Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-18MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Abramowitz MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1985, WERE DEFERRED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1985, FOR LACK OF VOTING MEMBERS. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1985, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None AGENDA ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85-4 Applicant: Wayne and Irene Kirby UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85-4 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54 USE PERMIT NO. 85-47 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-53 (Continued from September 11, 1985 Applicant: Benco Development Group A request to construct a four building, 39,810 Square Foot commercial center with drive-thru restaurant with variance to permit a modified commercial center main driveway entrance, zero foot (0') Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 2 building setback along the East property line in lieu of the required ten foot (101); and a twenty foot (201) building encroachment in the required 280 sight angle setback at the Southwest corner of the site. Subject property is located on the East side of Beach Boulevard approximately 400 feet North of Clay Avenue. This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-53. Scott Hess reported the applicant had submitted a revised site plan since the last meeting and the variance for the site angle encroachment is no longer being requested. There is a twenty foot (201) wide landscape buffer being shown at the East side of the project and the applicant has revised the parking layout. The aisle width will be twenty-nine feet (291) and the compact car spaces have been redistributed. The applicant has met with the adjacent property owners, as well as with Staff members, to alleviate their concerns, and Staff is recommending approval of these requests with conditions. Les Evans and Daryl Smith felt the eight foot (81) wall would be unnecessary in addition to the existing six foot (61) wall and the twenty foot (201) landscape buffer. Glen Godfrey said it was a requirement of the Code because of the residential area adjacent to the commercial center. A discussion followed concerning the wall and the location of the trash enclosure. The Public Hearing had remained open from the last meeting and Richard Harlow said he, Michael Lloyd, Steve Ruth, and Jerry Bame were present to represent the applicant, Benco Development Group. Mr. Harlow explained they had met a couple of times with the owners of the adjacent residential properties in an attempt to resolve the problems the property owners felt existed. Steve Ruth also talked about the height of the walls and removal of the existing wooden fence. The representatives asked that a letter outlining the applicant's proposed changes be entered into the Minutes of the Meeting, and it is as follows: "September 16, 1985 Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Huntington Beach Civic Center P. O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -2- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September.18, 1985 Page 3 RE: conditional Exception No. 85-54 Use Permit No. 85-47 and Negative Declaration for Commercial Development Beach Blvd. near Garfield Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. Godfrey: Persuant (sic) to the BZA meeting of September 11, 1985 and the letter received from the adjacent property owners, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to each of the concerns noted. 1. The buildings proposed will all be one story in height. The location of these buildings is over 180 ft. from any of the property owners and they will be oriented towards_ Beach Blvd.. The line of vision from those locations will not allow looking down into rear yards and would not encourage viewing into second story windows. 2. All mechanical equipment will be concealed from view with a parapet wall equal or greater in height to any of the equipment. 3. All site lighting will be directed to avoid spillage of light onto the residential areas. 4. A 20 ft. landscape buffer will be installed adjacent to the existing masonry wall that abuts the residential property. Materials used will include a mix of high trees plus low prickly bushes (such•as "holly" or equivalent) that would discourage any vagrants or trespassers. Other landscaped areas have been added on site per plans to enhance the aesthetics of the project and to meet the city's landscape requirements. 5. The conditional exceptions requested are for three separate points. (1) Driveway Entrance Width: The variance is from a double to a single throat entry. The driveway provided will be 30 ft. in width with a single throat entrance that will encourage an orderly flow of traffic on and off site. It has been approved by the city traffic engineers and does meet the spirit of the ordinance for a project this size. (2) Line of Site Angle: The southern most building is setback 25 ft. from e s ree Right of Way and falls to within the line of vision for the adjacent residential buildings. The northerly building has been relocated to comply with city ordinance because the existing bank has a long life expectancy. The houses to the -3- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes,'H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 4 south are in a prime area along Beach Blvd;,,and any future commercial venture on that site would most Hkely also choose to be 25 ft. from Beach Plvd. Due to the high probability of the above mentioned scenario, we feel the request for variance is reasonable. (3) Building Setback @ Rear Property Line: City ordinance requires a 10 ft. setback at rear property line where abutting a residential zone. The building that falls within this requirement is next to the vacant storage lot. A 10 ft. setback between the existing masonry wall and the building would create a convenient place for vagrancy and vandalism even if heavily landscaped. We therefore concur with planning staff that the best protection for adjacent homes is to have off (sic) setback in that area. 6. Drainage, as shown on the conceptual grading plan, will be a series of drains and catch basins that will be tied into an existing storm drain system in Beach Blvd.. No drainage will flow onto adjacent residential properties. 7. All construction work will be done during the hours of 7 A.M. to 5 P.M.. Dust palliation will be included in the specifications and will be monitored to assure that no unreasonable amount of dust is generated. 8. At this date, none of the leasing has been consumated (sic) so we do not know what the hours of operation will be. The lessees will be required to operate within any city ordinances. The landscaping and actual distance between the buildings and the residential properties will help to dampen any noises generated. 9. • Any food users will be required to comply with county health department requirements. Trash enclosure areas and regular trash pickup will be provided and required for usage by all tennants (sic). Regular on site maintenance will,be done to assure a minimal accumulation of any refuse. 10. The property is zoned for a commercial use. The project proposed is relatively "low-keyed" and will make a positive statement for the area. The variances requested will only enhance the overall effectiveness of this project and are proposed to make it a better shopping center for the neighbors. 11. Beach Blvd. is a natural corridor to the beach area, and uses are appropriately food establishments to feed the beach traffic. I have seen other "Pup n' Tacos" in similar condition that were eventually remodeled, not totally demolished. The owners do intend to have a mixture of complementary retail -4- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 5 users in the center, only a small portion of which would be restaurants. 12. Per discussions on September 11, 1985, it would be desirable to leave the existing masonry wall at the height it is (+ 8 ft. on residential side and + 6 ft. on commercial side) rather than attempting to build another wall directly adjacent to the existing. The existing wall will be "pointed -up" as necessary to replace any loose or missing mortar joints. Additional security and visual barriers will be accomplished with the landscaping as noted in item No. 4. 13. The residential areas adjacent to this project will be able to continue to enjoy their homes with the afore -mentioned mitigating measures proposed by the owner. The orientation of this project is mainly towards Beach Blvd.. The parking that is near the residential properties will be used mainly for employee parking. Any noise generated from this project should be minimum and will be adequately screened from the homes. 14. The project as proposed would result in removal of any refuse or rubble that has accumulated. Nothing can be done until the project is approved to proceed and grading operations begin. 15. The variance requested as well as existing city standards for on-site/off-site vehicular circulation (as shown on the site plan) are adequate to handle any additional traffic generated by this project. 16. The owner recognizes the investment and concerns that the property owners have in regards to this project, and frankly, that's good. Their concern and involvement will help to emphasize the important architectural programming data for this project and will result in a better project for everyone. The "good -neighbor" policy mentioned is also important to the owner. The concern and support of the neighborhood people will hopefully make this project a solid investment for the owner, and in return, the owner will join in and help to protect and preserve the investments of the neighbors. -5- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 6 Please feel free to contact me if you have any.additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, MUSIL PERKOWITZ"RUTH, INC. /s/ Steven J. Ruth Steven J'.'�'Ruth SJR/jt cc: Mike Lloyd Dick Harlow Jerome 'M. Bame" ,Glen Godfrey inquired relative to the progress being made on the reciprocal easements from Security Pacific National Bank and, when informed that Benco had been unsuccessful to date, Mr. Godfrey requested that they continue their efforts to obtain the easements. Mr. Godfrey further asked about the consolidation of the parcels in conformance with the State Subdivision Act and said the project might have to come back to the Board of Zoning Adjustments at a later date as,a Site Plan Amendment if Parcel "D" was not included. Jerry Bame.stated there would be separate CC&R's. John Campagne represented the adjacent property owners. Mr. Campagne said he and the other involved citizens had met with the applicant's representatives and, upon questioning by Glen Godfrey, stated they would be satisfied with the six foot (61) existing wall and the twenty foot (201) landscape buffer between the commercial center and the residential property. There was no one else present Wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Tom Poe and Glen Godfrey expressed concern about traffic circulation around the proposed fast food establishment. Glen Godfrey further explained that the Negative Declaration had been revised to reflect changes which had been concerns of the Board at the previous .meeting, and Jeff Abramowitz was asked to read the mitigating measures which included time restrictions of 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M: This was followed by a general discussion by the Board members and the applicant's representatives regarding these measures. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-53, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54, AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-47 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -6- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes,!H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 7 INDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54: For modified commercia center riven main entrance and zero (01) building setback on East property line only. 1.- The modified main driveway entrance with a thirty foot (301) width is adequate to serve the proposed commercial complex. 2. The proposed zero (0') yard setback for Building "B" will avoid creating a_ten foot (10') wide unusable area and will more appropriately_adapt the structure to the site. 3. 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. 4. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order ,to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 5. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-54 will not be ..material-ly•detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect,•the General Plan of -the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS.OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54:� I. All -Conditions of•Approval of. -Use -,Permit No. 85-47 are -hereby incorporated,as part of Conditional Exception No. 85-54. 2. Development shall comply with all applicable provisions"of the ,Ordinance Code, Building Division -and Fire Department. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-47: 1. The establishment, maintenante and operation of the 39,510,Square..Foot commercial center, provided the conditions listed below are incorporated, 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. -7- 9 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes,'H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 8 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 - USE PERMIT NO. 85-47: 1.- Revised site plan and elevations shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a.- Building elevations more compatible with existing developments along Beach Boulevard shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board. b. Elimination of "proposed left hand turn lane" and median break in Beach Boulevard. c. Signs are subject to separate permit. (See Condition No. 8). d. Plans shall be accurately dimensioned to show all parking stall depths. Handicapped spaces shall be provided as required by Code. e. Order speaker for Building "D" shall be placed so as to provide for two (2) cars stacking behind car ordering. Pick-up window shall be placed to provide for stacking of maximum number of cars. f. Directional arrow depicted for drive-thru lane shall be corrected to show opposite flow of cars. 2. Applicant shall aggressively pursue obtaining irrevocable access easement from adjacent properties to provide for access to Garfield Avenue. 3. Openings in South side of Building "C" shall be limited to man doors, providing emergency exit only, panic hardware, alarm system, and are to remain closed during business hours. No storage of any kind is to be permitted to the South of the building. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating Parcels 9, 10, 12 and 19. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection. Any new parcelization shall require Board review to ensure reciprocal access and parking agreements. -8- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 9 5. 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. 6. Grading plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 7. Landscaping shall comply with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 8. A planned sign program shall be approved for all signing within the commercial center pursuant to S. 9760.43 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 10. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 11. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in Buildings "B" and "C" per Fire Department requirements. 12. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 13. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 14. 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. 15. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). -9- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 10 16. 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. 17. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 18. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 19. When more specific details relative to Parcel "D" (shown on the site plan dated September 18, 1985) as to the type of use has been determined, a more precise site plan shall be submitted to the Board for review and approval. This site plan showing aisle widths, circulation of traffic, location of order and pick-up windows, speaker layout, architecture, etc., shall be submitted under a Site Plan Amendment. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith, Poe NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None Glen Godfrey asked the Minutes reflect that he had voted "NO" because the front circulation for the drive-thru is not sufficient - he would rather see the restaurant relocated to the Southwest portion - and the deletion of the eight foot (8') wall would have an adverse effect on the residential property since no limits had been placed by the Board on the hours of operation for the drive-thru restaurant. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-51 USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 Applicant: Hamilton Properties A request to add 825 Square Feet of retail space to an existing shopping center, restripe portions of parking lot for compact stalls with variance to maintain existing landscaped areas (4.6%) in lieu of required six percent (6%) area, and existing 5-foot wide planters along Hamilton Avenue in lieu of the 6-foot width requirement. Subject property is located at 9596 Hamilton Avenue (South side of Hamilton Avenue at intersection with Spyglass Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. -10- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 11 Staff said this is a request to add an 825 Square Foot building to an existing commercial center and Staff believes the request to maintain the existing five foot (51) wide landscape planter can be supported as the landscaping can be expanded in other areas to meet the Code's six percent (6%) requirement. Staff is recommending, approval of the Use Permit and the first portion of the Conditional Exception with conditions such as deletion of a parking space in one area, changing compact spaces to the rear area, obtaining reciprocal parking and driveway easements, and consolidation of the four (4) parcels. The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant, Ken Reynolds, was present. Mr. Reynolds expounded on each of the conditions as presented by Staff and stated he did not feel he could accept most of the conditions. Tom Poe and Mr. Reynolds entered into a discussion concerning the Fire Department's requirements for additional fire hydrants and their locations, and there was a further dissertation relative to the lot consolidation, the reciprocal easements, restriping of the entire shopping center, and the closure of some of the drives into the center. Mr. Reynolds stated he felt he and the Board of Zoning Adjustments were too far apart on these items and suggested that the Board refer his Conditional Exception and Use Permit requests to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Les Evans stated he would move for approval of Conditional Exception No. 85-51 and Use Permit No. 85-43 with the findings and conditions as presented by Staff. Glen Godfrey said he would second the motion if the maker would agree to dropping of the condition relative to consolidation of the four (4) lots, and the maker agreed. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-51 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-51: (For Request to Maintain Existing Five Foot (5') Wide Street Side Planters in Lieu of Required Six Foot (61) Only.) 1. Due to existing conditions of the site, it would pose an undue hardship to the applicant to increase the existing width of street side landscaping by one foot (11) when other areas on the site can be added for the required six percent (6%) landscaping. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. -11- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September�18, 1985 Page 12 3. The granting of'Conditional Exception No.'85-51,will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. The granting�of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-51:• 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Overall percentage of landscaping on the site shall be provided to meet the requirement of six percent (6%). b. All Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 85-43 are hereby incorporated as part of conditional Exception No. 85-51. 2. Development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-43: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 825 Square Foot retail addition and parking lot restriping 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 - USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Trash bin enclosures shall be provided. -12- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 13 b. 'Landscaping shall be provided on -site to meet the minimum six percent (6%) requirement. Such landscaping shall be distributed throughout the site, but shall include the addition of landscaped fingers to protect the end parking stalls fronting on Hamilton Avenue. In addition, landscaping shall be provided in the area of the parking space adjacent to and parallel to Hamilton Avenue, with the parking space being deleted. c. Second driveway East of Bushard Street shall be eliminated, -with curbing and sidewalk restored, and landscape planter continued across it. Parking spaces shall also be provided in front of the closed driveway. d. Ninety (90) degree parking spaces shall be provided behind the existing 81009 Square Foot building rather than angled parking and spaces parallel to the building. e. -Parallel spaces adjacent to existing 6,014 Square Foot building shall be striped in accord with the standards of Article 979. f. The six (6) parking spaces between the buildings shall be striped as compact spaces as noted in a letter dated September 6, 1985, from the applicant in order to provide for minimum twenty-four foot (241) aisle width. 2. Proof of irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easements between the subject site and adjacent properties shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 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. 3. Proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 4,. Existing landscaping along Hamilton Avenue shall be intensified in terms of larger plant materials or a larger number of materials. Plans shall be approved by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. 5. 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. -13- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes,'H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 14 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. 6. A planned sign program shall be approved for all signing within the commercial center pursuant to S. 9760.43 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 7_. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 8. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 9. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-57 Applicant: Jackie L. Garroutte A request to permit an approximately 60-foot long decorative fence, consisting of 52-inch high brick pilasters every 9'-6" with 54-inch high wrought iron fencing in between, to encroach 15 feet into the required 15-foot front setback and to encroach into the required 25-foot corner cut-off at the Northwest corner of Yellowstone and McKinley in an R1 Zone. Subject property is located at 9651 Yellowstond Drive (Northwest corner of Yellowstone Drive and McKinley Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. According to Staff, the applicant is requesting permission to construct a wall with a fifty-two inch (52") height rather than the maximum forty-two inch (42") height as permitted by Code. Also, the corner cutoff, as proposed, could cause visibility problems at the corner. This wall could be constructed to meet the forty-two inch (42") height and setback limitations and Staff is recommending denial -of the request. F� -14- 9/18/85 - BZA 1 Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 15 - The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Smith and the applicant, Jackie L. Garroutte, was present. Mr. Garroutte pointed out that the brick pilasters were already in place since he had been told by the Building Department he could build the wall at the forty-two inch (42") height and had proceeded accordingly. Then the Building Inspector came out for an inspection and told Mr. Garroutte he could not build the wall in this manner. Mr. Garroutte stated he did not feel the wall would create a problem since it was open-work wrought iron between the pilasters and further said he had a petition from the neighbors saying they agreed to the design and construction of the wall. No one else was present who wished to speak so the Public Hearing was closed. There was a discussion about the school site and children crossing at this intersection and it was determined there should be no serious problems since it is a "T" intersection at this corner. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-57 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY EVANS, 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, based on a petition of the neighborhood and oral testimony by the applicant that the school across the street has indicated their approval of the pilaster and wrought iron fence; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. 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. 3. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. -15 - 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 16 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-61 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 5. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Since a T-intersection exists at the corner of the lot, it is not necessary that the forty-two inch (42") height limitation be imposed at this location. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated August 21, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to review this request should a complaint be received from the School District and/or residents in the neighborhood. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-61 Applicant: Ray and Linda Williams A request to construct a 45 Square Foot Dining Room addition which encroaches five feet (51) into the required five foot (5') setback from a ten foot (101) wide sewer easement along the West side of the property in an R1 zone. Subject property is located at 6711 Crista Palma Drive -(North side of Crista Palma Drive at intersection of Avilla Lane) This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff said this is a request for a small bay window type addition to the Dining Room area of the applicant's residence. There is a ten foot (10') wide sewer easement on the West side of the house and the addition would encroach five feet (51) into this easement. This would require approval of the Public Works Department. Glen Godfrey asked if this would be a true bay window and Jeff Abramowitz said the addition would have floor area. Daryl Smith opened the Public Hearing. Linda Williams was present and stated she had no questions concerning the conditions. Chairman Smith closed the Public Hearing since there was no one else present wishing to speak. -16- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September_18, 1985 Page 17 UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0. 85-61 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. 2. Although the Dining Room addition will have a zero setback from the sewer easement, it can be designed in such a way that no problems will result. 3. 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. 4. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 5. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-61 will not be. materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 22, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The footing design shall not impact on the sewer line easement and shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: None -17- 9/18/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 18 USE PERMIT NO. 85-48 Applicant Ivan and Jorge Ulloa A request to construct a 504 Square Foot patio enclosure to an existing drive-thru restaurant (George's Mexican Food), add landscaping, and revise the parking layout. Subject property is located at 6581 Edinger Avenue (North side of Edinger Avenue approximately 400 feet East of Edwards Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff explained this is a request to add a 504 Square Foot patio enclosure to the front of the Dining Room at an existing drive-thru restaurant. Glen Godfrey asked if the drive-thru had approval for the existing -seating space and Mr. Abramowitz said they did have. Staff also stated the applicant would increase the landscaping, restripe the parking lot, and should provide for proper radius around the building. The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant, Ivan Ulloa, was present. He said his engineer, Jim Wilson, was not present to answer the technical questions. An adjacent property owner, Gerald Collins, stated he and other neighbors were very adamantly opposed to any expansion of this business since they were experiencing so many problems with rats, vermin, cockroaches, etc., which -seem to be emanating from the trash bin at the restaurant. The trash enclosure is located adjacent to the residential area and should be moved completely away from the residences. Glen Godfrey asked if the residents had contacted the Health Department relative to these problems and Mr. Collins stated the Health Department had cited the restaurant owners but the situation had not improved. Daryl Smith suggested contacting the Orange County Vector Control. Another neighbor, Sue Roberts, spoke concerning these same problems being encountered, along with the anticipated noises from the loud speakers. Mr. Ulloa stated he was willing to work with the neighbors in alleviating these problems. Glen Godfrey suggested the request could be continued for one week so that the Health Department could be contacted and possibly have a "representative present at the meeting. After a general discussion with the applicant and the residents, the applicant requested a continuance to the next regular meeting; and the Public Hearing remained open. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY POE, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, USE PERMIT NO. 85-48 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1985, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -18- 9/18/85 - BZA n Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 18, 1985 Page 19 AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe NOES: None, ABSENT: None There was'no further business to be brought before the Board for discussion. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: :AYES: .Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Vincent NOES: None ABSENT: None ke", I Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (3362d) -19- 9/18/85 - BZA