA 1/19/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 19, 1983 Page Five There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. l� Zhatles P, Spence Acting secre Board of Zoning djustments 1 n -5- BZA 1/19/83