Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-06MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1985 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Pierce MINUTES: Upon Motion by Godfrey and Second by Cranmer, Minutes of the Meeting of December 19, 1984, were Approved as Transcribed Crosby and Vincent Abstained AGENDA ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: Conditional Exception No. 84-74 and Use Permit No. 84-85 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-74 (USE PERMIT 84-85) (Cont. from 1/30) Applicant: Diversified Shopping Centers Ms. Pierce reported that the applicant had requested a continuance to the meeting of February 20, 1985. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY VINCENT, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-74 AND USE PERMIT NO. 84-85 WERE CONTINUED TO MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-1 Applicant: Tarek Samee A request for a reduction in driveway width from ten feet (101) to nine feet (91) for a triplex development in an R-2 Zone. Subject property is located at 8092 La Palma Avenue (South side of La Palma Avenue approximately eighty feet (801) East of Patterson Lane), This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 2 Susan Pierce reported this application was continued to allow the applicant and/or his representative to meet with the property owner to the East to work out a reciprocal driveway arrangement. That agreement has not been reached and Staff would recommend denial of this project since the drive would have to remain at a nine foot (91) width. Daryl Smith mentioned that landscaping could be established that would shorten the drive length to keep it under the one hundred foot (1001) length, and Jim Vincent broached the idea of omitting the eave overhang to allow motor homes, etc., access through the area. The Public Hearing was opened and Rob Patterson was in attendance to represent the applicant, Tarek Samee. Mr. Patterson verified the fact he had babn unsuccessful in obtaining the reciprocal drive- way agreement but stated the applicant would like to remove his fence and pave to the property line. This would only leave them one foot (11) short of the required ten feet (101).and requested the Board grant this variance. There was no one else present to speak for or against the request so the Public Hearing was closed. GODFREY MOVED FOR DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS BY STAFF FOR DENIAL BUT THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY VINCENT THAT CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-1 BE APPROVED WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS PRESENTED BY STAFF AS AN ALTERNATE WITH THE INCLUSION OF NO EAVE OVERHANG ALONG THE NINE FOOT (9') WIDE DRIVEWAY# THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. 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. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-1 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. -2- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, h. B. board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1115 Page 3 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not aaversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Deletion of parking space perpendicular to rear property line and replaced with landscaping. b. Fifty percent (50%) of new front garage wall attached to existing structure. c. Maximum one hundred foot (1001) driveway length. d. Trash location. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained. 3. All structures shall be architecturally compatible. 4. No eave overhang on existing structure along nine foot (91) wide driveway. AYES: Smith, Vincent, Cranmer NOES: Godfrey ABSTAIN: Crosby USE PERMIT NO. 83-64 Applicant: Robert Kerr/Mordigan Trees A request to permit a one (1) year extension for wholesale nursery at 20000 Brookhurst Street (East side of Brookhurst Street near intersection of Banning Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. This is an application for a wholesale nursery operation in an Agricultural/Residential Zone for a one (1) year period of time with the possibility of four (4) annual extensions, stated Ms. Pierce. The extension, if granted, would expire on December 7, 1985. Staff has received no complaints concerning this operation and would recommend that all conditions of Use Permit No. 83-64 remain in effect. -3- 2/6/65 - BZA Minutes, h. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 4 Daryl Smith commented that applicants of nurseries should be clearly informed that these approvals are for periods of one (1) year only and have to be renewed annually. The Public Hearing was opened by Mr. Smith and the applicant, Robert Kerr, was present. Mr. Kerr said'he understood the conditions and that the extension was being granted for one (1) year only. There was no one else present to speak for or against the request so the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY GODFREY, USE PERMIT 83-64 WAS GRANTED A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY ThE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All Conditions of Approval shall continue to apply. 2. Use Permit No. 83-64 is granted a one (1) year extension which expires December 7, 1985. The applicant is advised that additional extensions may be granted for one (1) year periods not to exceed a maximum of four (4) extensions. Such extensions are to be requested in writing, accompanied by the established fee, and submitted thirty (30) days prior to expiration of this permit. AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 85-3 Applicant: Hartge Engineering A request to permit a temporary parking lot at 5522 Buckingham Drive (South side of Buckingham Drive approximately 150 feet East of Graham Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Ms. Pierce reported it was her understanding an adjacent property owner also owned this lot and intends to use it as a temporary parking lot. Staff would stress that this lot be used only as an employee and/or customer parking lot and no outdoor storage would be -4- 2/6/85 - BZA J Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 5 allowed. Staff would recommend that these two (2) lots be consolidated into one (1) parcel with reciprocal ingress and egress fully dedicated. Mr. Smith opened the Public Hearing and John Mandrell was present to speak for the applicant, Hartge Engineering. Mr. Mandrell stated there was some parking on the lot at present but they wanted to pave to prevent dust. He agreed to the conditions presented and said the same owner did own all three lots, including Lot 21. There was no one else present to speak so the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION BY CROSBY AND SECOND BY CRANMER, USE PERMIT NO. 85-3 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated January 10, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. Parking lot surface paving shall be subject to satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 3. The parking lot shall be utilized only as employee and/or customer parking. At no time shall it be used for any type of outdoor storage. 4. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None -5- 2/6/65 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 6 USE PERMIT NO. 85-6 Applicant; Joe Gougis A request to permit 6,696 Square Foot industrial building within 150 feet of residential at 18252 Enterprise Lane (East side of Enterprise Lane approximately 100 feet South of Lindborg Drive). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 75-83. Staff reportea the applicant had applied in 1984 for a similar building. However, since that time the Code has changed concerning industrial property within 150 feet of residential. His plan has been reviewed and one thing now required is a copy of the recorded document for reciprocal ingress and egress, as well as parking, and a copy of the recorded parcel map. The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant, Joe Gougis, was present. Mr. Smith asked if there was an existing block wall on the property and Mr. Gougis stated he would have to build a retaining wall. A discussion ensued concerning the necessary type and height of wall, and Mr. Godfrey stressed the importance of a sound barrier type wall. There was no one else present to speak so the Public Hearing was closed. CRANMER MOVED, SECONDED BY VINCENT, FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 85-6 WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS PRESENTED BY STAFF. Glen Godfrey asked if the maker of the motion would entertain an additional condition that there be an added six foot (61) high wall on both the East and South property lines. Mr. Cranmer inquired as to why Mr. Godfrey felt this was necessary, and Mr. Godfrey replied because of the noise factor and disturbances to the residential area. Mr. Cranmer did not concur. GODFREY MOVED FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR ASKING THAT THERE BE AN ADDED SIX FOOT (6') HIGH MASONRY BLOCK WALL ON THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES. AMENDMENT MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: Cranmer ABSTAIN: Crosby -6- 2/6/85 - BZA L Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 7 A general discussion followed and Daryl Smith then called for a vote on the original motion for Conditional Approval of Use Permit No. 85-6 with the Addition of the Amendment, and it passed with the following Findings and Conditions, by the following vote: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the industrial 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 the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with City's General Plan of Land Use. 4. The proposal is in compliance with Article 953 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 21, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a copy of recorded Parcel Map (Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-552) creating subject site. 3. 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. -7- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 8 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 6. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 7. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 8. The areas inside the building designated for loading shall be striped and marked for loading and unloading purposes only. 9. The trash area shall be subject to Fire Department approval. 10. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 11. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 12. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off site facility equipped to handle them. 13. 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. 14. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 15. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement between the subject site and adjacent property. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Development Services prior to final inspection. 16. There shall be an added six foot (61) high masonry block wall on the South and East property lines built above grade. -8- 2/6/85 - BZA 1 Minutes, h. B. Board of zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 9 AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 85-8 Applicant: Jerome M. Bame A request to permit a gym and/or other permitted uses at 224 Main Street (East side of Main Street approximately twenty-five feet (251) South of Olive Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Ms. Pierce stated this is an existing building located in the Downtown Specific Plan area and'it requires a Use Permit since the occupant intends a change in use of the building. Staff would recommend approval of this request based on the conditions that, within six (6) months of local coastal plan certification, the property owner shall submit plans to bring the building into conformance with seismic safety requirements, and the property owner shall dedicate 2-1/2 feet for an alley. Glen Godfrey asked about the parking and Ms. Pierce stated the property owner was granting parking space on another lot he owned in the vicinity. Mr. Smith asked when certification of the coastal plan was anticipated and Glen Godfrey stated it should be next month. The Public hearing was opened by Daryl Smith and Jerome Bame was present. Mr. Bame stated this building had been occupied by a furniture store but the owner now has a new tenant. There will be no problem with the parking since the tenant can utilize the owner's other lot. however, with regard to the dedication of 2-1/2 feet at the rear of the property, we do not feel this should be required since the adjacent property owners have not been required to make this dedication. Bruce Crosby asked if this was required by the present Code and Ms. Pierce read the pertinent portion of the Code. Mr. Bame stated his client was being treated differently than other owners because of the new user. If the dedication of the 2-1/2 feet is made a condition of the approval of Use Permit No. 85-8, stated Mr. Bame, that will give him an opportunity to appeal it. Daryl Smith stated the Board would make sure it was not a condition but still required by Code. The Public hearing was closed since no one else spoke. -9- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 10 Bruce Crosby stated Condition No. 5 should be struck but Jim Vincent said he would be against striking it. No. 5 reads as follows: "Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall dedicate 2-1/2 feet for alley widening purposes." Glen Godfrey reiterated that Mr. Bame would only appeal if the 2-1/2 foot alley dedication was made a part of the Conditions and not just a stipulation of the Code. UPON MOTION BY VINCENT AND SECOND BY CROSBY, USE PERMIT NO. 85-8 WAS APPROVED WITH ThE DELETION OF NO. 5 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a gym or other permitted 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 the 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated January 23, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed gym shall not exceed 2,500 Square Feet of floor area. 3. Within six (6) months of local coastal plan certification, the property owner shall submit plans to bring the building into conformance with seismic safety requirements. 4. No restaurant, aerobic exercise classes, or other similar group exercise/dance classes shall be permitted. -10- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 11 5. Any change of use, addition, or alteration which results in a more intense parking ratio shall be subject to new entitlement. AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-2 Applicant: Tim Forhan A request to permit construction of two (2) story office building of 2,248 Square Feet. Subject property is located on the South side of Main Street approximately 171 feet Northeast of Florida Street. This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Ms. Pierce called to the attention of the applicant the fact that Negative Declaration No. 85-1 had not been required since the project was determined to be covered by a Categorical Exemption, and the applicant should request the return of his filing fee in writing. She further stated she had contacted the applicant concerning parking problems involved. Tim Forhan stated he and Dave Edwards had met but had been unable to resolve the problems. Based on this information, Staff stated denial of the project would be recommended. After a lengthy discussion of the problems involved, the applicant requested a two (2) week continuance to work with Staff members in attempting to resolve the situation. UPON MOTION BY VINCENT AND.SECOND BY CRANMER, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Goafrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 Applicant: Richard A. Hanson A request to revise site plan and reduce total square footage of an industrial structure. Subject property is located on East side of Sampson Lane approximately 160 feet South of Reynolds Circle. -11- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, h. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 12 This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 79-35. Ms. Pierce reported the applicant has revised the site plan which was approved under Administrative Review No. 84-62. That application was approved for a four (4) building configuration but the applicant is now requesting approval for five (5) buildings. This would require an additional five (5) parking spaces and there is an access easement question. Glen Godfrey stated the Director of Development Services had just received a memo from the City Attorney's office regarding the easements but neither the Director nor Board members had read the memo. Mr. Godfrey was asked for an interpretation of the memo for the Board members. He said the gist of the memo was that the configuration and the placement of easements on private property is really a matter between the property owners, as long as the contract entered into meets the City Code requirements, and the Board's main concern is what occurs in the street and the easements of access which have been properly addressed. Daryl Smith stated the Board members had all received a copy of the communication from C. William Carlson, Jr., Mr. Anthony Bartoli's attorney. This letter indicates that Mr. Bartoli has a property interest in Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as a result of easements created for the benefit of Parcel 1 which Mr. Bartoli owns. Mr. Carlson contends that Mr. Bartoli's approval will be required for any modifications to Parcel Map No. 83-581, and Nir. Bartoli will not give his permission for this change. There was an exchange of comments among the members of the Board. Daryl Smith followed this discussion with the statement that he understood Gail Hutton, City Attorney, to be saying that maps which have been going through the City have easements called out on them and once these maps are recorded, the City has no concern if the easements are changed because they are private easements. Glen Godfrey pointed out that these easements were part of the CC&R's, whereupon Ms. Pierce stated the water line easement was a City easement but the sewer was private. The statement was made by Daryl Smith that the Board did not want to get involved in private problems but just wanted to see that the CC&R's are met. The City Attorney's office now tells us that the concerns of the City have been met and we have the right and obligation to approve this project. -12- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 13 Glen Godfrey was asked to read the entire memo and he wanted the memo from Gail Hutton, City Attorney, 1985, entered into the minutes of the meeting. The follows: Mr. Smith stated dated February 6, memo reads as "TO: James W. Palin, Director FROM: Gail Hutton Development Services City Attorney SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 84-594 DATE: 6 February 1985 Modifying Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-581; Condition Re Reciprocal Ingress/Egress Easements The effect of the new map (84-594) wou16 be to permit building over an easement required by Map 83-581. The requirement of Map 83-581 was for a reciprocal ingress and egress easement agreement. This map was apparently recorded, although we have not received a copy. We do have a copy of a recorded declaration and covenant executed pursuant to the map requirement and recorded March 5, 1984. A copy is attached. This document is vague at best. It does provide for access to parcels via common drives as shown on the map and use and maintenance of common utility facilities. The city is not a party to the restrictions. Easements are depicted on the map. This controversy arises because of the objections of an adjoining owner to the obstruction of the easements. The party objecting owns Parcel 1 of Map 83-581. The easement to be obstructed is located on Lots 4, 5 and 6, which are the subject of the new map and lie directly north of Lot 1. The map depicting the easements shows the sewer easement and ingress/egress over Lots 4, 5 and 6. The map contains a notation suggesting that reciprocal easements for ingress/egress for Parcel 1 are over Parcels 2 and 3. Easements for ingress/egress for Lots 4, 5 and 6 are apparently over Lots 1, 2, 3, 41 5 and 6. The applicant interprets this to mean that Lot 1 is not a dominant parcel as to Lots 4, 5 and 6. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Lot 1 has its own street access. The ovenant is sufficiently vague to support that interpretation. Nonetheless, the utility easements benefiting Lot 1 appear to lie on Lots 4, 5 and 6, as do a share of the maintenance obligations. The sewer line is on Lots 4, 5 and 6. The easements for utilities are shown on the map but are not required to be subject to a reciprocal agreement. -13- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, h. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 14 This appears to be a dispute between adjoining landowners. is not a party. The easement required by the city for ingress/egress does not appear to burden Lots 4, 5 and 6 for benefit of Lot 1. Easements in favor of Lots 2 and 3 do not Lots 4, 5 and 6 either. The extent of the rights for Lot 1 to be in the use and maintenance of the sewer easement. We understand that the sewer easement can be built on without precluding its use. The city the burden appear The extent to which this may make maintenance more difficult or costly is a consideration for the adjoining landowners, but not the city. The decision on the current map should be made on planning considerations. While the adjoining landowners may be able to enjoin the development in court, the -city is not precluded from acting on the subdivision map by the private agreements. /s/ Gail Hutton Gail Hutton City Attorney cc: William Carlson, Esquire Attachment" 1 Mr. Godfrey suggested a recess so the Board members could read and discuss the City Attorney's memo and Mr. Smith declared a five minute recess. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order again. He stated this was not a Public Hearing but it appears there are several parties of interest here today. He asked if the applicant was present and Richard Hanson, the applicant, introduced himself. Mr. Hanson stated the actual project had decreased in square footage even though he was asking for a five (5) building configuration rather than the four (4) previously approved. Susan Pierce stated the extra parking spaces would have to be shown on the site plan and the gate would have to.meet Fire Department requirements. Mr. Hanson agreed to make these corrections. The Engineer for the project, John Mandrell, asked if these modifications could be checked after the meeting and Ms. Pierce said they could. -14- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, h. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 15 Daryl Smith asked that Mr. Carlson's letter dated February 5, 1985, be made a matter of record, and it as follows: "February 5, 1985 Board of Zoning Adjustments P.O. Box 190 City of huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: S.B.A. 85-3 Gentlemen: I represent Anthony Bartoli who is the owner of a parcel of real property located on Sampson Lane, City of Huntington Beach. This property is described as Parcel 1, as described in Parcel Map 83-581 recorded in Book 186, Pages 27 and 28 of Parcel Maps, records of Orange County Calitornia. There is presently an application pending before the Board of Zoning Adjustments relative to combining parcels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 61 being the remaining parcels in Parcel Map 83-581. Mr. Bartoli purchased Parcel 1 from Seaboard Construction, Inc., the developer of Parcels 1 through 6. At the time of the purchase, the parcel map reflected certain sewer easements and water easements in place on the various parcels of property, which easements are for the benefit of all parcels in the development along with reciprocal easements for ingress and egress. In addition thereto, a Declaration and Covenant with respect to certain of these easements was recorded on March 5, 1984. A copy of this Declaration is enclosed. It is my understanding that there is being brought before the Board of Zoning Adjustments a proposal to permit the construction of buildings over the sewer easement which is described in the parcel. map, which burdens parcels 4, 5 and 6. In the original parcel map that easement runs in a proposed driveway and parking area. I further understand that the applicant in the present matter before the Board of Zoning Adjustments is proposing to construct buildings over the parking area and drive area in which my client's sewer easement is located. Mr. Bartoli objects to this proposed action. Mr. Bartoli has a property interest in Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as a result of the easements created for the benefit of Parcel 1. Thus his approval to any modification of the Parcel Map would require his consent. This he is not prepared to give. -15- 2/6/85 - BZA Minutes, h. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 16 Additionally, he has certain obligations with respect to the maintenance of these easements. Any attempt to build over either the sewer or water easement could substantially increase the burden of repair of the easements and thus interfere with rights granted to him under the recorded Declaration and recorded Parcel Map. In the event that the City sees fit to approve this matter without my client's concurrence, which he is not now prepared to give, it is his intention to hold all fully responsible for any damages and will pursue any other legal remedy he may have against any responsible parties, including the City of Huntington Beach. CWC/ab Enclosure c: Mr. Robert Sangster Mr. Anthony Bartoli" Very truly yours, /s/ C. William Carlson C. WILLIAM CARLSON, JR. Mr. Smith stated he did not feel comfortable with the project. Based on Mr. Carlson's letter, we could recommend denial; however, our City Attorney's memo gives us another entirely different opinion. James Rodgers, business partner of Richard Hanson, stated that Mr. Carlson's letter was a self-serving legal opinion, and Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Hanson have letters in their file which say the exact opposite. The opinion from your City Attorney is really the one you should weigh. Mr. Smith asked if anyone else wished to speak, and Anthony Bartoli stated it was not his intent to stop these gentlemen from building but just wanted to protect the easement. Mr. Bartoli also stated if the matter was not resolved here today, it would be resolved another day. Daryl Smith stated the City Council had requested the Board of Zoning Adjustments to review this request and I understand the City Attorney to say that we should approve it. A report will have to be made back to the City Council. 1 I. -16- 2/6/85 - BZA 11 Minutes, h. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 6, 1985 Page 17 SMITH MOVED, SECONDED BY VINCENT, THAT SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS AS, OUTLINED BY STAFF AND BASED ON THE CITY ATTORNEY'S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 6, 1985, TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. Glen Godfrey then stated the Board had been given two tasks. One was to look at the notifications. It was his opinion that this was done properly. The second task was to review the project in relation to the easements to see if some amendments could be made. He was satisfied those amendments had been made on the site plan as amended here today. Staff will submit a report to the City Council relative to our action here today. Mr. Smith called for a vote and the motion passed with the following conditions, by the following vote: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications as described by Staff. 2. All conditions of Administrative Review No. 84-62 shall continue to apply. AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None There was no further business to be discussed. UPON MOTION BY CROSBY AND SECOND BY VINCENT, MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO PRE -REVIEW MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Crosby, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustment jh (1877d) -17- 2/6/85 - BZA