Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-16MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1983 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Godfrey, Cooper, Evans, Smith, Morris REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-4 RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL - General Condition No. 1 (originally approved 3/9/83) " Applicant: Martha Velastegui To permit establishment of a beauty salon within an existing shopping center, with reciprocal use of adjacent parking spaces. Property located at 19539 Beach Boulevard (Beach and Yorktown Center). Chairman Evans introduced the proposal. Secretary Godfrey informed all concerned that he is in receipt of a letter from Martha Velastegui, applicant, stating that the owner of the adjacent property with whom she needs to work out the arrange- ments for a reciprocal parking agreement is out of State. As her tenant is very desirous to establish her salon, she is asking reconsideration by the Board approving Joint Use of Parking until such time as the owner of the adjacent property returns to complete negotiations for the reciprocal parking agreement. Mr. Godfrey explained that the applicant's plot plan, dated February 18, 1983, was originally short nine (9) parking spaces; four (4) to be provided by the reciprocal parking agreement and five (5) in terms of joint use of parking previously justified by the divergent needs on the basis of nonuse by one user during a period of use by another. He informed the Board, as well as the applicant (present) Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Two of options available. The applicant may process a Conditional Exception application on the basis of hardship, which could be heard at the next Board Meeting after having been advertised or, under the existing Administrative Review application, the Board may cut back the requested number of beautician stations by two which would allow the reduction of four (4) parking spaces, allowing compliance with the Board's previous action excluding the use of a reciprocal parking agreement. If, in the future, the applicant is successful in negotiating the reciprocal parking agreement, upon its recordation, another two (2) beautician stations may be added to the establishment. Discussion ensued. The applicant concurred with the following amended Condition of Approval. ON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY MORRIS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-4, CONDITION NO. B(1) WAS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The establishment of the beauty salon shall be limited to no more than eight (8) chairs, with the possible addition of two (2) chairs at such time as the applicant records a Reciprocal Parking Agree- ment with the Orange County Recorder's Office providing joint use of four (4) additional parking spaces. Prior to recordation, a copy of the Agreement shall be approved by the Secretary of the Board; henceforth to the Department of Development Services permanent file. AYES: Godfrey, Cooper, Evans, Smith, Morris NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-3 (Con't. from 3/9/83) Applicant: Mr. Michael Myers To permit an addition to an existing residence to encroach 15+ square dnd 3.0 lineal feet into the required sideyard setback. Property located at 4002 Morning Star Drive. The applicant's request was introduced by Chairman Evans who stated that this request is categorically exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey outlined the necessary findings required in denial of a conditional exception application. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Evans with Mr. Robert Bernstein, A.I.A., present representing Mr. Myers proposal. -2- BZA 3/16/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Three Mr. Bernstein addressed the Board and pointed out the reason why he chose to design the support pillar for the proposed addition on the ground level to encroach three (3) feet into the required five (5) foot sideyard setback. He stated he felt the encroachment was minor in nature and, for structural consideration, thought it would be allowed as an architectural element. The applicant was informed that by redesign, possibly cantilevering the second floor or by sizing down the addition slightly, he could meet the zoning requirement for a sideyard setback. Fire Representative Cooper stated that if the pillar was permitted to encroach into the side - yard setback, should fire services be required they would have a problem accessing into the applicant's rear yard. There being no one else present to speak in favor or opposition of the applicant's proposal, the public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the site plan taking into consideration the magnitude of the sideyard encroachment, other alternatives, and the mandatory finding of hardship necessary for granting the request. It was felt by the majority of the Board Members that the proposal would negatively impact the neighboring property, set a precedent, and was not in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance Code. ON MOTION BY COOPER AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-3 WAS DENIED FOR.THE'FOL'LOWING REASONS, BY VOTE FOLLOWING: REASONS FOR DENIAL: Conditional Exception No..83-3 was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments based upon the.following reasons: 1. Hardship is self-imposed and design alternatives are available to bring the proposed addition into conformance with the Ordinance Code. 2. The granting of this Conditional Exception will constitute a grant of special privilege. The magnitude of the encroachment by the proposed addition'to the structure is inconsistent with other entitlements on other properties in this vicinity under this zone classification and might set a precedent for future requests of this nature. AYES: Godfrey, Cooper, Evans, Morris NOES: Smith 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. -3- BZA 3/16/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Four POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT - #83-1 Applicant: Mr -.Walter D.-Comstock dba Comstock's Custom Masonry Possible violation of Section 9730.21(a), (d), (f), and (h) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Mr.-Comstock's address. -is at 8551 Mossford Drive. Chairman Evans informed all concerned that the staff'of the Development Services Department has requested a revocation hearing, pursuant to Section 9730.42 of the Huntington Beach City Ordinance Code, to review the home occupation permit of Walter D. Comstock, dba-Comstock's-Custom Masonry,-to.d_etermine whether such home occupation -permit-may continue.', Secretary-Godfrey.:stated the reason -for conducting this administrative quasi-judicial hearing is that' complaints -have been-'received•from the neighbors of Mr. Comstock. Informal rules and testimony will apply. Further, that a home occupation permit may extend from year to year providing_.no,complaints are received. When a home occupation has-been'_conducte'd-=in violation of the conditions set out in Article 973,- of ,the. H.B.O.C,.,, - the Board may revoke its authorization to conduct ,such..home; occupa.tion' and order. immediate- cessation of the home occupation in accordance with -said -`article." Mr: -'Godfrey -stated that pursuant-to;complaints received, findings of a field investigation revealed that-.'a'commercial� truck (flat-bed) loaded with equipment and building materials (bricks, sand, tools, cement mixer, etc. ) was being parked -overnight on- the --street in_'.front of the -subject address in violation' of Section _973b-36-(h) '-andl (a) of ' the Ordinance Code. _. <. Chairman Evans opened -the public hearing asking that Don Shaw, City Land Use Technician, testify first; thereafter,allowing the complainant and holder of the permit to speak. Mr. Shaw outlined -in-chronological' order (commencing: March--1; 1982) all complaints=received from'neighbors,- letters sent and; telephone responses received from -Mr. Comstock; photographs showing -findings at his ' residence,•- e_ tc_. Ms. Patricia-Stirrat, complainant;` -living at 85723Mossford Drive addressed the Board. She stated that Mr. Comstock's truck is -an eye- sore, over twenty feet in length; constantly loaded with materials and parked in the street -overnight.'-When-he comes home he removes the sign from his truck and when he"leaves 'in the morning -he puts it back'on'his truck: Materials -'are stored in -his sideyard and thrown in his backyard-. - ' Only on occasion does.- he_ park= his truck• in_ his driveway. Ms.-Stirrat stated-that'she'and her neighbors have approache -4- BZA 3/16/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Five Mr. Comstock in a nice way asking that he find a place to park his truck elsewhere but he replied that as long as he is not forced to do so, he has no intention of parking his truck elsewhere. Mr. Comstock, holder of the home occupation permit, spoke in his own behalf. He stated that about 1-1/2 years ago he purchased the flat-bed truck. He contended that as he uses the tools and materials daily, excluding weekends, that he is not using his truck for storage purposes, Mr. Comstock, when questioned by the Board, did admit that once in awhile he stores materials in his sideyard. Conditions allowing a home occupation permit were defined by the Board. Mr. Comstock asked if he would be in violation if he changed his business address to another city and continued to park his truck in front of his residence overnight. He was informed that as long as his truck is under 25 ft. in length, 8 ft. or less in width and 7 ft. or less in height he would not be in violation providing his truck is parked in his driveway. Mr. Comstock's truck is over 7 ft. in height. The public hearing was closed by Chairman Evans. Secretary Godfrey informed the Board that since August of 1982 the requirements for conducting a home occupation have become more restrictive via Ordinance #2556, specifically sub -sections (e) and (h) and'that as Mr. Comstock's permit was issued on January 31, 1977, possibly violations were due to a misunderstanding as well as his not being aware of the more restrictive conditions since August. It was the consensus of the Board Members that Mr. Comstock should be given an opportunity to review the conditions for a home occupation permit enacted in August of 1982, with thirty (30) days in which to comply. Mr. Comstock concurred with the decision of the Board and agreed to an inspection -of his premises by our Land Use Officer prior to rehearing of this matter for compliance by the Board on April 6, 1983. ON MOTION BY COOPER AND SECOND BY SMITH, POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 83-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 6, 1983, AS AGREED BY THE APPLICANT AND BOARD TO BE SUFFICIENT TIME TO ALLOW THE PERMIT HOLDER TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED FOR A HOME OCCUPATION. AYES: Cooper, Smith, Godfrey, Evans, Morris NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-8 Applicant: Mr. Nick Becker To permit construction of a 23,814 square foot Industrial Building located in the Lusk Tract (Oceanus Drive - north side of street - Parcel 145-014-43). -5- BZA 3/16/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of _Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Six Chairman Evans introduced the proposal. Secretary Godfrey informed the Board that construction of an industrial building -is permitted in the M1A District subject_ to approval of an-Administrative"Review application. - Mr. Godfrey -stated that the conceptual plan received March 16 is slightly under Code requirements._ Although sufficient parking is provided,_ it was ,felt by'staff-that by elimination of two (2) parking spaces (one on --the northwest and one on the northeast - corners) -the -possibility of cars backing out of_spaces conflicting with oncoming traffic-would'be-alleviated. It_was noted that addition -al -landscaping -in these areas was also provided. Necessary'architectural''treatment,--setback and --Fire Code'requirements for the proposed -concrete tilt -up 'building were -discussed with the applicant - Nick Becker.as outlined in the following Conditions of Approval. ON MOTION BY COOPER -AND SECOND-BY-SM_ITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 1140. 83-8'WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED AS -FOLLOWS BY -THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: ,A: TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE'OF--BUILDING PERMITS: l___The--conceptual plot plan and elevations received March 1, 1983, shall be the approved layout, subject to the modifications - described -herein: (a) Landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the -Huntington Beach Ordinance�'Code and land- scaping specifications on file in"the Department of "-----Public Works. (b)- Rooftop mechanical equipment screening,'plan. Said plan shall_ indicate screening -of' -all rooftop -mechanical equipment and'shall-delineate the'type'of material proposed to screen said -equipment. (c) The'proposed industrial building shall be fire sprinklered meeting Fire Department Standards or the building may be divided -into less than 12,000 square foot areas by means of a four (4) hour fire wall parapeted through the roof. (d) One (1) onsite fire.hydrant shall be installed meeting Fire Code requirements.- (e) Parking shall be modified complying with the provisions of Article 979 of the H.B. Ordinance Code. -6- BZA 3/16/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Seven (f) The proposed building shall be set back ten (10) feet from the required 4 ft. 6 inch landscaped public utility easement as shown on the recorded tract map. (g) All drive widths shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet to facilitate fire apparatus turning radius. On the rear (northeast corner) portion of the proposed building a corner cut-off shall be provided. (h) Elevations for the industrial building shall be comparable in architectural treatment and surface materials to industrial uses in the vicinity. A plans) delineating said modifications shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board. If such plan(s) comply with the modifications outlined by the Board, said plan(s) shall be approved and made a permanent part of the administrative file. AYES: Godfrey, Cooper, Smith, Evans, Morris NOES: None ABSTAIN: None BOARD MEMBER COOPER LEFT THE MEETING. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-3 In Conjunction With ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-7 To permit construction of a 9,500 square foot building (tilt -up) for light manufacturing -and 2,000 square foot mezzanine for storage. Site location is proposed on Lots 2 and 3 of Tract 11831 (East of Sampson Lane approx. 200 ft. south of Woodwind Drive). The Board reviewed the information contained in the negative declaration request and considered mitigation measures applicable to the project. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, THE BOARD HAVING FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-3, WITH THE MITIGATING MEASURES AS IMPOSED ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-7, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Smith,.Evans, Morris NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ASSENT: Cooper -7- BZA 3/16/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Eight Discussion centered on the minor modification covering the setback requirement for the proposed patio area. The necessity for processing a tentative parcel map, prior to -issuance of build- ing permits, was explained to the applicant. Mr. Van Doren was informed that -by merging the two contiguous parcels, the -lot line shown within the proposed structure would be eliminated. ON MOTION -BY SMITH AND SECOND'BY MORRIS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-7 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOLLOWING, FOLLOWED'BY VOTE: CONDITIONS,OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan submitted February 25, 1983, shall be redesigned to 'show patio structure set back or shortened to a minimum distance of 14 feet 6 inches from the front property line and this plan -be approved -(as modified) as the -conceptual site plan. 2.- The following plans shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board prior to issuance of building permits: (a) Landscape. and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscape specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. (b) Rooftop mechanical -equipment screening plan. Said plan shall- indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material_ proposed to- screen said equipment. If such plans comply with the modifications outlined by the Board,- said plan -shall be approved -and made a permanent part of the administrative file. ' 3. A parcel -map shall be filed consolidating Lots 2 and 3, of Tract 1.1831, prior to issuance ofa building permit. 4. All building spoils,.such-as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, .and other -surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 5.- If lighting is included in the parking lot, energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g. high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide).- All outside lightinng shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 6. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered -8- BZA 3/16/83 u Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 16, 1983 Page Nine soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 7. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 8. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. AYES: Godfrey, Smtih. Evans, Morris NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Cooper THEIR BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments -9- BZA 3/16/83