Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-05R E V I S E D MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Evans, Smith, Godfrey, Poe Vogelsang Zelef sky ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-61 (Continued from 9/21/83) Applicant: Pacifica Properties,' c/o Bobby L. Cornelius To permit the construction of a 15,366 sq. ft. industrial building to be located at 7652 Burton Drive (near intersection of Beach and Slater). Staff informed the Board Members that a letter was received from Mr. Cornelius requesting that his application be withdrawn. The applicant intends to change his original plans which will be sub- mitted at a later date for hearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. BOARD MEMBER SMITH MOTIONED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-61 BE WITHDRAWN, APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vogelsang Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Two AMENDMENT AND RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-28 (In conjunction with Use Permit No. 83-39) Applicants: John Kavanagh and Mike Whitney C.E. Request - To permit reduction in driveway width (previously approved) and to permit a zero yard setback on rear property line. U.P. Request - To permit the construction of a 980 sq. ft. building (previously approved) and to permit an additional 705 sq. ft. building. Subject property is located at 16800 Beach Boulevard (south of flood channel). Acting Chairman.Evans introduced both proposals. Secretary Godfrey reiterated that both applications were originally approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on August 3, 1983. The applicants original plans consisted of two (2) buildings shown on the site. The Board originally approved the building at the front only. After the building permit was issued, it was discovered that the building was not in conformance with front setback requirements. In an attempt to resolve the setback encroachment on Beach Boulevard, the applicants and staff agreed to bring this particular development back to the Board with a request for an additional structure. The Use Permit originally approved the auto lube building. The building plans were inadvertently approved with a thirty (30) foot set back. The applicants, in concert with the City, agreed to move his structure back to the fifty (50) ft. front setback. The applicant is now asking the Board for consideration to permit an additional auto service re- pair building consisting of 705 sq. ft. to be located at the rear of the property. The revised site plan was reviewed by the Board Members comparing the proposed turning radius with original approval of same, use of a two (2) way traffic aisle for backing in and out, of the auto service now proposed at the rear of the property, the lots awk- ward configuration, customer and employee"parking, necessity of grading plan, etc. The public hearing was re -opened by Acting Chairman Evans. Mr. Whitney and Mr. Kavanagh were present to speak in favor of their proposal. The Board was informed that on the south property line, there is a small retaining wall with an elevation of approximately one and one-half (12) ft. varying in height down to six (6) inches due to grading, with proper drainage to the front of the property approved by Public Works Department. The adjacent property has -2- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Three bumpers preventing circulation from one property to the other. It was stated by Mr. Whitney that the site is in no violation and, al- though it's a tight site to work with, it is the decision of the investors to proceed with the proposed project. Mr. Erden Denktas, owner of Tosh's Bar-B-Q Restaurant, located on the south side of the property, addressed the Board. He stated that after reviewing the proposed project, he has the following objections: 1. He feels the proposed project will create an on -site traffic hazard due to the proposed interior circulation. 2. Per Section 9791.12.1 - Offstreet Parking and Landscaping, under Item "L" for service stations (full service/automotive repair garages, for the size of the buildings five parking spaces would be required for each individual business. The revised plan for approval only shows three parking spaces with one for handicapped. He felt that as a shortage of parking on the proposed site will exist, with a flood district waterway on the other side of the proposed site, people will be using his property for a parking lot. 3. The proposal will add to the traffic problems which presently exist in this particular location on Beach Boulevard. 4. That landscaping does not meet the Code requirements. 5. The applicants plan is in violation of S. 9791.9.11 requiring that parking spaces adjacent to a wall more than twelve inches in height shall have an additional three feet of width. Mr. Denktas felt that at the busy hours of the day with cars trying to get in and out of the lube and auto service, with cars backing up for quite a distance on Beach Boulevard, access to his restaurant will become limited. He strongly urged careful consideration by the Board and stated that if the application were approved, he would appeal. Mr. Tosh addressed the Board. He stated that prior to grading, there was an eighteen (18) inch elevation differential between properties. Now that the subject property is being graded higher, what was considered to be a small wall between the two (2) prop- erties will no longer exist. Mr. Kavanagh addressed the Board. He felt that as they have a com- mercial lot, with a thirty (30) ft. wide commercial driveway, located on an arterial highway, he felt he had no way of telling whether or not their business would effect Mr. Tosh's restaurant. He said he felt it just as likely that Mr. Tosh's business would effect their automotive business and felt this should not be an issue. Upon com- -3- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Four pletion of the grading, there will be a six (6) inch difference be- tween properties. He stated that they meet the parking and land- scaping requirements of the Code. He asked that the Board condition- ally approve the projects; that a delay would create an undue hardship. The public hearing was closed by Acting Chairman Evans. Board discussion ensued. It was stated that for 1,685 sq. ft. of building -space, three parking spaces were provided -on the applicants plan. As there isparkingavailable for four (4) cars in-the�lube bays and two (2) parking spaces -within the automotive service building, Parking was felt to be adequate on -site. - L Acting Chairman Evans stated his rationale for original approval of the project. He felt it was a difficult lot (narrow in width), that the sixteen and one-half (16i) ft. driveway between the property line and the building was acceptable as traffic would be one-way only going behind the building and exiting out through the lube pit stop. Now we are adding a small auto service area. All over town, he stated he see's these little auto service areas with all kinds of conditions e•g- parking out in front or wedged in some way on the property. He felt there was a possibility of the whole back area becoming plugged up with cars parked in every direction on the site waiting for service. He felt that by adding the auto service building would be asking for problems; that the site was not large enough to accommodate the auto repair service. Board Member Smith felt that a condition should be imposed for a curb barrier between properties with the intent to stop circulation of traffic from one property to the other. Findings and conditions for approval were discussed. - On motion by Smith and Second by Godfrey, Conditional Exception No. 83-28 was granted with findings, conditions of approval and vote following: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-28 FINDINGS: 1. Due to the fact that the subject property is a remnant lot with a substandard lot width, 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 classification. 2. Because of the substandard lot width of the subject parcel, coupled with the fact that it is adjacent to a flood control -4- BZA 10/05/83 • 7 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Four pletion of the grading, there will be a six (6) pinch difference be- tween properties. He stated that they meet, -,the parking and land- scaping requirements of the Code. He asked that the Board condition- ally approve the projects; that a delay would create an undue hardship. The public hearing was closed by Acting Chairman Evans. Board discussion ensued. It was stated that for 1,685 sq. ft. of building space, three parking spaces were provided on the applicants plan. As there is parking available for four (4) cars in the'lube bays and two (2) parking spaces within the automotive service building, parking was felt to be adequate on -site. Acting Chairman Evans stated his rationale for original approval of the project. He felt it was a difficult lot (narrow in width), that the sixteen and one-half (16Z) ft. driveway between the property line and the building was' -acceptable as traffic would be one-way only going behind the building and exiting out through the lube pit stop. Now we are adding a small auto service area. All over town, he stated he see's these little auto service areas with all kinds of conditions e.g. parking out in front or wedged in some way on the property. He felt there was a possibility of the whole back area becoming plugged up mom with cars parked in every direction on the site waiting for service. He felt that by adding the auto service building would be asking for ' problems; that the site was not large enough to accommodate the auto repair service. He felt a review by the Traffic Department was neces- sary prior to approval. Board Member Smith felt that a condition should be imposed for a curb barrier between properties with the intent to stop circulation of traffic from one property to the other. Findings and conditions for approval were discussed. - On motion by Smith and Second by Godfrey, Conditional Exception No. 83-28 was granted with findings, conditions of approval and vote following: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-28 FINDINGS: 1. Due to the fact that the subject property is a remnant lot with a substandard lot width, 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 classification. 16 2. Because of the substandard lot width of the subject parcel, coupled with the fact that it is adjacent to a flood control -4- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Five channel, the granting of a conditional exception will not con- stitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classi- fication. The location of the building adjacent to the rear property line will not constitute a grant of special privilege in that there will be a wall constructed and no openings pro- vided along that side. In addition, there is an open space area designated on the adjacent property Planned Residential Development. 3. That the granting of a conditional exception is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 4. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to property in the same zone classification. 5. The granting of a conditional exception will not adversely affect the Master Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Due to the fact that there were over sights during plan approval for permit issuance that could have become a liability to the City, the applicant/City have resolved the issues through a negotiated compromise to solve the problems and allow for an amendment to/and reconsideration of, the original application approval. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: Evans ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vogelsang ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, USE PERMIT NO. 83-39 WAS GRANTED WITH FINDINGS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: USE PERMIT NO. 83-39 FINDINGS: 1. The granting of Use Permit No. 83-39 will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. b. Nor injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the Master Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Special consideration for the screening of the residential property to the rear of the subject site shall be given. -5- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Six 2. All driveways along Beach Boulevard shall have a minimum width of thirty (30) feet and constructed to the "X" type design. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits on the rear building, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape and irrigation plan meeting Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code which shall be approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. All access rights along Beach Boulevard shall be dedicated to the ity of Huntington Beach except for the locations approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. 5. A curb barrier shall be constructed along the entire south property line and shall be approved by the Grading Engineer prior to issuance of building permits on rear building. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: Evans ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vogelsang The appeal process was explained. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-50 . (In conjunction with Use Permit No. 83-54) Applicant: Gerald Sy Golob, A.I.A. 1 C.E. Request - To permit encroachment of five (5) ft. into the re- quired ten (10) ft. setback from residential and park- ing space encroaching into ten (10) ft. required land- scape berm and two (2) spaces with manuvering area off -site. U.P. Request - To permit a 2,850 sq. ft. retail building. Site location is 17021 and 17011 "A" Street (southwest corner of Warner). Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposals stating that the con- ditional exception is a Class. 5 and the use permit request is a Class. 3, both Categorically Exempt under -the Californid Environmental -Quality Act, 1970. The public hearing was opened with no one present to speak in favor or opposition of the proposals. The public hearing was closed by Acting Chairman Evans. As the Board had concerns with the plans submitted, it was the con- sensus of the Board Members to continue the applications for one (1) week, to the Board meeting of October 12, 1983, to re -notify the applicant of necessary action on his part justifying hardship and responding to concerns of the Board. -6- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Seven ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO• 83-50 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH USE PERMIT NO. 83-54) WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vogelsang USE PERMIT NO. 83-52 Applicant: Tropical Wood Homes, West, c/o Juan C. Martinez To permit pre-fab home models. Site location is at 17251 Beach Boulevard (west side of street). Acting Chairman Evans introduced the application and stated that this request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 3, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff briefly outlined the proposal stating that possibly temporary use of the property was being requested and displayed pictures/ elevations of the model called "La Villa". The public hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Evans. Mr. Alex Coello and Mr. Martinez, applicants, were asked how long they intended to use the property. Mr. Martinez stated that they have a three (3) year lease with the property owner who is not in- terested, at this time, in leasing the property for a longer period. Mr. Martinez stated that he would be willing to submit a plan covering landscaping of the entire site that would be visible from Beach Boulevard, prior to obtaining permits. He felt that not only would it beautify Beach Boulevard, but it would attract potential customers making them desirous of stopping and looking at their product. They are proposing to use about 100 ft. of the front property felt to be approximately 200 ft. in depth. Mr. Coello explained that the modular construction of the pre-fab homes allows for the assemblage of an inexpensive small, medium or large home. In addition, the modules can be used to increase the size of an existing home at a relatively low cost. He stated that the pre-cut modules are delivered in forty (40) ft. maritime truck type storage containers from out of the country. The applicant felt that five (5) days would be adequate time to unload the shipping con- tainers and to return same to the trucking firm. The applicant was informed that although his lease was on a temporary basis, the Board would have to treat his application on a permanent basis requiring permanent foundations and landscaping. Mr. Martinez stated that the buildings would be movable, on permanent foundations, complying with the Uniform Building Code. Findings and conditions for approval were discussed. -7- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Eight ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, USE PERMIT NO. 83-52 WAS GRANTED WITH FINDINGS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: USE PERMIT NO. 83-52 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: 1. The revised site plan dated September 27, 1983 shall be the approved layout. 2. All improvements on the subject property shall be of a permanent nature, i.e., landscaping the parking facility, the foundations for the pre-fab homes, etc. All requirements of the Building Code shall be met. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall sub- mit the following: a. Detailed elevations of the "Pre -Fab" homes. b. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. 4. The site shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code. 5. The "Not to be used" portion of the site shall not be used for storage or any use relating to the business other than the cir- culation of vehicles. -8- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Nine 6. The Board of Zoning Adjustments shall review Use Permit No. 83-52 three (3) years after date of approval. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to rescind Use Permit No. 83-52 if the conditions of approval are not complied with. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vogelsang USE PERMIT NO. 83-53 Applicant: Joe E. & Dorothy L. Grubbs To permit auto repair/alignment. Site location is at 18081 Redondo Circle - Suite "C" (near intersection of Talbert). Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposal stating that the ap- plicants request is Categorically Exempt, Class. 1, California En- vironmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff informed the Board Members that just prior to the meeting, the applicant submitted a revised floor plan with elevations showing a change from Suite T to Suite C within the same complex. Following a review of the revised site plan, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Grubbs were both present to speak in favor of the proposed use. The applicants were questioned on use of flammable liquids. It was stated that they would be using solvent. The ap- plicants were informed that if they will be storing more than ten (10) gallons of flammable liquids on site, special flammable containers would be required. The necessity for fire extinguishers on site was explained to the applicants. The public hearing was closed by Acting Chairman Evans. It was the feeling of all of the Board Members (with the exception of Secretary Godfrey who was called out of the meeting) that necessary findings mandated by the Code for the use permit application, were applicable to this project. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, USE PERMIT NO. 83-53 WAS GRANTED WITH FINDINGS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: USE PERMIT NO. 83-53 FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: -9- BZA 10/05/83 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Ten 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 received September 21, 1983 shall be the approved layout. General Conditions: 1. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 2. All repair work shall be conducted wholly within the building. 3. Applicant shall obtain necessary permits from the Orange County Air Quality Control Board. 4. Applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal fire codes, ordinances and standards. 5. A review of the use shall be conducted within six (6) months of the date of this approval to verify compliance with all Conditions of Approval and applicable sections of Article 951 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. If at any time, there is a violation of these conditions or Code sections, Use Permit No. 83-53 may become null and void. AYES: Evans, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: Godfrey, ABSENT: Vogelsang ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-63 Applicant: Harry Finigan To permit the use of twenty-nine (29) balloons and sixteen (16) spot lights above building for grand opening and anniversary sale advertising.' Site location is at 7171 Warner, Bldg. E, Unit B (near intersection of Goldenwest). -10- BZA 10/05/83 1 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 5, 1983 Page Eleven Acting Chairman Evans introduced the proposal. As there was no one present representing the application and as the conditions to be imposed were substantially different than the ap- plicant's request, it was felt that the applicant should be re -notified of a continuance for one (1) week to allow him an opportunity to be present. It was felt by all the Board Members that as the "grand opening" is already in progress without approval from the Board, that if the application is approved at the next Board meeting, that the thirty (30) day approval period should begin from the first day of their grand opening. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-63 WAS CONTINUED ONE (1) WEEK TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vogelsang There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. i Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments -11- BZA 10/05/83