Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-14I. MINUTES 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1984 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Vincent STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Pierce MINUTES: ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15; 1984 WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Godfrey, Smith, Evans None Vincent TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-565 (Con't. from 3/7/84) Applicant: Auerswald & Sons To permit consolidation of two (2) parcels into one (1) parcel. Subject property is located at 623 - 14th Street. Staff stated that as there was no one present at the last board meeting to respond to concerns of the Board a one -week continuance was deemed necessary. David Auerswald, representing the property owner, was present. He stated that dedication for alley widening has been presented to Public Works. The applicant was informed that as he is proposing an addition to his garage, located in the Townlot Specific Area, with rear yard setback after dedication legally non -conforming, that prior to pulling building permits for the proposed addition,approval of a Use Permit application will be necessary. Minutes: March 14, Page Two H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments 1984 The plat map was reviewed by the for dedication satisfied and all felt the plat map, as submitted, of the State Subdivision Map Act provided by Ordinance 2622 of the Board Members. With the requirement improvements necessary installed, it is is exempt from the parcel map requirement: and conforms to the waiver requirements Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-565(W) W.'1S.GRANTED WITH FINDING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOLLOW- ING, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: FINDING FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed consolidation complies with the requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood and water drainage control, appropriate and approved public roads, sewer and water facilities, environmental protection, and other requirements of Article 992 of the Subdivision section of the Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The parcel map received by the Department of Development Services on February 16, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at -the time said parcel -is developed. 3. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system at the time said parcel is developed. 4. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances.. 5. The applicant shall file, through the .Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office, a certificate of compliance in conjunction with the approved plat map. A copy of the recorded certificate of compliance and plat map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits on the subject property. AYES: - Godfrey, Smith, Evans, Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None_ ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW No. 84-2 (Con't. from 2/29/84) Applicant: Mr. David Meier To permit a 12,467 sq. ft. Industrial Building in a M1-A Zone. Subject property is located at 5266 System Drive (southwest corner of System Drive and Chemical Lane). Chairman Smith introduced the applicant's request and stated that this proposal is covered by Negative Declaration No. 79-35. 1 -2- BZA 3/14/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 14, 1984 Page Three Staff stated that the reason for continuance was to allow the applicant an opportunity to re-evaluate landscaping for the site as the original plan submitted was incorrectly calculated. Staff has determined that the revised plan meets landscaping, parking and all necessary criteria required by the Zoning Ordinance. Conditions for approval were discussed with Mrs. Meier who questioned whether or not a fire sprinkler system was necessary for a 12,000 sq. ft. building which they are actually proposing. She was informed that as they are intending to relocate the on -site fire hydrant there is a possibility that the building will not have to be fire sprinklered but that this decision would have to be determined after review of their plan by the Fire Department. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-2 WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED AS FOLLOWS, SUCCEEDED BY VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated March 6, 1984 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. Landscaping shall comply with S.9792 et seq. of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two (2) inches. 6. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven (27) feet in width and shall be of radius type construction. 7. There shall be no outside storage. 8. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 9. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. -3- ,BZA 3/14/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 14, 1984 Page Four 10. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting -shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 11. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommend- ations, retaining walls, streets,' -and -utilities. 12. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall' -be installed as approved by the Building Division. 13. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified _by the Fire Department: 14. An automatic fire sprinkler' -system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. AYES: Godfrey, Evans, Smith; -Vincent NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-11 Applicant: Falzon Construction; Inc. To permit an addition to encroach five (5) ft. into the required fifteen (15) ft. front yard setback. Chairman -Smith introduced the applicant's request and stated that per Section 15105, of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; -this-:proposal is a Class. � 5-;- categorically exempt. Conditional Exception No. 84-11 is a request to construct a two-story structure for. -additional living area over the garage. -The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code allows side entry garages only to be located at a ten (10) foot front yard setback with a maximum height of fifteen (15) -feet -When a portion of'the dwelling is proposed over a garage, the habitable -area, per Code, must maintain a fifteen '(15) foot setback with an increase in height allowed to extend to thirty (30) feet. The applicant, prior to today's hearing, received a waiver of coastal permit requirement from the 'Coastal Commission on a site plan showing a fifteen (15)--foot front yard setback. Mr. Falzon was informed that should approval be granted by the Board for the eight (8) ft. encroach- ment, he would have to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission for the encroachment. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Smith. Mr. Falzon introduced himself to the Board. He stated he had discusse the possibility of the requested encroachment with the Coastal Commission -4- BZA 3/14/84 I - Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 14, 1984 Page Five and was told it would not be a problem as it was on the street side, although,they do want to see a set of drawings showing the encroachment. Mr. Falzon cited other homes in the area with similar encroachments on Venture and Typhon Street. He felt that to build over the entire garage is the most structurally sound, aesthetically pleasing, and economically feasible alternative. There being no one else present wishing to speak in favor or opposition of the applicant's request, the public hearing was closed. Concerns of the Board were discussed e.g. no intregrated flow into the main dwelling, possibility of a rental, no exception or extra- ordinary circumstances applicable to the property, impact, hall -way access, aesthetics of overhang, etc. A MOTION WAS MADE BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY SMITH TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST - DEADLOCK VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Vincent, Smith NOES: Godfrey, Evans ABSTAIN: None As the two members were unable to accept the applicant's justification of hardship, the Board referred Conditional Exception No. 84-11 to the Planning Commission for hearing by the following vote: AYES: Vincent, Smith, Godfrey, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-12 In Conjunction with ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-75 Applicant: Chevron U.S.A. C.E. Request - To permit a kiosk to encroach twenty-three (23) ft. into fifty (50) ft. setback. A.R. Request - 1) To permit the addition of a 6 ft. x 12 ft. security paybooth, 2) Relocation of existing canopy and pump island. Site location is 6972 Warner Avenue (south side of street). Following introduction of both applications, Chairman Smith stated that the Conditional Exception is a Class. 5 and the Administrative Review is a Class. 3, both categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. -5- BZA 3/14/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 14, 1984 Page Six Staff stated that the applicant's request to install a security paybooth and relocate existing canopys and pump island will provide the same use -which has been in existence for many years. The conditional -exception, if -granted, would place the"paybooth at twenty-seven-_(27) ft. from Warner_ Avenue encroaching twenty-three (23) ft.'into the required fifty (50) ft. setback. Staff feels no hardship -is evident; although, taken into consideration is the fact that itsa continuation cif an existing use. Additionally, staff has concern with the paybooth having only one side entry/exit preventing the cashier from escaping should a problem -arise with a vehicle parked.adjacent to_the structure at the pump island. It was stated that the pump island -and canopy do satisfy -Code requirement. The public hearing was opened'by Chairman Smith. Mr. Tom -Baumgartner, Property_Management"Specialist-for Chevron U.S.A., addressed the -Board. He said 'that the addition of a seventy-two (72) sq. ft. cashier's paybooth, in their opinion, does not constitute a building.- He felt the minor modification to the pumpblock would provide for a full security cashier's booth and improve traffic flow for the self-service gasoline island. It - would also enable their dealer to meet the competitive marketing practices felt mandatory by this proposal. Additionally, the public will be better served by the layout change with employee safety enhanced." With regard to the location of the paybooth, Mr. Baumgartner explained that, at night, people do not like,to walk an additional distance to pay the cashier and that within the kiosk a restroom is proposed at the rear preventing -installation of a rear -door. He felt that relocation of the paybooth within the main structure would not.provide adequate securityy'or_observation to the" pump operation. The public hearing was closed The Board Members. -after considerable discussion, -'felt that if the paybooth were located within the main structure, the present and future needs -for the site would be provided. Additionally, the Board Members felt that the reasons, as expressed by the applicant, did not justify hardship. Conditions for approval of Administrative'Review No. 83-75, with the elimination of the 6 ft. x 12 ft. security paybooth, were discussed. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-12 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS AND VOTE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - C.E. NO. 84-12 1. Applicant unable to demonstrate hardship. 2. The kiosk can be relocated as to accommodate all of the applicant's present and future needs within the main structure which would -6- BZA 3/14/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 14, 1984 Page Seven provide the.security and observation of the pump operation. 3. As the subject property can be re-established meeting Code required setback, such a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Vincent NOES: Smith ABSTAIN: None The appeal process was explained to the applicant. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - A.R. NO. 83-75 AS MOTIONED BY EVANS AND SECONDED BY GODFREY: Request No. 1 - DENIED (To permit the addition of a 6 ft. x 12 ft. security paybooth). Request No. 2 - APPROVED (To permit relocation of existing canopy and pump island). 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Deletion of proposed security paybooth. b. Required parking spaces. 2. Landscaping shall comply with S.9482.1.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance- Code. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The major identification sign shall be removed or altered to comply with Article 948 within ninety (90) days. 5..All signs shall comply with Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 6. The relocated structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing strucutres. 7. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Vincent NOES: Smith ABSTAIN: None -7- BZA 3/14/84 Minutes: H.B. Board of Zoning Adjustments March 14, 1984 Page Eight - - USE PERMIT NO. 84-15 , In conjunction with - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 84-9 Applicant: J. J. Byron U.P-.,Request - To permit two (2) streets. A.R. Request-- To permit a 12,390 Ml-A Zoning District. loading facilities facing public sq. ft. Industrial Building in an Chairman -Smith introduced both applications stating that the Use Permit is a Class. 5 and the Administrative Review is a Class. 3, both categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. The Board -Members were informed -that staff is recommending denial of Use Permit No. 84-15. The Code, upon granting of a Use Permit application, allows a loading facility to face a public street providing that --the loading facility is setback a minimum of forty- five (45) feet from the public right-of-way in lieu of fifteen (15) ft. as shown. Further, that the loading facility shall not exceed a maximum width -of twenty (20) ft. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Smith. Mr. Byron was present to speak in behalf of- his,project. Revision -suggestions were discussed with the applicant._ Mr. Byron asked for a one -week continuance -for both applicationsf _ elt to be sufficient time to have his plan revised. ON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, USE PERMIT NO. 84-15 AND ADMINISTRATIVE.REVIEW VO. 84-9 WERE CONTINUED FOR ONE -WEED, TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 21, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:-- Godfrey, Smith, Vincent, Evans NOES:-- - None ABSTAIN:- None THERE -BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS,:THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO THE STUDY SESSION ON MARCH 19, 1984_ AT 10:00 A.M. Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments 1 -8- BZA 3/14/84