Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-29MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1983 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Parker, Vogelsang MINUTES: ON MOTION BY PARKER AND SECOND BY SMITH, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1983, WERE APPROVED AS TRANS- CRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: n AYES: Lipps (by proxy), Parker, Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: Vogelsang, Evans, Godfrey MINUTES: ON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1983, WERE APPROVED AS TRANS- CRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Godfrey, Smith, Evans None Parker, Vogelsang REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-24 Applicant: Richard Keith Encapera To permit a six (6) foot encroachment into the required fifteen (15) foot front yard setback. Property located at 8571 Larthorn Drive (north side of street) Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Two Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey briefly outlined the applicants request. He informed the Board that a variance was granted to the developer to provide 7,5 foot front yard setbacks upon original con- struction of the subdi.vision,with the applicants garage extend- ing closest to the front property line. The plans submitted were reviewed by the Board noting that the proposed addition is situated within the confines of the origi- nally approved variance. It was stated that there were other variances granted within the applicants subdivision for additions over front -facing garages. The Public Hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Evans. There being no one present wishing to speak in favor or opposition of the request, the Public Hearing was closed. Findings and Conditions of Approval were discussed. It was the consensus of all of the Board Members that by granting the ap- plicant his request for a six (6) foot encroachment into the re- quired fifteen (15) foot front yardosetback would not only allow the applicant parity with his neighbors but would allow archi- tectural compatibility staying consistent with the original con- struction in his subdivision. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-24 WAS GRANTED WITH FINDINGS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-24 FINDINGS: 1. The strict application of the Zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the City of Huntington Beach and under the identical zone classification. 2. The granting of this request is one of parity with surround- ing homes. 3. The granting of a conditional exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other proper- ties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. -2- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Three 4. The granting of the 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 material- ly detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual plot plan dated June 16, 1983 for the six (6) foot encroachment into the front yard setback shall be the approved layout. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Parker, Vogelsang NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-25 Applicants: Charles and Suzanne Linnen To permit a five (5) foot encroachment into ten (10) foot ex- terior side yard and elimination of open space separation structure. Property located at 20221 Imperial Cove Lane (area of Adams and Newland). The application was introduced by Acting Chairman Evans who in- formed all concerned that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey informed the Board that the subject property is on the corner of Imperial Cove Lane and Masters Drive. The code requires a ten (10) foot minimum side yard setback along an exterior side yard. He reviewed with the Board Members the necessary findings to be established allowing the Board to act favorably on a conditional exception. The Board Members were informed that should this application be granted it would be in- consistent with lots located on the corner of two streets in the applicants vicinity. Further, that Staff felt the lot was created with sufficient width to allow for an open space area to buffer traffic noise and odors; the addition could be redesigned to a smaller size so as to minimize or eliminate the encroachment, The Public Hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Evans. Mr. Ron Rouland, General Contractor, introduced himself to the Board. He submitted pictures to the Board Members of the applicants rear yard showing the proposed location of the requested addition sur- rounded by large trees and a' -block fall preventing visibility from public view. -3- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Four Mr. and Mrs. Nethols, neighbors of the applicants, addressed the Board stating their approval of the proposed addition. Mr. Linnen, applicant, spoke in favor of his proposed addition. He informed the Board that the wall was constructed by the County, not the City, many years ago with a height on the Newland Street side of approximately ten to eleven feet. He said that he felt the proposed addition would attenuate noise created by the heavy traffic on Newland Street. He submitted a letter signed by many of his neighbors stating their approval. Board discussion carried with the applicant covering the size of the addition, landscaping, possible removal of large trees, traffic from Newland Street, layout of the addition and esthetics. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor or opposition of the applicants request, the public hearing was closed. It was felt by the majority of the Board Members that although a ten (10) foot exterior side yard setback was intended by Code partly for noise attenuation from traffic that should the application be granted, a condition should be imposed that double -pane glass windows be installed on the street side to mitigate noise. Further, that as the main portion of the applicants dwelling was placed within the rear of his property (located on a corner lot) he is limited to other alternatives for a proposed addition creating his hardship. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-25 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-25 FINDINGS: 1. The granting of a conditional exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other proper- ties inasmuch as the subject property is located on a corner lot and the addition cannot be accommodated elsewhere. 2. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. A corner lot would preclude the construc- tion of an addition because of this Code requirement. 3. The proppsal to construct this addition would be integrated into the existing dwelling so that it would not appear as an addition. -4- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Five 4. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zoning classification. 5. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Had the addition been proposed within the applicants opposite exterior side yard (south side) it would have necessitated re- moval of large trees and meaningful landscaping which will ultimately help mitigate sound problems to the proposed addition. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual plot plan and elevations received June 16, 1983 shall be the approved layout. 2. Architectural treatment shall be compatible with the existing structure. 3. Sound or noise attenuation design be incorporated into the building including insulation and double -pane windows on the wall adjacent to the street. AYES: Smith, Vogelsang, Evans, Parker NOES: Godfrey ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-19 In Conjunction With ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-28 Applicant: Tiodize Company, Inc. C.E. Request: To permit a reduction of 23 parking spaces. A.R. Request: To permit a 6,200 sq. ft. expansion to an existing 51,840 sq. ft. building. Proposed location is 15272 Tiodize Circle. Acting Chairman Evans introduced the application and stated that the Conditional Exception is a Class. 5 and the Administrative Review is a Class. 3, both Categorically Exempt, under the Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey informed all concerned that inadvertently in the Public Hearing Notice advertising the Conditional Exception (No. 83-19) request that the encroachment to one of the side yard set- back areas adjacent to the residential property was not included preventing the Board from taking action at today's hearing. -5- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Six Mr. Thomas A. Adams, representing the Tiodize Company, felt that as Mr. and Mrs. Tom Akamus, neighbors, living in the residential area located behind the proposed addition had concerns addition- al time would not only allow correction in advertising but would allow the Tiodize Company additional time to meet with many of the neighbors informing them of what exactly is being proposed. It was suggested to Mr. Adams of the Tiodize Company that he con- tact Staff prior to the hearing on July 6 to work out concerns relative to circulation and setbacks for the proposed equipment storage facility condidered a potential nuisance affording noise and odors to the adjacent residential property to the south. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-19 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-28 WAS CON- TINUED ONE WEEK, TO THE MEETING OF JULY 6, 1983, WITH THE APPLI- CANTS CONCURRENCE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang, Parker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-29 Applicant: Architectural Team Three To permit 10,403 square foot industrial building. Proposed lo- cation - 15171 Pipeline (approximately 150 feet west of Engineer Drive) . Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposal and stated that this request is covered by EIR No. 73-16. Secretary Godfrey explained that industrial buildings are permitted in the M1-A Zone subject to review and approval of an administra- tive review. The Board Members discussed the plans submitted informing Mr. Steve Basetti, Architect and Carl Heinz, owner,of their concerns. Mr. Heinz stated that by the change to his plan adding the corner cut- offs approximately 100 square feet of the building space would be lost and stated that he felt it might create a problem with his lender. The Board explained the necessity for the corner cut-offs informing the owner tha tsite clearance and turning radius for trucks would be provided by this change. Discussion carried on landscaping and the required fifteen (15) foot drive aisle widths of both loading docks providing inside -6- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Seven loading/unloading along with the necessary requirement that the applicant enter into an irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement agreement between subject site and the additional property to the north. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-29 WAS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED WITH FINDINGS, CONDITIONS OF AP- PROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plot plan received June 24, 1983 (revised) shall be the approved conceptual plan. 2. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The elevations submitted June 24, 1983 (revised) shall be the conceptually approved elevations. Elevations for this build- ing shall be compatible in architecture to other industrial uses in the vicinity and shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for approval. 4. Enter into an irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement agree- ment between this site and the adjacent property to the north. Provide an area within the building to accommodate loading and unloading per the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code per S-9513.2.2. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Vogelsang, Parker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-31 Applicant: Oakview Farms, Farmers Market To permit outdoor display and sales area - proposed location is at 18681 North Main Street. Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt. Class. 3, of the California En- vironmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey stated that the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code authorizes outdoor displays and/or storage of merchandise which -7- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Eight is offered at special events such as grand openings, change of ownership, or management. This new business has been in existence for several weeks. The Code does not allow the Board to allow storage of this type out- side for a permanent or extended period of time. That entitle- ment would have to be granted by the Planning Commission under a Conditional Exception Application. The Board discussed the tempo- rary display allowances with the applicant and offered him the option to refer the matter directly to the Planning Commission. Mr. Greg Dunn, representing the Farmers Market, was present. He was asked if he had any objection to the Board granting a tempo- rary permit approved by the Board of Zoning or did -he wish to have the request referred to the Planning Commission for per- manent approval. Mr. Dunn informed the Board that at this point he felt sixty (60) days would be adequate; that they are not sure it will be a permanent display. He stated that they are propos- ing to use antique wagons for display of produce along with bakery items creating the scene of a farmers market. The location for the display wagons proposed on the fourteen (14) foot sidewalk were discussed with the applicant providing adequate space for foot traffic away from the traffic aisle way within the shopping center. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY PARKER, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-31 WAS GRANTED FOR A SIXTY DAY PERIOD FROM ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-31 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The conceptual plot plan received June 20, 1983 shall be the ap- proved layout subject to the following modifications: a. That revised plans be submitted to the Department of Develop- ment Services showing plot plan dimensions and plan elevation drawings which depict the storage or display structures prior to issuance of permit. b. The sidewalk adjacent to the sales display area shall be main- tained with a minimum of seven (7) ft. unobstructed area. C. Signage in the outdoor sales area shall be limited to one- half square foot sign area per display structure and limited to the generic name and price of the product offered for sale. d. The approval period shall be sixty (60) days from issuance of the permit. -8- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Nine AYES: Godfrey, Parker, Evans, Vogelsang Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-32 Applicant: Seacliff Estates To permit a model home complex for Tract No. 10068 - Product "C" Model - Seacliff IV Residential Development. Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 3, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey briefly outlined the request stating that the plans received substantially meet what is required by Code for a planned residential development. Suggested conditions of approval were discussed with Dave Eadie. Mr. Eadie informed the Board that this is the second model complex to be located at the end of Palm Avenue westerly of Cherry Hill. Landscaping was discussed. It was felt by Mr. Eadie that at a future date the location of the trees as shown on the plan would be changed and placed in an area as required by Code; that the landscaping would not be permanent on Seaview Street as shown which is the location for parking and the recreational area for the complex. He confirmed that the models would be constructed as salable dwellings with the exception of the sales office which would be converted into the recreational room. Further, that every- thing shown in the model complex with the exception of the mound for landscaping would be permanent installation. It was the consensus of all of the Board Members that not only did the residential development meet the Code requirements but, in addition, would be compatible asthetically and architectually within the R2-PD-O Zone. ON MOTION BY VOGELSANG AND SECOND BY EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-32 WAS GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual plot plan received June 21, 1983 shall be the approved layout. -9- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Ten 2. A landscape and irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall be submitted to the Departments of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. A plan delineating various directional signs, landscaping and irrigation, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Development Services and Public Works and in- stalled prior to final inspection. 4. Fire access off Cherry Hill Drive shall be provided meeting •Fire Department standards. 5. All roads (including fire access) shall be of hard surface all-weather construction meeting Public Works requirements installed prior to construction of model homes. 6. All access roads shall extend within a minimum of 150 ft. to the farthest point on the exterior perimeter of the model homes. 7. All water lines and fire hydrants shall be installed and ap- proved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits for any temporary or permanent structures. 8. Security fencing, gates, locking devices ingress and egress from streets and parking areas shall be reviewed and approv- ed by the Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The office use shall be discontinued within thirty (30) days following sale of the last on -site unit. A cash bond of one thousand dollars shall be posted with the City for the sales office and for each model home to guaranty compliance with all provisions of the Code and the Huntington Beach Building Code. Such model homes shall only serve the tract specified in this administrative review application. 10. The sales office shall not be converted or expanded into a general business office. AYES: Godfrey, Vogelsang, Smith, Parker, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: RECONSIDERATION - ADMINISTATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-24 Applicants: Mr. Greg Bennett and Steven Sladics -10- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Eleven To permit a take-out food establishment (approximately 1,100 square feet). Location - 318 North Main Street (east side of street). Acting Chairman Evans introduced the reconsideration stating that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey informed the Board that the applicants are re- questing a review of an amended layout of the parking area which he has agreed to restripe. Inasmuch as the Board gave a "no" vote on the request previously considered at the Board Meeting of June 15, 1983, the Board took the liberty of indicating to the appli- cant that in effect he had a denial of his initial request without prejustice. This left the door open for the Board to reconsider a modification in the layout. The applicants are asking for re- lief of the strict standards and requirements of Article 979. The Public Hearing was reopened by Acting Chairman Evans. Gregory Bennett and Steven Sladics addressed the Board. Mr. Bennett stated that he understood the position the Board takes in trying to achieve general compliance to our zoning regulations as well as the general intent of the Redevelopment Agency. He stated that they would have no problem in providing the City with restriping of the existing parking layout. They realize that the parking layout is somewhat substandard in regard to landscaping and ingress and egress relationships but stated basically it meets the general number of parking spaces required for the intended use for an 1,100 square foot take-out food establishment. Further, that the.property provides substantially more off-street parking than most other businesses on Main Street within the redevelopment area. They felt that by use of alternative number one suggested at the Board Meeting of June 15, 1983 it would create a financial as well as a physical hardship on them. They asked that the Board please reconsider the original layout submitted. There being no one else present to speak against or in favor of the proposal, the PiAblic Tlearing was closed. The Board Members reviewed the original layout submitted and com- pared it to alternative number one suggested for use by the Board at the June 15, 1983 meeting. After considerable discussion it was decided that since the existing site does not lend itself to Article 979 requirements that the parking lot configuration origi- nally submitted be the approved layout meeting all requirements of the Fire Department. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-24 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: -11- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Twelve RECONSIDERATION - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-24 FINDINGS: 1. It would be unreasonable to vote on the letter of the law insofar as the existing site does not lend itself to the Code requirements. 2. As the applicant is unable to meet the Code requirements, the strict enforcement of Article 979 with regard to park- ing, landscaping and irrigation would create a hardship. 3. The public parking lot directly across the street from the applicant's proposed location will provide additional off - site parking if required which was constructed for use by Downtown merchants. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and parking layout received May 20, 1983 shall be the conceptually approved layout, subject to the following: a. The existing parking lot shall be restriped if deemed necessary by the Land Use Enforcement Officer of Develop- ment Services upon inspection. b. All requirements of the Fire Code shall be met. AYES: Smith, Vogelsang, Evans, Parker NOES: Godfrey ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-36 Applicant: George E. Arnold To permit a temporary seasonal parking lot (Location is 14th Street and Pacific Coast Highway - Parcel No. 024-036-08). Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposal and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Secretary Godfrey outlined the suggested conditions of approval for this seasonal parking lot discussing each condition thoroughly with the applicant. Mr. Arnold was cautioned that no access (ingress or egress) shall be taken from Pacific Coast Highway; that the side street=and alley would have to be used. It was suggested to Mr. Arnold that he work closely with the Land Use Enforcement Officer on the layout of the seasonal parking lot. -12- BZA 6/29/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments June 29, 1983 Page Thirteen Mr. Arnold stated that the proposed parking lot would provide a controlled facility for beach visitors parking this summer by j the applicant rather than having unsupervised use of the site by beach goers and people living in the apartments adjacent to the alley. He felt the seasonal parking would be operated in an orderly manner. Board discussion .ensued covering other points of concern i.e. dust control and signage. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY PARKER, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-36, WAS GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-36 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated June 29, 1983 shall be the conceptually approved layout subject to the following: a. That there be some treatment for dust which may include graveling, oiling or other such methods as approved by the Department of Public Works. b. The lot shall be striped in accordance with the standards of Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. C. The applicant shall work closely with the Land Use En- forcement Office in terms of designing the parking layout. d. Ingress and egress to Parcels 7 and 8 shall be restricted to the side streets and alleyway. No ingress or egress shall be taken off of Pacific Coast Highway. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang, Parker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments -13- BZA 6/29/83