Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-141 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING -ADJUSTMENTS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1983 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: MINUTES: Room B-6 - Civic 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Center CA 92648 Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang, Vincent Pierce, Poe ON MOTION BY LIPPS (PROXY) AND SECOND BY VINCENT, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1983 WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 1983 WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Poe, Smith, Vogelsang NOES: None ABSTAIN: Evans USE PERMIT NO. 83-60 (Con't. from 12/7/83) Applicant: Mc Donald's Corporation To permit a drive-thru addition to an existing Mc Donald's Restaurant located at 16866 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Blvd. approx. 300 feet north of Warner Avenue). Acting Chairman Evans introduced the application stating that this request, per Section 15101 of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, is categorically exempt - Class. 1. Secretary Godfrey outlined staff's suggested findings for denial: 1) the proposed expansion and addition of the drive-thru facility to an existing restaurant creates additional traffic hazard onto Beach Blvd. and Rubidoux Street; 2) on -site circulation is unacceptable; 3) there is insufficient parking with limited access on the north side of building; 4) the location of the building on the subject site does riot warrant approval for the proposed type of use. Sergio Martinez explained that the applicant's revised plan, although-. modified, still showed the drive-thru window with exiting too close to the corner of Beach Boulevard and Rubidoux Street. Additionally, H.B. Board of zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Two that only eight (8) parking spaces were proposed on the north side of the building felt to be insufficient to take the overflow of traffic off Beach Boulevard moving north. Also, when cars exit out into the flow of traffic on Beach Boulevard a stacking problem would be created. It was stated that the applicant was informed of these concerns prior to today's hearing. The public hearing was reopened. Walt Sprowl and Don Nelson were present to speak on the application. A new amended plan was submitted to the Board Members. Don Nelson stated that in taking into consideration the traffic situation on Beach Boulevard they recognized the fact that the Rubidoux Street driveway was in conflict. On the amended plan they put a second driveway cut on Rubidous and eliminated the driveway on Beach Boulevard located at the northwest corner. A new driveway was shown at the rear of the site on to "A" Street. Landscaping in front of the restaurant was shown at eight ft. in width. Landscaping justifying setback requirements was discussed. There being no one else present wishing to speak on the application, the public hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Board Members that as the dimensions and circulation concept were changed, the plan should be run back through Traffic and reviewed in depth by staff prior to approval. The applican gave his concurrence with the continuance. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VINCENT, USE PERMIT NO. 83-60 WAS CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS, TO THE JANUARY 4, 1984 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-60 Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Charles Palmer To permit an adjustment of minimum dimension from 25 ft. to 20 ft. at rear of existing residence. Acting Chairman Evans introduced the applicants variance request. Secretary Godfrey informed the Board that staff is recommending approval of this conditional exception and outlined suggested findings and conditions for approval. He stated that although the dwelling was constructed unde the permit process, staff was unable to find records allowing the developer approval for the reduction in minimum dimension which the property owners are now trying to rectify. -2- - BZA 12/14/83 H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Three The public hearing was opened with Mr. and Mrs. Palmer present to answer questions of the Board. There being no one present wishing to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed. With open space available as required by Code (1,200 sq. ft.) in the applicants rear yard, the Board felt that by approving the reduction in minimum dimension (felt to be minimal) it would legalize the existence of the subject dwelling. ON MOTION BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-60 WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOLLOWING, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Granting of reduction in open space minimum dimension will not reduce the required open space area. 2. The granting of a conditional exception would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity because the same dwelling configuration exists on lots of the same size on this street. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 83-60 is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 4. The granting of a conditional exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to property in the same zone classification. 5. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 83-60 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated November 28, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. 3. No other additions which would reduce the open space area require- ment shall be permitted. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -3- BZA 12/14/83 .r H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Four USE PERMIT NO. 83-65 Applicant: Bill Maxey Toyota, Inc. To permit construction of a 3,000 sq. ft. office and used car shop building. Location is at 19202 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard). Acting Chairman Evans stated that this request is categorically exempt, Class. 3, under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Secretary Godfrey outlined staff's suggested findings and conditions for approval. It was felt upon the Board's review of the applicant's plan, that a condition should be added that the proposed addition be architecturally compatible with its surroundings. The public hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Evans. Mr. Bill Maxey addressed the Board and stated that they may possibly reduce the size of the proposed building from 3,000 sq. ft. to 2,700 sq, ft. It was explained to the applicant that as long as he does not extend the addition beyond what is approved there would be no prob- lem. Mr. Maxey said they do not comtemplate a change in their present operation, that some work which is presently being done outside will be handled within the proposed addition. He felt this change would result in a neater overall appearance of their premises and significant reduce noise level to the owners of the adjacent properties. The propo building will abut a vacant lot. There being no one else present wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the proposal, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, USE PERMIT NO. 83-65 WAS APPROVED, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOWING, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: It" 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. -4- BZA 12/14/83 H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Five CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Site plan, floor plan, and elevations received November 30, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. Building wall to be constructed along the northern property line shall be of maintenance free materials. 3. The elevations and architectural features of the proposed addition shall be typical of those existing at the facility and shall be approved by the Development Services Department. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Vogelsang, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 83-66 In conjunction W/ ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-66. Applicant: J. Don Hartfelder U.P. Request - To permit a 14,000+ sq. ft. warehouse building with truck doors facing -public street. A.R. Request - To permit a 14,000+ sq. ft. industrial building. Staff's suggested findings for approval of Use Permit No. 83-66 were outlined to the Board with a copy of the suggested conditions for approval covering Administrative Review No. 83-66 given to the applicant for review. Upon the Board's review of the applicant's site plan it was observed that the proposed truck doors facing Business Drive were set back seventy (70) feet in lieu of forty-five (45) feet required by Code from the right-of-way line. The public hearing was opened for Use Permit No. 83-66 by Acting Chairman Evans. Mr. Hartfelder, applicant, addressed the Board and introduced Mr. Wayne Curtis, contractor for the project. He stated their concurrence with the suggested findings for Use Permit No. 83-66 and conditions for Administrative Review No. 83-66. Mr. Charles L. Pancheri, 8542 Whitesails Circle (adjacent property owner) introduced himself to the Board. Upon reviewing the applicant's site plan, he stated it alleviated his concern with the location of the truck doors. E There being no one else present wishing to speak on the proposal, the public hearing was closed on Use Permit No. 83-66. -5- BZA 12/14/83- H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 ' Page Six It was the feeling of all of the Board Members that the proposed enclosed installation of a loading facility, with doors screened from view, would provide for the safe operation of trucks. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, USE -PERMIT NO. 83-66 WAS GRANTED WITH FINDINGS, CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS: 1. Because the proposed truck door is setback seventy (70) feet from the ultimate right-of-way which would accommodate a tractor and trailer, 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. CONDITION OF -APPROVAL: The revised site plan dated December 1, 1983, shall be the approved layout. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VINCENT, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-66 WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE, AS FOLLOWS: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The revised plot plan, floor plan, and elevations received and dated November 16,'1983,�shall be the approved layout subject to providing. .the State -,-required handicap parking space. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Department of Development Services the following plans: a. Landscape-Iand irrigation plan complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach -Ordinance Code and -landscaping specificati on file in the Department of Public Works. -6- BZA 12/14/83 H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Seven b. A roof top mechanical equipment plan. Such plan shall indicate screening of all roof top mechanical equipment and delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. The two interior parking spaces within the industrial building are a part of the required parking and shall be so designated on the site plan. 4. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches. 5. All unusable 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. 6. If lighting is included in the parking lot area, energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g. high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 7. Low volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and shall be reviewed by the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permit. 9. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 10. Development shall meet all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code, Ordinance Code and Uniform Building Code. 11. The driveway approach shall be a minimum of twenty-seven (27) ft. in width and shall be of radius type construction. 12. Any proposed signing shall conform to Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 13. The public right-of-way shall be constructed per Department of Public Works requirements. 14. Automatic fire springlers shall be installed throughout the building meeting Fire Department standards. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Vogelsang, Vincent NOES: Evans ABSTAIN: None -7- BZA 12/14/93 H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Eight ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-78 In conjunction with TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-581 Applicant: Seaborg Construction A.R. Request - To permit reduction of minimum frontage (Property located on Sampson Lane - Parcel 4 - east side of street). T.P.M. Request - To permit subdivision of an existing large parcel into seven (7) individual parcels. Both applications were introduced by Acting Chairman Evans. The Adminis- trative Review is a Class. 5, while the Tentative Parcel Map is a Class. 15, both categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Secretary Godfrey outlined options for the Board's consideration with regard to Administrative Review No. 83-78. He stated that the purpose of AdministrativeReview No. 83-78 is to delineate all structures proposed for future or initial construction in order to determine if a reduction in minimum frontage may be granted. As the plan submitted by the applicant does not reflect dimensions for proposed structures, parking spaces, nor areas for required landscaping per parcel,the Board may deny the application. An alternative action of the Board may be to approve the administrative review with a condition imposed that at the time of development of each lot/parcel, a site plan shall be submitted to the Board together with an administrative review application delineating the precise location of buildings, parking and landscaping. Additionally, that if Administrative Review No. 83-78 is denied a reduction in minimum frontage, Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-581 may not be granted. Joe Hartge, of Hartge Engineering and Rick Del Carlo, of Seaborg Construction, were present to discuss their proposal for light industrial condominiums. Mr. Hartge stated that they are not prepared to submit a detailed site plan on each building at this time and, probably, would not be able to do so for a long time. Mr. Hartge stated that the lot width of sixty-five (65) feet was arbitrarily depicted on their map and that to submit a revised map showing lots with an eighty (80) foot frontage meeting Code would be no problem. Mr. Hartge was informed that if parking, a turnaround, ingress/egress easement, etc. were shown on the parcel map meeting the subdivision requirements of the Code, their administrative review application could be withdrawn. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-78 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-581 WERE CONTINUED ONE WEEK, TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1983 (WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE) BY THE FOLLOWING N VOTE: -8- BZA 12/14/83 H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Nine AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Vogelsang, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-81 Applicant: Consumers Distributing Co., Ltd. To permit the construction of a 20 ft. x 76 ft. addition to an existing commercial building. Property located at 10080 Adams Street The applicant's request was introduced by Acting Chairman Evans who stated that this request, per Section 15103 of the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970, is categorically exempt - Class. 3. Secretary Godfrey outlined staff's findings for denial. He stated that the existing shopping center does not satisfy the current parking require- ments - 492 spaces required; 450 spaces existing. Also, that the pro- posed addition would further reduce the parking requirements by thirteen spaces. Additionally, the applicant does not agree to the parking lot restriping proposal to increase parking spaces by providing a maximum of 40% in compact spaces. Mr. Larry De Spain, West Coast Real Estate Manager for Consumers Distrib- uting, addressed the Board. He informed everyone concerned that the proposed addition of approximately 1,500 sq. ft. is to be used for ware- housing by TG&Y. Had the ceiling/roofline been just a little higher there would have been no necessity for the proposed rear addition. He mentioned that although the building's length will be extended, alleviating thirteen rear parking spaces, the proposed addition will not extend out farther than existing buildings within the center providing adequate emergency access behind their building. He felt approval of their plan was in order as not only were they adding $150,000 leasehold improvements to the property but they are bringing into the City's tax revenue a business which generates three to four million dollars a year. Mr. Robert Cowgill, property owner, addressed the Board. He stated that they were amenable to restriping providing for 40% compact parking (joint use parking within the center). Additionally; Mr. Cowgill agreed to rejuvenation of landscaping for his portion of the site. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-81 WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AND VOTE FOLLOWING: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The floor plans and elevations received November 28, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits a revised site plan shall -9- BZA 12/14/83 e.- H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Ten be submitted to the Secretary of the Board for review and approval depicting: a. A parking lot restriping plan which provides a maximum of forty (40) percent of the parking spaces for compact vehicles. 3. Parking lot restriping shall be completed prior to final inspection. 4. Any proposed signing shall conform to Article 976. 5. Loading and unloading shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 6. Rejuvenation of landscaping shall be agreed upon between the property owner and the City's landscape architect. AYES: Vincent, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang NOES: Godfrey ABSTAIN None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-83 Applicant: Mr. Brian Whitney To permit a new 5,400 sq. ft. office and warehouse to be located at 7592 Reynolds Circle (south side of street). Acting Chairman Evans, after introduction of the proposal, stated that this request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 79-35. Secretary Godfrey informed' -all concerned that a plan check of the applicant's proposal revealed that the office and warehouse as proposed is substantially in compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance Code. Suggested conditions by staff were outlined to the applicant. Mr. Whitney, applicant, stated his concurrence with the conditions. It was the feeling of all of the Board Members that the proposed building is compatible with the area meeting the criteria of the General Plan. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VOGELSANG, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-83 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOLLOWING, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual plot plan, floor plan and elevations received and dated December 1, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2`L Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Development Services for review and approval -10- BZA 12/14/83 11 J H,B, Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Eleven the following plans: (a) Landscape and irrigation plans complying with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and landscaping specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. (b) A rooftop mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches. 4. All unusable 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 area, energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g. high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 6. Low volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 7. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered 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, retain- ing walls, streets and shall be reviewed by the Department of Develop- ment Services prior to issuance of building permit. 8. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 9. Development shall meet all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code, Ordinance Code and Uniform Building Code. 10. The driveway approach shall be a minimum of twenty-seven (27) ft. in width and shall be of radius type construction. 11. Any proposed signing shall conform to Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 12. Trash enclosure shall be located to the satisfaction of the Depart- ment of Development Services. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Vogelsang, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -11- BZA 12/14/83 H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Twelve CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-53 AND USE PERMIT NO. 83-59 Applicant: Mr.. 'James W.- Hui-sh C.E. Request -- To permit encroachment into the required 25-foot front and side yard setbacks for construction of an outdoor recreation center. U.P. Request - To permit construction of an outdoor recreation center including boat ride, video room and picnic area. Both applications were introduced by Acting Chairman Evans who stated the requests were covered by Negative Declaration No. 81-11. Secretary Godfrey infomed the Board of staff's concerns with use of the subject property zoned ROS (Recreational Open Space District); requested setbacks, driveway openings located close to major streets, the use of a one-way street in the general vicinity of Old World, One Pacific Plaza and Huntington Center which has a potential of creating congestion and a circulation hazard because of the intensive use proposed, onsite parking, etc. Mr. Godfrey stated that if the Board concurs with staff's'recommenda- tion for denial, Use Permit No. 83-59 in conjunction with subject conditional exception will automatically be denied. Also, that if more than four video games are proposed, a conditional use permit would be required for hearing by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened by Acting Chairman Evans. Mr. Huish was not present (nor a represent Mr. Tom Love, Vice -President of the Mc Donald Group responsible for the Huntington Center, introduced himself to the Board. He.felt the' -.use of an arcade, miniature golf course, etc. does not relate well to the adjacent enclosed shopping'center felt to create traffic problems if the use is permitted. it would also alleviate security to the shopping center. There being no --one else present wishing to speak.on the project, the public, hearing was closed. It was the consensus of the Board Members to continue the applications for one week, re -notify the applicant of the continuance and the necessity of his presence to justify his hardship. ON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-53 AND USE PERMIT NO. 83-59 WERE CONTINUED ONE WEEK, TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Vogelsang, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -12- BZA 12/14/83 H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 14, 1983 Page Thirteen THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO THE STUDY SESSION ON DECEMBER 19, 1983 AT 10i00 A.M. Glen K. Godfrey, S cretary Board of Zoning Adjustments -13- BZA 12/14/84