Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-17MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1985 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hess MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 29, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 51 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-36 (Continued from July 3, 1985) Applicant: James K. Reed A request to permit two foot (2') encroachment into side yard setback at 17891 Caledonia Circle (Southwest corner of Caledonia Circle and Balmoral Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Scott Hess stated that, as the Board should recall, Staff and the Board had expressed concerns about this project when it was previously before the Board. It is a 28 x 16 foot addition to a two-story residence. The applicant has submitted revised plans depicting some of the changes suggested by the Board such as entrance to the addition from the Kitchen instead of the side corridor. However, he wants to reduce the side encroachment to seven feet (71). We would have to again notify the adjacent Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 2 property owners because it would be different than the original request. The applicant wanted to get feedback from the Board on this. Les Evans stated he felt the addition could be made satisfactorily without an encroachment of any kind. The Public Hearing had remained open from the previous meeting and the applicant, James K. Reed, was present. Mr. Reed explained the necessity for the encroachment was because of the location of the pool and the addition would be too narrow without the encroachment. Rip Walters, the builder, stated they have moved the door so it faces the rear instead of the front and have met all the concerns from the last meeting except the encroachment. There was no one else present to speak so the Public Hearing was closed. Les Evans again said he hated to deny the project but he felt it could be worked out without the encroachment. He added that possibly the applicant might wish another continuance to resolve the problems with Staff. Glen Godfrey stated that apparently it is the general opinion of the Board that they do not want this type of a variance or exception. He felt it would be in order to deny the request. The applicant has moved the door but now the encroachment still seems to be the key issue. Daryl Smith agreed with Les Evans that the problem could be resolved and the applicant did not know his elderly parents would be coming to live with him when he built the pool. Mr. Smith further requested that Staff look at the "granny" situation in our City and report to the Board at a later date. Mr. Reed requested a further continuance to work with Staff in resolving the problems. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY VINCENT, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-36 WAS CONTINUED, AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO THE MEETING OF JULY 24, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith, Vincent NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None -2- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985* Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-564 (Continued from July 10, 1985) Applicant: Mola Development Corporation A request to permit one (1) year extension of time on Tentative Parcel Map No. 83-564 to allow for development of property into a commercial project. Subject property is located at the Southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. This request is covered by Beach/Warner Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Hess said this Tentative Parcel Map was approved on July 19, 1983, and revised on March 20, 1985. Staff is recommending approval with one condition added to the revised Conditions of Approval dated March 20, 1985. The condition would be that reciprocal parking and driveway access be maintained between Parcel Nos. 2 and 8 for use by all tenants in the project. Mola Development Corporation's representative, Richard Harlow, Jr., was present. Mr. Harlow said Mola needs additional time to lease the property and is, therefore, asking for this extension. Daryl Smith asked that a maintenance program be instituted for landscaping. Mr. Harlow stated he had no problem with the additional conditions being imposed. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-564 WAS GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF ONE (1) YEAR TO EXPIRE ON JULY 19, 1986, WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDED CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Staff recommends approval of a one (1) year extension of time with the following additional condition to the approved Conditions of Approval dated March 20, 1985: 1. A covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department and the City Attorney to assure that all perimeter landscaping of the project on private property will be maintained and that reciprocal parking and driveway access be maintained between Parcel Nos. 2 and 8 for common use by all tenants within the project. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None -3- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-39 Applicant: Gerald Sedoo A request to encroach six foot (61) high wall to within eight feet (81) of front property line. Subject property is located at 8411 . Hamden Lane (West side of Hamden Lane approximately 110 feet South of Enfield Circle). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Staff explained this property is zoned R1 and the applicant is making improvements on the property. He has modified the garage for straight -in parking and his request is for installation of a six-foot (61) high slump stone wall parallel to the street. He has an irregularly shaped lot and this will expand his rear yard since it is not as large as others in the area. He would like to have the fence in the front for privacy. Staff would recommend approval based on the findings and conditions as presented. Les Evans objected strenuously to such an extensive expanse of wall along a residential street and mentioned that an adjoining neighbor plans to also build a similar wall. Mr. Hess explained the adjacent property owner could build his portion without a variance because it is along a rear yard. Glen Godfrey suggested alternatives to the plans submitted by Mr. Sedoo. Daryl Smith opened the Public Hearing and the applicant, Gerald Sedoo, was present. Mr. Sedoo stated that, because of the uniqueness of the lot, it would be more desirable to use the side yard/back yard arrangement and said his neighbor was planning to go out even further with his wall. Upon questioning by Daryl Smith, Mr. Sedoo stated he was building the fence for privacy - not for security purposes. Several suggestions were again made to Mr. Sedoo for changes in the structure of the wall such as indentations in the wall.for landscaping and installation of a wrought iron top in portions of the fence to open it up. Mr. Sedoo firmly stated he did not like decorative wrought iron because it rusts and looks shabby. Daryl Smith explained that there are types of wrought iron to be purchased which are treated against rusting, etc. Mr. Sedoo did not appear amenable to any of the alternatives presented to him by the members of the Board. -4- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 5 There was no one else present to speak so Chairman Smith closed the Public Hearing. Jim Vincent moved for approval of the project with the findings and conditions recommended by Staff. Daryl Smith asked if the maker of the motion would consider additional conditions that 1) the site plans, floor plans, and elevations shall be the CONCEPTUALLY approved layout, 2) the applicant submit a landscape plan to the Development Services Department for approval prior to issuance of building permits, and 3) submit a revised wall plan with pilasters and with a different approach to the wall around the garage area. Mr. Vincent agreed to these suggestions. VINCENT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-39 WITH AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. SECONDED BY SMITH, WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Smith, Vincent NOES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey ABSENT: None MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-39 FAILED TO CARRY. Les Evans said he would move for Denial based on the fact there was no hardship shown, such an extensive wall would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and to allow this wall would be setting a precedent for the area. Ross Cranmer seconded the motion. Mr. Sedoo then asked why areas such as Seacliff could have such extensive walls and others could not. Mr. Evans explained they have private setback requirements and are private streets. Glen Godfrey further added that he did not feel what Mr. Sedoo had proposed would beautify the area and that each application was considered on its own merits as to whether or not an encroachment should be allowed. Mr. Sedoo asked about the forty-two inch (42") height limit and Mr. Hess explained that would be the highest the fence could be at any given point within the setback area. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-39 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or -5- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 6 conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within. regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 4. The establishment of the block wall will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living in the vicinity. 5. Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties to the South and West and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon those properties. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey NOES: Smith, Vincent ABSENT: None After the voting, Chairman Smith explained the applicant has ten (10) days within which to appeal to the Planning.Commission. Glen Godfrey added that the request could be made the same as now before the Board or it could be modified. USE PERMIT NO. 85-42 Applicant: Royal Empress, Inc./Ron Pattinson Staff stated a letter had been received asking for withdrawal of this application. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY CRANMER, USE PERMIT NO. 85-42 WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 85-46 Applicant: Peter van Roden/ABC Sports, Inc. A request to permit temporary outdoor event to land a helicopter on the Huntington Beach Best Western Golf Course on Sunday, July 2111 1985, between 7:30 A.M. and 8:30 A.M.. Said property is located at 21112 Pacific Coast Highway (Northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway). -6- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 7 This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. Scott Hess reported this is within the Downtown specific Plan area and the helicopter will be landing on the Golf Course. It is for one landing and one take -off for filming the bicycle marathon, and Staff is recommending approval with conditions. UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY EVANS, USE PERMIT NO. 85-46 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual plot plan received and dated July 8, 1985, 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 two (2) days prior to the event. 4. A certificate to operate shall be issued by the Director of Development Services as required by 5.9730.80 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. The applicant shall comply with all FAA requirements for temporary landing pads. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 84-42 (EXTENSION OF TIME) (SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-26) Applicant: Rudi Van Mil A request to permit a one (1) year extension of Use Permit No. 84-42 for property located at 17491 Beach Boulevard (Northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Slater Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. -7- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 8 Staff is recommending approval of the Extension of Time with modifications to Condition No. 2 of Use Permit No. 84-42 dated July 11, 1984. The applicant would like to lease and/or sell this parcel and reciprocal drives and parking easements should be considered. We want to make sure that the lot is legal or a parcel map should be filed. There was no reference to lot consolidation on the Site Plan Amendment. Daryl Smith stated the Board would want to make sure this was done legally. Scott Hess said this will be filed with the Use Permit and not the Site Plan Amendment. We will also add an extension of time to Site Plan Amendment No. 84-26 just for clarification. The applicant, Rudi Van Mil, was not present. UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY GODFREY, USE PERMIT NO. 84-42 (EXTENSION OF TIME) WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 84-42 AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-26 (EXTENSION OF TIME): Approval of the Extension of Time with the modification to Condition No. 2 of Use Permit No. 84-42 dated July 11, 1984, as follows: 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating subject parcels, or file a parcel map creating a separate parcel, or submit proof of legal creation of the subject parcel for review and approval of the Development Services Department and the City Attorney, along with a reciprocal driveway, parking and utility easement between the subject parcel and abutting parcels. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 84-45 (EXTENSION OF TIME) Applicant: Manfred Leitz A request to permit a one (1) year extension of time on Use Permit No. 84-45. Subject property is located on Elm Street (East side of street South of Cypress Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 3b, California Environmental Quality Act, 1970. -8- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 9 Staff reported this original request was approved for a six (6) unit apartment building in an R2 Zone. Construction of units has taken more time because of partners on the project, plus waiting for lower loan rates. Ross Cranmer mentioned that the building permit plan check has expired and Glen Godfrey said Dave Reck gave them an extension of time on it. Mr. Godfrey added that the Planning Department has checked with Oakview and they have no problem with the extension. The applicant, Manfred Leitz, was present. Scott Hess explained the Board would -need to allow a "grace period" and Glen Godfrey said it would have to be granted for a ten (10) day period. The expiration date would be July 7, 1986, for the extension. Les Evans said he would move for approval with the Conditions as originally approved and that the ten (10) day grace period be granted. Daryl Smith asked the maker of the motion if he would consider adding that all street improvements must be installed, and Mr. Evans agreed to the addition. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, USE PERMIT NO. 84-45 (EXTENSION OF TIME) WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A ten (10) day grace period shall be granted and the expiration date of Use Permit No. 84-45 shall be July 7, 1986. 2. All street improvements shall be made prior to final occupancy of the building and shall conform to all requirements of the Public Works Department. 3. All other conditions of Use Permit No. 84-45 shall remain in effect. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None Daryl Smith stated the Board would like to have a check list developed by Staff for the Board's use in reviewing the projects. Mr. Hess said such a list was currently being prepared and would be placed in each file folder. -9- 7/17/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments July 17, 1985 Page 10 There was no further business to be discussed. UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY VINCENT, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, JULY 22, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., AFTER PROPER POSTING OF AGENDA ITEMS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ALam Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh 1 -10- 7/17/85 - BZA