Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-18MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1984 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Poe STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Pierce MINUTES: ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 1983 WERE APPROVED AS TRANS- CRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: Poe ABSENT: Vincent REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 83-60 Applicant: Mc Donald's Corporation To permit a drive-thru addition to an existing Mc Donald's Restaurant. Subject site is located on the east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 300 ft. north of Warner Avenue. Chairman Smith introduced the application. Staff informed the Board that a request was received from the applicant by telephone for a two -week continuance to allow time to apply and advertise a conditional exception variance to deviate from the setback requirement for the proposed site. ON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY EVANS, USE PERMIT NO. 83-60 WAS CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS, TO THE FEBRUARY 1, 1984 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Two AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-68 In conjunction with USE PERMIT NO. 83-70 C.E. Request - To permit a five (5) ft. sideyard setback in lieu of a ten (10) ft. setback for a structure over 30 ft. in height. U.P. Request - To permit an increase in thirty (30) ft. maximum height limit. Chairman Smith introduced the subject applications located at 4071 Figaro Circle. He stated the Conditional Exception is a Class. 5 and the Use Permit is a Class. 3, both categorically exempt, under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Staff informed all concerned that Use Permit No. 83-70 was continued from the meeting of.January 4, 1984, as the applicant wished to pursue his original plan. The continuance would allow time to readvertise a conditional exception variance for the interior sideyard setback reduction from 10 ft. to 5 ft. A structure over thirty ft. requires a ten (10) ft. sideyard setback per Code. Staff reviewed the plan numerous times and is unable to find any hardship that is land related. Although important, architectural features do not qualify for approval of a variance. Staff, without having an exact address, was unable to locate records where other variances were issued in the immediate area for an increase in height over thirty ft. as stated by the applicant. Staff's contention is that hardship is by self -design. Prior to opening of the public hearing, extensive Board discussion carried in an effort to define the Code requirement for exceptions to height limitations. Some Members felt that as the pitched roof was under four (4) ft, screening the mechanical equipment, the structure could be considered a parapet type. Not all Board Members agreed. Some felt this was a mansard type structure. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Smith. 1 Mr. Frank Mirjahangir, Architect for the project,.addressed the Board. He stated that they are trying to remodel the interior of the existing two-story dwelling adding a bathroom and bedroom loft. The existing furnace is located in the garage which does not have enough power to provide heat up to the level which is needed. As the roof sits back from the street and from the rear setback about twenty foot, plus the required setback, Mr. Mirjahangir felt his request not to be abusive or a visual impact to its surroundings and,if granted, it would provide architectural amenities compatible to the dwelling. The applicant -2- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Three displayed a sketch showing an alternative - a flat roof with a false mansard applied to a parapet wall which he felt resulted in a more massive -appearing structure. Mr. and Mrs. W. St. Clair, adjacent property owners to the east side of the applicants property (4061 Figaro) addressed the Board. They were opposed to the architectural design of the plan as they felt it would obstruct light and ventilation in addition to infringing upon their privacy. There being no one else present wishing to speak in approval or opposition of the applicant's request, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Smith stated that he felt this request was not a deviation from the Code as the request is for a structure to house mechanical equipment allowed by Code. A motion for approval of both applications was made by Chairman Smith as follows: Ayes: Smith, Poe Noes: Godfrey, Evans Abstain: None As there was a split vote created by differences of opinion in roofline, building height measurement point and proof of hardship, the Board of Zoning Adjustments felt both applications should be referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration. ON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-68 AND USE PERMIT NO. 83-70 WERE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1984,-BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Poe NOES: Smith ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-88 Applicant: Pacific Building Concepts To permit an 11,732 sq. ft. office use in a R-5 Zone, adding 8,034 sq. ft. to 2,698 sq. ft. of existing office. Subject property is located at 15881 Goldenwest Street. Chairman Smith introduced the proposal and stated that this request is categorically exempt, Class. lE2A, under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Secretary Godfrey stated that the applicant is proposing to expand his office complex under the same colonial architectural treatment as presently exists. Further, that the applicant's plan meets the requirements within a R-5 Zone as to use and development standards with the exception that the driveway approaches are required to be a minimum of twenty-seven (27) ft. in width in lieu of twenty-four (24) ft. shown on his plan. -3- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Four Staff's suggested conditions for approval received br. Kurt Sanohoff's approval (A.I.A. for the project representing the property owner). ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-88 WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED AS FOLLOWS, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan as revised, floor plans, and elevations received and dated December 27, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for review and approval 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 and mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equip- ment. 3. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven ft. in width and shall be of radius type construction. 4. Development shall meet all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code, Ordinance Code and Uniform Building Code. 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 soil sampling 4ndlaboratory 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 (s) . 9. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. AYES: Godfrey, -Evans, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN; None -4- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Five CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-66 Applicant: Mr. Larry W, Nye To permit allowance for planting areas where automobile overhang is present. Subject property is located at 8191 Newman Avenue (at intersection of Newman and Van Buren). The applicant's request was introduced by Chairman Smith who informed all concerned that this request is categorically exempt, Class. 1, under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Secretary Godfrey stated that a Conditional Use Permit (No. 82-23) was approved by the Planning Commission with a condition imposed that landscaping shall be no less than 10% of the total site area. While in plan check it was determined that the previously approved site plan consisted of 9.8% landscaping as the applicant was unaware that land- scaped areas with automobile overhang can not (per Code) be calculated into the 10% requirement. The applicant is requesting that this area be approved for calculation into the required 10% requirement. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Smith. Mr. Nye addressed the Board. He stated that the curbcut and sidewalk have existed for the past ten years. Also, that during this period of time they have maintained the City owned property. As a trade-off, the applicant is willing to provide irrigation, planting and continue maintenance of the City owned property in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property line. Additionally, if allowed to include this area into their 10% landscape requirement, 12.9% on -site landscaping will exist. There being no one else present wishing to speak in favor or oppositon of the applicant's request, the public hearing was closed. Dire to the complexities involved with the applicant's project, and the fact that the request was felt to be minimal, the Board granted the request. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83=66 WAS APPROVED AS FOLLOWS, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 83-64 will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the City and under identical zone classification. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, 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 classifications. -5- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Six 3. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 83-66 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated December 16, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. All Conditions of Approval imposed on C.U.P. No. 82-23 shall be applicable. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-1 Applicant: Mr. Anthony Ivicevic To permit construction of block wall ten (10) ft. from sidewalk. Subject property is located at 17130 Courtney Lane zoned R-1. Chairman Smith introduced the applicant's proposal and stated that this request is categorically exempt, Class. 5, under the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970. Staff reiterated that a similar request was acted on in 1983 and denied at a five ft. front setback. An indepth research of the Code revealed that the Code does allow a reduction in wall setback for original construction of five or more contiguous lots under common ownership with the approval of an administrative review application. The public hearing was opened. There being no one present wishing to speak in favor or opposition of the request, the public hearing was closed. The Board reviewed the applicant's site plan noting that the wall was shown as triangular adjacent to the driveway allowing adequate sight visibility. It was the contention of most of the Board Members, that approval of the variance would allow parity with other property within the immediate vicinity. ON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY POE, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-2 WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOLLOWING, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: -6- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Seven FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The Ordinance Code allows a reduction in wall setback for original construction of five or more contiguous lots under common ownership. Adjacent lots are now developed; however, there will be no encroachment into sight line of adjacent properties. 2. The granting of a reduced setback would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-2 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. 84-2 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City -of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated January 17, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. Maximum height of wall shall not exceed six (6) feet. 3. There shall be no structure or plant material above the height of 42 inches that would obstruct vision in a ten foot triangular area located at the front property line and edge of driveway. 4. The ten foot setback area shall be landscaped with low profile plant material and equipped with an automatic irrigation system. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: Evans ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 83-72 Applicant: Mr. Glen C. Hirschberg To permit.an auto repair to be located at 18101 Redondo Circle - Unit nUn. Chairman Smith introduced the application and stated that this request is a Class. 1, categorically exempt, under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Staff outlined the previous and existing use of the site zoned Ml-A (restricted manufacturing district). Many applications have been granted for the site for automotive repair facilities via the Use -7- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Eight Permit process. Our Chief Land Use Officer has cited the property owner as his tenants patrons have left numerous inoperable vehicles in the parking lot requiring other patrons and employees to park in the street creating traffic problems. It was stated that a field check of the premises this morning disclosed that the street was lined up with many automobiles, the parking area on site adjacent to the building was filled with autos, with very few vacant parking spaces available for utilization. Further, that it was staff's recommendation that this application be denied; otherwise, it was felt the Board would be perpetuating the problem. Suggested reasons for denial of Use Permit No. 83-72 were presented. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Smith. Mr. Hirschberg, the applicant, introduced himself to the Board and asked that special consideration be given his request. He stated that he signed a lease for use of Unit "U" as he was told by the property owner (Mr. Reginald de la Cuesta) the site could be used for automotive repair, with the City's approval, which was just a matter of formality which he could obtain without any problem. He informed the Board that he runs a clean operation. All vehicles will be kept inside overnight and until they are picked up by his customers. There is adequate space for two cars outside of his door area for prospective customers. He felt no need for use of the reciprocal parking area presently filled with inoperable cars. The Board Members explained to the applicant that this problem was not a direct reflection on him; that all applications must be accepted and that it was unfortunate he was involved. Further, that by denying this request it may make*the property owner realize he has to get together with his tenants and get the site cleaned up, otherwise he may end up with more than one vacant unit. The public hearing was closed. After a lengthly discussion the Board could not find justification in granting the applicant's request. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, USE PERMIT NO. 83-72 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AND VOTE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Automobile repair is not a permitted use within the M1-A Restricted Manufacturing District. 2. The property has a history of entitlements granted by policy for auto repair. The past entitlements have impacted the on -site reciprocal parking area and adjacent streets. -8- BZA 1/18/84 1 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Nine 3. The Department of Development Services has been unsuccessful in enforcing the parking and storage of vehicles. Granting an additional auto repair use will further continue the enforcement problem. 4. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will 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. 5. The granting of a Use Permit will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 6. The proposal is inconsistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 83-73 Applicant: Mr. Donald M. Perry To permit an addition to a single-family residence. Subject property is located at 313 - Second Street. Chairman Smith informed all concerned that this request is categorically exempt, Class. 1, under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Staff outlined the applicant's request stating the applicant is proposing an addition to a single-family dwelling on a piece of property wherein zoning was recently changed to Commercial by the Downtown Specific Plan. Concerns, in conflict with the Downtown Specific Plan, were discussed: 1) architectural theme; 2) landscaping; 3)100 percent residential structure, 4) parking requirement and 5) alley dedication.. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Smith. Mr. Perry, applicant, addressed the Board. He stated his property is 100 percent residential and that all he is doing is continuing to keep it residential. Additionally, there is only residential on his block. He stated that just prior to adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan eight new homes were constructed to the south of his home. Further that if his architect had not dragged his feet, he would have received approval prior to the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. He felt it unfair to have to apply for a "special permit" from the Planning Commission delaying his proposal. -9- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 18, 1984 Page Ten The public hearing was closed. Mr. Perry was informed that only the Planning Commission has been given-thO authority -to grant a special permit which is necessary when deviating from the requirement that residential uses may not exceed 2/3 of the gross square:'footage of a project. Additionally, adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan has resulted in making his use non- conforming. ON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH, USE PERMIT NO. 83-73 WAS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE, FOR HEARING AT THEIR FEBRUARY 7, 1984 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 84-3 Applicant: Pet Prevent -A -Care To -permit an outdoor, mobile, low cost vaccination clinic for cats and dogs to be held on January 27, April 8, and July 15, 1984 at the Newland Center (southwest corner of parking lot opposite Alpha Beta). The applicant's proposal was introduced by Chairman Smith who stated that this request is a Class. 1, categorically exempt, under the California Environmental Quality Act -of 1970. Suggested conditions for approval were outlined by Secretary Godfrey. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Dave Rose, property manager speaking for the owner, addressed the Board. He stated that Pet Prevent -A -Care, Inc. is a private company which was established in 1976. They provide low-cost service clinics operated from mobile units set up in the parking areas of shopping centers, parks, schools and other locations that are handy and convenient for the public. Service is swift, professional and always friendly." He said they have one licensed veterinarian at every clinic and the technicians who administer the vaccinations have all passed an intensive training program. He said they begin each clinic at least one-half hour before their announced starting time to insure that no lines or crowds accumulate. Their advertisements specify that dogs have to be on leashes and cats in carriers or boxes; the animals are never out of control. Starting early eliminates a traffic problem. The public hearing was closed. -10- BZA 1/18/84 Minutes: H.B. Board January 18, 1984 Page Eleven of Zoning Adjustments ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, USE PERMIT NO. 84-3 WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED AS FOLLOWS, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual plot plan received January 6, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur, and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. 3. A certificate of insurance form shall be filed in the Administrative Services Department, in an amount deemed necessary by the Public Liability Claims.Coordinator, along with a Hold Harmless Agreement executed by insured, at least five (5) days prior to the event. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-50 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-82 Applicant: Mr. Ron Sher To permit the renovation of exterior facades of existing buildings, the addition of 33,080 sq. ft. of new retail space, upgrading of parking and landscaping and joint use of parking spaces. Subject property is located at 18500 - 18700 Main Street. Staff informed the Board Members that Mr. Sher came into the office and requested a two week continuance to allow him' time to have prepared a new site plan addressing concerns of the Board Members as depicted at the meeting held on Monday, January 16, 1984. Additionally, a conditional exception application will be heard in conjunction with the subject Administrative Review. ON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY EVANS, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-50 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-82 WERE CONTINUED TWO WEEKS, TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Poe NOES: None ABSTAIN: None There being no further business the meeting was adjourned to the study s sion on nuar 2 , 1984. Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments -11- BZA 1/18/84