Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-08APPROVED January 22, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, - Civic Center California TUESDAY, January 8, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, irja anger COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None Chairman Porter welcomed the new Commissioner, Richard Rowe, who is replacing Commissioner Frank Higgins. He also read Resolution 1339 expressing appreciation to Frank Higgins for his outstanding performance. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD RESOLUTION 1339 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Secretary Palin accepted nominations for Chairman and Vice Chairman: A nomination for Chairman was made by Mirjahangir and seconded by Schumacher for Tom Livengood: A nomination for Vice Chairman was made by Winchell and seconded by Mirjahangir for Jean Schumacher. The nominations were closed. Commissioner Livengood was unanimously elected to office of Chairman, and Commissioner Schumacher was unanimously elected to office of Vice Chairman. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 130 1984, NOVEMBER 27, 1984, DECEMBER 4, 1984, DECEMBER 18, 1984, AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11560 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-27, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Rowe abstain all itemss - Winchell abstain Item A-1 - Erskine abstain Item A-3 B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84=70, APPEAL Applicant: Frank J.'Hill Conditional Exception No. 84-70 is a request to permit a portion of a single family residence to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 feet side yard setback from a 25 feet wide view corridor easement and another portion to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 feet sideyard setback. The request was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The applicant appealed to the Planning Commission. Scott Hess of the Planning Staff, stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a two -level single family residence with a three car garage. The north side of the single family residence will encroach five feet (5 feet) into the required five foot (5 feet) setback from the twenty-five foot (25 feet) wide view corridor easement. A portion (108 square feet) of the residence will encroach five feet (5 feet) into the required five foot (5 feet) side yard setback of this irregularly shaped lot encumbered with view corridor restrictions. The applicant's objective and justification for the conditional exception is the property is (lot number 5, Tract 7743) leaving only 30% of the lot buildable. The variance will allow a larger single level living unit which is more desirable by the applicants since they are an older couple who do not wish to contend with interior stairways. The grade difference from front to rear of the lot is 14 feet. Conditional Exception No. 84-70, was reviewed and denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on December 12, 1984 based on the following findings: 1. The applicant was unable to demonstrate a hardship. 2. The granting of an encroachment into this five foot (5') setback and into the open space (view) corridor would constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 3. The Planning Commission, in its action of March 2, 1976, contained a discussion concerning this five foot (51) setback and view corridor, and imposed a Condition of Approval requiring this setback. 4. Staff recommended upholding the Board of Zoning Adjustments decision based on the findings contained within the report. Commissioner Porter asked staff to indicate the setback of the structure on adjacent lot no. 9 as it relates to the view corridor. Mr. Hess stated it was set back 5 feet from the south property line of lot number 9. Commissioner Porter questioned if that was the same requirement imposed on the property as imposed on the lot to the south. Mr. Hess stated that it was also incorporated into a standard 5 foot setback from any side property line and whether the easement was there or not it would still require a 5 foot setback. The view corridor easement is actually on lot no. 81" which is 80 feet in width. u I (1658d) -2- January 8, 1985 Commissioner Mirjahanger questioned if there was a conditional use permit attached to the tentative tract map at the time of mutual processing. Mr. Hess stated that there was not. Commissioner Porter asked if the 5 foot setback from the view corridor was also part of the recordation: Mr. Hess stated it was a condition of the tentative tract but was not indicated on the map nor recorded in any documents as far as staff could determine. Commissioner Porter stated that the condition was imposed because the approval of the tentative map included that requirement: Mr: Hess stated that this was one of the reasons, and the other reason was that the zoning code stipulates a 5 foot setback from any easements. Commissioner Porter stated that there was a letter from the City Attorney that indicated that unless such setback conditiona had been appealed within appropriate amount of time then it stood as stated in the approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Rita Hill, applicant, stated that in March of 1984 she and her husband contemplated buying this lot; She stated that before doing so, they went to the building department of Huntington Beach and were informed preliminarily that there were restrictions imposed upon this lot which included a 15 foot front yard setback; a view corridor easement of 25 feet and a 5 foot sideyard setback on the other side of the lot; allowing a frontage of 50 feet upon which to build a house. She said on July 5, the plans for the property were approved, with corrections. She said they were later informed of a private covenant of a 20 foot setback requirement - an agreement between this property and adjacent properties. Floyd G. Belsito, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Hill, stated that he had in his possession the Policy of Title Insurance which does make reference to the 25 foot view corridor easement but does not make reference at all to the condition of approval no. 18 regarding the 5 foot setback. He stated his concern for the rational behind this 5 foot setback. He inquired at the City Attorneys office if there was an ordinance or code provision that mandated a 5 foot setback from the view corridor easement and was advised by a memorandum that they see no rational basis for the code revision that is referred to S. 9960.2 (c). The City Attorney, in their memorandum, stated that the view corridor easement was not necessarily inclusive of this particular section of the code and therefore, without it being explicitly pointed out as being included was not included; however, they did raise the other issue which was the Statute of Limitations had run out. The only one who could have objected would have been the owner of the property at the time this particular condition was imposed. Mr. Belsito said the only alternative for his client would be to seek regress through the variance procedure which is why they appealed. Now that the Statute of Limitations has run, the real issue is if the 5 foot setback requirement for the view corridor easement is valid and reasonable or is the taking an additional 5 feet from his clients property without just compensation. Mr. Belsito pleaded for the Planning Commission to look at the intent of what his clients are attempting to accomplish. They acquired the property knowing there was an (1658d) -3- January 8, 1985 incumberance on it for a view easement of 25 feet: They had their structure designed, after they had contacted the City and were assured that the site plans they had purchased along with the property had been layed out to accommodate a 15 foot setback: They under the impression they could build right up to the 25 foot view easement but without any architectural features encroaching into that 25 foot view easement. They went ahead and had their detailed plans drawn: Later they found out that there was a 20 foot setback by private agreement. Mr. Belsito asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the fact that his client has every intention of doing everything that is required by the City but they have really encountered considerable expenses twice based upon information given to them at the time of preliminary plan check which turned out not to be complete: They are anxious to get moving ahead with what would be a very important asset to the area. Commissioner Porter questioned Mr. Belsito; asking had he at any time discussed this subject with Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Belsito stated that he had met with him while in Development Services listening to the Planning Commission tape. Mr. Belsito stated that -he suggested to Mr. Armstrong that he attend the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to explain to them what had transpired and what he represented to the Planning Commission at the time the view easements were entered into. Mr. Belsito also stated that in the Planning Commission meeting, it was clearly indicated that there was to be a 5 foot setback from the view corridor easement. Felicia S. Kassel, Attorney representing Carolyn Young who is owner of lot no. 7, spoke in support for denial of Conditional Exception 84-70. She stated that the Title Report would have shown and does show that the easement was recorded. She stated that her client purchased her house, then submitted her bids and in building her home she made certain adjustments so she could have a view that would show out of the northern east,corner: She stated that the applicant's variance request will set the home all the way up to the property line ligating the 5 foot easement that is there. She stated that her client thought she had a 20 foot easement whereas there is only a 5 foot easement and if this is taken it will restrict the view. Robert Conway, 17172 Marina View, stated that he was not trying to infringe on Mr. and Mrs. Hill's rights, but felt that people should live up to their agreements. Robert Conway stated that the neighborhood people paid $15,000 for the height limitations and the view corridor easements. He felt that if there was a view easement there which the developer, neighbors, and the City agreed to in good faith that it should be kept that way. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Erskine stated that'it is clear that the condition was imposed for a specific reason. He stated that he felt they had heard enough testimony to uphold BZA's denial of this conditional exception and made a motion for approval of the suggested conditions by staff which was seconded by Porter. (1658d) -4- January 8, 1985 Commissioner Porter also felt that the Commission should uphold the BZA denial: He commented that it would be an act in bad faith to that agreement which all three parties were signatory to at the time. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was in agreement with Commissioner Porter as far as the 5 foot setback on the one section that is adjacent to Carolyn Young's property simply because it is a property line but she felt that on the other side if it was actually a 35 foot view corridor that that Commission wanted or the deal was cut on why didn't they say it was a 35 foot view corridor: Commissioner Winchell stated that she wanted to support Commissioner Erskine and Commissioner Porter. She stated that to discuss easements many years later was irrelevant.. The intent, the clarity of setting this forth is in our conditions and it is on Tentative Tract 7743 and she stated that she would be supporting the motion. Commissioner Erskine wanted to clarify the action by the Commission to be based upon the findings for denial: Commission discussed the revision of findings and added a new finding no. 6. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-70 WITH FINDINGS OF DENIAL -BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS'FOR DENIAL: 1. Because of the size, configuration and shape of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land which do not apply generally to property in the same district. Tract No. 7743 was approved in 1976 creating the subject property in its current unique size, configuration and shape in order to accommodate development similar in size to that permitted on surrounding properties: 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification because the lot is approximately 11,200 square feet in size and the buildable area excluding setbacks is 3,250 square feet. 3. Since the subject property can be fully developed within established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 4. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-70 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 5: The granting of Condition Exception No. 84-70 would be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. (1658d) -5- January 8, 1985 6. The Planning Commission, in its action of March 2, 1976, imposed a condition of approval requiring that all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the 25 foot view corridor easement which is located on Lot No. 8. The height measurement of such structures shall be from the finished grade of Marina View Drive. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-9 Applicant: Texaco Incorporation Special Sign Permit No. 84-9 is a request to permit three 2.5' X 15' (37.5 square feet) "Texaco" signs with a 2'9" diameter (8.6 square feet) star logo on three sides of a canopy. In addition, the applicant is proposing a 5' X 10' (50 square foot), 5' high monument sign to be placed at the corner of Edinger and Goldenwest. Commissioner Porter commented that on the east elevation there is a picture and a sign showing an existing pole sign to remain. He asked if staff's condition was basically saying there won't be any signs other than the ones specifically approved. Mike Adams stated that that was correct. Commissioner Rowe stated that he passes this corner everyday on his way to work and feels the will the proposal make corner more attractive. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mark Murphy, agent for Texaco Company for sign modifications, stated that staff proposed basically what Texaco wanted. He pointed out past signs they had done for Texaco. He questioned the Zody sign that stands on the corner of the Texaco property as to who would be responsible for removing it. Mike Adams stated that Zodys have submitted a special sign request to the City and they will not be taking advantage of the existing pole they will be locating the sign in a different location with a different design. The financing of taking the existing sign down can be worked out between the Texaco applicant and the Home Depot, but the condition states that prior to Texaco getting building permits, the Zody sign must come down. Chairman Livengood asked if this condition also stood for the Home Depo. Mike Adams stated yes. (1658d) -6- January 8, 1985 THE PUBLIC"HEARING'WAS CLOSED Chairman Livengood stated that he felt condition number five seemed a restrictive requirement for an applicant who has nothing to do with the sign. He felt it was not clearly stated as to who would foot the bill to bring the Zody's sign down: Mike Adams stated that the sign was on the property which Texaco has control over and that is the reason this condition is with this application. Commissioner Porter asked if condition number 7 intended to include all of these types of signs: He stated he did not want any misunderstanding to exist as to what signs are approved: He suggested stating that no other signs other than those contained in this -approval shall be permitted: Mike Adams stated that we could apply that wording to condition number 7. A MOTION WAS MADE BY' ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-9 WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Article 976, which does not allow roof signing, will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant due to the lact of building facade with sufficient street exposure for sign display. 2. The proposed three canopy and one monument signs will not adversely affect other signs in the area: There will be an overall reduction of total sign area. 3. The proposed canopy signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such signs and will be compatible with the surrounding area. 4. The proposed canopy and monument signs as modified will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular vision. Vision will be improved because the three signs at the corner will be replaced by one. The monument sign will be setback at a distance so as not to obstruct street intersection visibility. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site and elevations dated December 3, 1984 shall be revised resubmitted depicting the following modifications: a. Dimension the site plan and elevations. b. Setback the proposed monument sign so as not to impede street intersection visibility as required by Section 9775.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. c. Add a minimum 18" base (maximum sign height is V) and frame to monument sign that is architectural compatible with the station subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. (1658d) -7- January 8, 1985 2. The canopy signs shall be no greater than 2'6" X 15' in size and the logo shall be no greater than 2'9" in diameter. Copy on the canopy sign shall be limited to "Texaco" storage. 3. All signs shall be removed from the existing building and no new signs shall be permitted. 4. No signs shall be allowed on the kiosk or above the pump islands other than operation instructions or similar type signs. 5. The Zody's pole sign shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. The existing price signs shall be removed. The only price signs approved shall be as depicted in the approved plans dated December 3, 1984. 7. All portable type signs shall be strictly prohibited. Only those signs contained in this approval shall be allowed on site. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 84-34 Applicant: Donald Johann Bruyn Conditional Use Permit No. 84-34 is a request to establish an 800 square foot sandwich shop (Bangers) in an existing industrial building located at 18101 Redondo Circle, Unit T.- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-34 BASED ON THE SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a sandwich shop in an industrial district will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or to the property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional 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. (1658d) -8- January 8, 1985 4. The granting of a conditional use permit is consistent with the development standards contained in Article 951 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS• 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated November 11, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. The signing for the business shall be limited to one attached identification sign located on the restaurant suite itself and is subject to a separate approval. 4. The use approved by this permit shall be limited to 800 square feet; any expansion shall be subject to approval of an additional conditional use permit. 5. The addition,of more than three tables for sit-down dining shall be subject to approval of a new entitlement by Planning Commission. 6. Any operation of a catering business from the restaurant shall be limited to two employees and a maximum of one truck or van. 7. The hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Any expansion in the number of hours the restaurant remains open for business shall be subject to the approval of a new entitlement by the Planning Commission. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None PENDING ITEM LIST The list of pending items were reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Livengood requested that the 1984 numbers be used on all past items. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Porter requested a Cable Systems update and, if available, a map showing the completed cable systems. He also requested a letter be sent to Mola Devlopment with regard to their conditio_n__on providing a central antenna for the residential complex. Chairman Livengood commented on a newspaper article regarding Humana Hospital expansion. Commissioner Winchell stated that they were not receiving City Council Meeting Agendas. She also requested that the Commission receive copies of any correspondence on pending list items. (1658d) -9- January 81 1985 Commissioner Schumacher requested a report from the Attorney's Office on clean up of estate area adjacent Goldenwest Street. Commissioner Erskine requested that a letter be sent to Cable systems in regard to the situation of rusting cable boxes in the harbiour-)..:: He also requested an update on the Alley adjacent to Heil. Commissioner Livengood had five items of suggestion for 1985 which are listed below: 1. More time to planning and review, for example: The City's notification to property owners of pending projects, review of projects that have been approved and completed, assist Commissioners in making decisions on future projects and possible recommended ordinance changes. 2. Improve communications with City Council on actions taken by the Planning Commission. 3. Complete items on pending list and encourage Commissioners to continue to add new items that need to be corrected and assist in seeing that ordinances are enforced. 4. Encourage Commissioners to actively support assigned standing committees. 5. Commissioners continue their excellent attendance of meetings. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken by the City Council at its most recent meeting for the information -of -the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:04 P.M. to the next regular meeting of January 22, 1985. Tom L v n ood, ha' man 1 (1658d) -10- January 8, 1985