Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-14MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1985 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Cranmer, Evans, Strange, Smith, Poe STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hess MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 17, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Strange, Poe UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY EVANS, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 24, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Strange, Poe NOTE: In the absence of Scott Hess, Michael Strange served as the Staff member for the applications, as well as serving on the Board as Acting Secretary to replace Glen Godfrey. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 (Continued from August 7, 1985) Applicant: Jack Taylor/Ideal Pallet Systems A request to utilize and enclose with a six foot (6') high block wall an unused fifteen foot (15') wide portion of Cedar Avenue between Palmdale Street and the SPRR right-of-way in conjunction with an existing industrial use. Subject property is located at 7422 Cedar. Avenue (South side of Cedar Avenue at intersection with Palmdale Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 2 Michael Strange reported that this application had been continued at the request of the applicant. Staff has reviewed it and is recommending approval with conditions. Daryl Smith stated he felt that the City -owned fifteen foot (151) easement should be paved per Public Works standards. A discussion followed concerning the existence of a gate on the applicant's property which he had made available for use by the Fire Department for emergency access to the lots at the rear of this property. The applicant, Jack Taylor, was present. Mr. Taylor explained that ,the co -applicant, Ideal Pallet Systems, wanted to enclose the area to keep down vandalism and to make the area more attractive. Mr. Taylor said they did not intend to use the fifteen foot (151) wide easement area for storage. Mel Mermelstein, President of Ideal Pallet Systems, explained that dumping of trash, debris, etc. was causing an unsightly condition and health hazard for them at this location, and they want to help the City keep it cleaner. He further explained that to tear down the existing wall and build another block wall around the entire easement area would be much more expensive than he had anticipated. Mr. Mermelstein stated he had attempted to purchase this parcel of land and Daryl Smith explained that the City was not willing to sell this piece of property because it was necessary to maintain the easement for access to the property'at the rear. Les Evans said he would move for approval with the conditions presented by Staff and with amendments as discussed by the Board. Daryl Smith stated that he would second if the maker of the motion would agree to allow storage in the fifteen foot (151) wide, City -owned easement per the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requirements regarding outside storage. Mr. Evans agreed to the addition of this condition. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. A six foot (61) high block wall located on the North and West sides of the City -owned easement; b. A six foot (61) high chain link fence shall be installed a the East end of the City -owned easement similar in design to the existing chain link fence located on the applicant' property; -2- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 3 2. The existing six foot (6') high block wall located on the North side of the applicant's property shall be removed prior to use of the City's fifteen foot (15') wide easement. 3. Prior to the expansion of the existing business onto the City -owned fifteen foot (15') easement, the property owner shall first enter into a License Agreement with the City, subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 4. All previous Conditions of Approval contained in Administrative Review No. 80-20 shall remain in effect. 5. The City -owned fifteen foot (151) wide easement shall be paved per Public Works Department standards. 6. No structures other than the six foot (61) block wall fence shall be permitted within the City -owned easement. 7. All outside storage shall comply with the applicable sections of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 8. 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. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Strange, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-44 Applicant: Robert and Marlene Anderson A request to construct a two-story addition (garage with Bedroom and two Baths above) that encroaches two feet (2') into the required five foot (51) side yard setback and that encroaches three feet (3') to nine feet (91) into the required front yard setback, and to permit a driveway and approach off Frankfort Avenue. Subject property is located at 841 Frankfort Avenue (Near Southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Indianapolis Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Mr. Strange said the application had been reviewed and Staff was recommending approval only of the front yard setback and denial of the request to encroach two feet (21) into the five foot (51) required setback on the side yard. Staff did not feel there was a -3- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 4 hardship and the size of the addition could be reduced to keep within the five foot (51) required setback. Mr. Strange further explained that the existing residence is built on two (2) lots and a parcel map should be filed to consolidate these two lots into one. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Smith and the applicant's daughter, Teri Anderson, was present. Ms. Anderson did not feel h-er parents would be able to incorporate into the addition all the features they wanted if the setback was not allowed. She also mentioned that Mr. Anderson had said he would be willing to purchase and maintain the area at the end of the cul-de-sac. There was no one else present wishing to speak so the Public Hearing was closed. There followed a discussion concerning the City Council's action to leave Indianapolis Avenue as'an arterial highway. This street would be widened to eight feet (801) which would mean the City would have to purchase the expensive addition proposed by the Andersons at such time as the widening became necessary. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-44 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Based on City Council action to maintain Indianapolis Avenue as an arterial highway, a ten foot (10') wide dedication would be required along the North side of the property. This dedication could only be obtained if the City purchased the subject property because of the existing house which is seven feet (71) from the existing Indianapolis Avenue right-of-way. Therefore, any improvements to the residence would be contrary to the City's goals and objectives for Indianapolis Avenue. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within the regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification. 4. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. -4- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 5 AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Strange, Poe NOES: Smith ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 85-49 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-50 Applicant: Donna Oliveira A request to review the architecture and aesthetics of a proposed four -unit apartment project abutting an arterial highway. UP 85-49 - Subject property to be located at 16751 Moody Circle East side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 250 feet North of Warner Avenue). UP 85-50 - Subject property to be located at 16761 Moody Circle East side of Bolsa Chica, Street approximately 250 feet North of Warner Avenue). These requests are covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. The Planning Staff has reviewed the architecture and the aesthetics of these projects, according to Mr. Strange, and Staff is recommending approval with two conditions. The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant, Donna Oliveira, was present. The applicant agreed to the conditions. There was no one else wishing to speak so the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY EVANS, USE PERMIT NO. 85-49 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-50 WERE EACH APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (REVIEW OF ELEVATIONS ONLY) 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. 2. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. -5- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Elevations of the four (4) unit apartment shall match the elevations of the developments approved under Use Permit No. 85-27 and Use Permit No. 85-28 in terms of building and roofing materials and colors; and shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board of Zoning Adjustments for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The development shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Strange, Vincent, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-18 in conjunction with ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-38 Applicant: Bruce D. Jones A request to permit a retail use (surfboard sales) in an existing commercial building for a period of six (6) months with joint use parking to be located at 16214 Pacific Coast Highway (North side of highway near Mariner Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported this is a request to utilize an existing building located at 16214 Pacific Coast Highway for approximately six (6) months for sales of surfboard until such time at the applicant's new building is finished. Staff is recommending approval of both requests. Daryl Smith pointed out that this request should be limited strictly to a six (6) month period and checked at the end of that time period for compliance with the closure of the business. Mr. Smith opened the Public Hearing and the applicant, Bruce D. Jones, was present. Mr. Jones agreed to the conditions and the Public Hearing was closed since there was no one else present to speak. UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY CRANMER, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERM NO. 85-18 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-38 WERE APPROVED WITH T FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -6- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 7 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-18: 1. The proposed commercial use is located at a site where the existing street pattern is consistent with the General Land Use Plan. 2. Because the development enhances the use of this area of the City and the beach area, the application conforms to applicable plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the California Coastal Act and General Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the City Coastal'Zone requirements, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property, and conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. The proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 5. The proposed project conforms with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-38: 1. The site plan and floor plan received and dated July 15, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed business shall not include manufacturing or assembly of products on the premises. 3. Outside storage and display shall be prohibited unless approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. 4. Administrative Review No. 85-38 is granted for a period of six months only and shall expire on February 16, 1986. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Strange, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-37 Applicant: OPTO-22/Vic E. Blakemore A request to add 4,800 Square Feet of office area within an existing industrial building to be located at 15461 Springdale Street (Northwest corner of Springdale Street and McFadden Avenue). -7- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 8 This request is -covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Mike Strange reported that, as stated, this is a request to add 4,800 Square Feet of office area in an industrial building. Staff is recommending approval since we have gone out to the site and have not observed any problems on the property. There is sufficient parking for both the office and warehouse. The Fire Department, according to Tom Poe, wants the present fire sprinklering system extended to the new addition. The applicant, Robert Engman, was present. Mr. Engman said the parking lot had recently been repaired and there was an excess of parking space; however, he would restripe the lot if the Board so desired. Mike Strange asked that the restriping condition be retained. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-37 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated August 5, 1985, and floor plans and elevations dated July 10, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. All provisions of Administrative Review No. 76-70 shall remain in effect. 3. The parking area shall be repaired and restriped where necessary. 4. The present fire sprinkler system shall be extended to the new addition to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. AYES: Cranmer,'Evans, Strange, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 85-2 Licensee: Terry Spinks GENERAL REASON: Violation of Section 9730.36(b), Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, referring to using garage in conjunction with home business. LOCATION: 17822 Whitford Lane, Huntington Beach. -8- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 9 Staff stated a communication had been received from Mr. Spinks indicating he will no longer be doing business from the residence at 17822 Whitford Lane. Mr. Spinks further stated he has sold his home and will be moving out of the area. However, Staff is still recommending that the permit be revoked based on the written statement of Don Shaw, Land Use Technician. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Smith and the Licensee was not present. There was no one else present to speak for or against: the Licensee so the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY STRANGE, HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 85-2 WAS REVOKED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT: 1. Revocation of Home Occupation Permit No. 85-2 is necessary due to the violation of Section 9730.36(b) of the Ordinance Code which states: "Garages shall not be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles." 2. Mr. Don Shaw, Land Use Technician, has stated, in writing, that Mr. Spinks was using his garage for the storage of televisions while operating under the approval of a Home'Occupation Permit. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Strange, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Smith MISCELLANEOUS AGENDA ITEMS: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-30 Applicant: Architects Orange Daryl Smith explained that the Design Review Board had previously reviewed this applicant's plan. The Design Review Board had determined the colors on Building Nos. 1 and 8, at the entrance of the project, to be unsatisfactory. The applicant's representative, Carlos Elenes, said he had been present when the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved the project but he did not feel this Board had been too clear in their stand on the colors. Mike Strange moved that the Board of Zoning Adjustments reconsider Administrative Review No. 85-30. The motion died for lack of a second. . -9- 8/14/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments August 14, 1985 Page 10 It was the Board of Zoning Adjustments determination that their previous action should stand and they denied the request for reconsideration. There was no further business to be discussed. UPON -MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, THE REGULAR MEETING CF THE BOARD WAS ADJOURNED TO THE STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Strange, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None len K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (3172d) 1 -10- 8/14/85 - BZA