Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-12MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1984 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent, Cranmer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Pierce MINUTES: UPON MOTION OF VINCENT AND SECOND BY SMITH, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 1984, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Godfrey, Vincent, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Evans REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-70 Applicant: Frank J. Hill Glen Godfrey explained there had been a request by the Attorney representing Lot 7 for a short postponement of Conditional Exception No. 84-70 because a member of their firm had been detained. The Board members agreed to the postponement until later in the meeting. USE PERMIT NO. 84-9 AND USE PERMIT 82-48 Southwest Wholesale Nursery and Supplies: A request to permit a one (1) year extension of time on the re-establishment of a wholesale nursery, each request to expire concurrently. Subject property is located at 21251 Bushard Street (West side of Bushard Street North of Hamilton Avenue). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 81-36. Ms. Pierce reported this wholesale nursery and supply business is located in the residential/agricultural zone and Use Permits have to be granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments for one (1) year periods. Applicants may reapply for a maximum of four (4) extensions and this applicant has requested that both of his applications be granted concurrently so they will expire at the same time. Based on this, Ms. Pierce stated, Staff had not scheduled a Public Hearing and would recommend a one (1) year extension. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 12, 1984 Page 2 Messrs. Smith and Evans said the Public Works Department had received complaints from neighbors in the area and they both felt the request should be readvertised as a Public Hearing. Glen Godfrey noted this continuance would not affect the operation of the nursery business because the applicant had the request into the Board on time. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, USE PERMIT NO. 84-9 AND USE PERMIT NO. 82-48 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 1985, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISEMENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent, Evans NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-70 Applicant: Frank J. Hill A request to permit a portion of the main building (108 Square Feet) to encroach five feet (51) into the five foot (51) side yard setback (01) and to encroach five feet (51) into five foot (51) setback from the twenty-five (251) view corridor of an irregularly configured site encumbered with view corridor restrictions. Subject property is located at 17191 Marina View Place (West side of street approximately 200 feet South of Warner Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Susan Pierce stated this application had been continued for a variety of reasons - one being that the Conditions of Approval which were imposed on Tentative Tract 7743 contained a requirement for a 5-foot setback from the view corridor. Zoning Code Section 99601.2(c) also contains a requirement for a 5-foot setback for dedication of sewers, storm drains or landscaping easements. Ms. Pierce read an excerpt from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 2, 1976, stating that any structure on Lot 8 should be set back a minimum of 5-feet from the easement line and that this condition appear in the CC&R's for the property. Staff reported that the house proposed for Lot 8 would have an encroachment into the 5-foot setback line, and, if this application were to be approved, Staff would make a recommendation that no architectural -2- 12/12/84 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 12, 1984 Page 3 features or projections be allowed across the property line or easement line and that drainage be to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Development Services Departments. After a general discussion between Board members, Mr. Smith opened the Public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Hill, owners of Lot 8 in Tract 7743, were present but their representative, Alex Hagie, spoke for them. Mr. Hagie stated the Hill's Architect had prepared preliminary plans which had been submitted to the City. The Hills had received tentative approval for the plans with minor detail changes. The purchasers of Lot 2 then presented documents to the City which showed a 20-foot setback from the street instead of the 15-foot setback shown on the Hill's plans. It was eventually determined this was a private agreement between the developer and the neighbors which had not been recorded at the County Recorder's office. George Armstrong, developer of the original tract, had approached the Hill's with the offer of a 5-foot easement at the rear of the property to compensate for the 5-foot loss at the front. However, it was then discovered there was another 5-foot setback easement on the North side adjacent to the 25-foot view corridor easement, and again the Hill's plans had to be changed. Mrs. Hill stated they had received plans with the property which supposedly had been approved by the City and which definitely showed the 50-foot frontage. Mr. Hagie, however, stated the plans did not have the additional 5-foot easement shown since the lot was 80-feet wide. Ms. Pierce explained the intent of the 25-foot view corridor with the 5-foot setback was, in essence, to establish the line as a property line. The Zoning Code allows an open stairway to be within 3 feet of the easement line and the roof overhang within 2-1/2 feet of the property line. Staff is recommending that this be allowed with the building itself back 3-1/2 feet. Daryl Smith clarified for Mr. Hagie the purpose of the additional 5-foot setback from the actual view corridor; i.e., for building maintenance such as painting, window replacement, restuccoing, etc. Sergio Martinez, Plan Checker for the City, mentioned the fact the lot sloped drastically to the rear and nothing could be established in the view corridor over 42 inches or 36 inches in height measured from the curb line. Ms. Pierce verified that the open space view corridor was established to preclude any structure over 36 inches in height measured from the finish grade from the base of the street. -3- 12/12/84 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of zoning Adjustments December 12, 1984 Page 4 Daryl Smith asked to hear from George Armstrong, developer of the tract. According to Mr. Armstrong, the view corridor was originally established at 20 feet which would have made Lot 8 a 60-foot lot. The neighbors, however, insisted on a 25-foot view open space easement which reduced Lot 8 to 55 feet. Mr. Armstrong stated he had signed an agreement with the neighbors, which had been included in the CC&R's, for the 20-foot setback easement on the front of the property, and it had been his understanding this referred to a fence, not a building. Mr. Armstrong also said a house had since been built in the area which was within 15 feet of the street line (17171 Marina View Place - Lot 10). After questioning by Mr. Smith, Glen Godfrey explained that the City had recorded the tract map showing the 25-foot view corridor but the map did not show the additional 5-foot setback easement. This easement was to be incorporated into the CC&R's and was a Condition of Approval of the tract map. Patrick Wood, Attorney with the law firm of Lazof and Swanson, stated he and Felicia Kassel were present to represent Carolyn Young, owner of Lot 7. Ms. Young had purchased Lot 7 in September, 1976, and was assured she would always have the view through the open space easement. This easement had been recorded April 6, 1976; however, in February, 1977, City Council apparently decided to move the open space easement into portions of Lots 3, 4 and 8 of this tract. This was accomplished on March 8, 1977, but Ms. Young was not given notice as required by Government Code Section 65854.5. Mr. Wood stated his client was requesting that no encroachment be allowed in the 5-foot setback easement, that no construction be allowed in the original open space view easement, and that no building permits be issued until the view corridor easement is restored to its original condition as recorded in 1976. Bill Winn, owner of property at 17192 Marina View Place, was representing himself, Mr. and Mrs. Conway, Mr. Halpin, and Mr. Westermeyer. He stated all of these owners were opposed to the encroachment into the 5-foot setback easement. Daryl Smith closed the Public Hearing. LES EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY GODFREY, THAT THE BOARD DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-70 WITH FINDINGS THAT THERE IS NO HARDSHIP FOR GRANTING OF AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THIS 5-FOOT SETBACK AND INTO THE OPEN SPACE VIEW CORRIDOR; AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN ITS ACTION, CONTAINED A DISCUSSION OVER THE 5-FOOT SETBACK AND THESE VIEW CORRIDORS, AND IT SEEMS CLEAR THIS WAS THEIR INTENT. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -4- 12/12/84 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 12, 1984 Page 5 AYES: Evans, Smith, Vincent, Godfrey NOES: Cranmer ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1203 Applicant: Larry Christensen/Alpine Consultants, Inc. A request to create a five (5) parcel medical/office/hospital complex at 17772 - 17782 Beach Boulevard (Southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 15, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Ms. Pierce said the tentative parcel map is required to establish the legal lot lines and this map has been reviewed by Staff, as well as the Legal Department. Staff would defer questions on this application to the City Engineer. Larry Christensen, the applicant, was present and agreed to the conditions as presented. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1203 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision of five (5) parcels for purposes of commercial use is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for community business district allowing commercial buildings was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards plans and -5- 12/12/84 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 12, 1984 Page 6 specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map received by the Department of Development Services on November 14, 1984, shall be the approved layout (with the amendments as noted thereon). 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue shall be dedicated to City standards. 4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcels are developed. 5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system at the time said parcels are developed. 6. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcels are developed. 7. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances. 8. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district at the time said parcels are developed. (Contact the Department of Public Works for additional information). 9. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. 10. Vehicular rights to Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments or Planning Commission. AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Cranmer, Evans NOES: None ABSTAIN: Vincent ABSENT: None -6- 12/12/84 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 12, 1984 Page 7 MISCELLANEOUS AGENDA ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-70 Applicant: Andrew J. Blaser A request for one (1) year extension on property located on East side of Sampson Lane South of Woodwind Drive. This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 78-21. Staff stated this was a request to build and industrial building granted on November 2, 1983, and expires in 1984. Jim Palin, Director of Development Services, has granted a one (1) year extension and this action shall be entered into the Board of Zoning Adjustments records. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-70 WAS EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Smith, Cranmer, Godfrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: Vincent ABSENT: None There was no further business to be discussed so the meeting was adjourned to the pre -review meeting of December 17, 1984, at 10:00 A.M. Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (1762d) I -7- 12/12/84 - BZA