Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-09MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street_ Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1985 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Smith, Poe, Strange NOTE: Michael Strange was present to vote on the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 28, 1985. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hess MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY STRANGE, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1985, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cranmer, Godfrey, Poe UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY EVANS, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1985, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ARSFfIT: None UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY CRAMMER, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1985, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None AGENDA ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-208 Applicant: Lawrence L. 'Truman/RMG Engineering, Inc UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SFCOND BY EVANS, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-208 WAS TABLED FOR A LEGAL INTERPRFTATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Minutes, H. B.-Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 2 AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ASSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-53 USE PERMIT NO. 85-56 Applicant: Cambro Manufacturing Company UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SFCOND BY GODFREY, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-53 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-56 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1985, 4:ITH THE PUBLIC HFARING REMAINING OPEN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Fvans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ASSENT: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-24 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-32 Applicant: Linda A. Rouan A request to permit construction of a detached 668 Square Foot Rest Room and laundry facility for Marina tenants of Peter's Landing. Subject property is located at 16400 Pacific Coast Highway (Peter's Landing). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Scott Hess reported the property is zoned commercial CZ and the applicant is proposing a Rest Room and laundry facility to serve the Marina tenants. There is presently one Rest Room near the Red Onion Restaurant which is over -utilized and Staff is recommending approval of this facility with conditions. Daryl Smith wished to clarify the requirements for landscaping and irrigation, as well as the architectural compatibility with the Bayport Condominium project, and Tom Poe said the control arm on the gate and the project itself would have to meet Fire Department standards. Les Evans had a query concerning the Farking spaces and Scott Hess explained the applicant would have one hundred and one (101) remaining spaces which would be ample. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Smith and Linda A. Rouan stated she would be willing to meet the Board's requirements. There was no one else present to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. -2- 10/9/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 3 UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRAMMER, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-24 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-32 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: 1. The proposed private Rest Rooms and laundry facility for Marina tenants of Peter's banding conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. The new facility will supplement their existing Rest Room facilities which are currently over utilized. 2. The Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix zoning requirements and the VSC (Visitor Serving Commercial) Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed facility can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Element of. the General Plan. 4. The proposed facility conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following•shall be completed: 1. A revised site and floor plan for the Northwesterly parking lot with proposed facility shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Director depicting the following: a. A five foot (51) wide planter around the East, South and West of the proposed facility; a three foot (31') wide planter along the North side. h.. The facility setback ten feet (10') from the North property line. c. Property lines accurately dimensioned. d. Parking and landscaping accurately dimensioned. e. Additional landscaping between the head end of the stalls along the center of the lot. -3- 10/9/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 4 f. Parking in accord with Article 979 and a minimum of one hundred an.d one (101) standard size (9' x 19') spaces. g. A minimum six foot (61) wide planter along the full length of the property abutting Pacific Coast Highway with intensified landscaping. h. Existing block walls. i. A seating area in:the laundry room. 2. Revised elevations of the proposed facility shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Director modified as follows: a. The maximum height of the facility shall not exceed fifteen feet (151).' b. The structure shall match architecturally the adjacent Bayport Condominiums. 3. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Departments of Development Services and Public Works for review and approach. GENERAL PROVISIOP]S: 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. No signs, other than small identification signs near the entrance of the building, shall be permitted on the building. 6. The facility shall be secured for entry by card and/or locking mechanism or some other means or device which would make the facility only available to authorized users. 7. The facility shall be monitored by Peter's Landing management and maintained in a neat and clean manner. 8. The facility shall not be used beyond 11:00 P.M. nor before 6:00 A.M. each day of the week. 9. The trash bins located in the parking area shall be removed immediately. 10. Prior to final occupancy of the facility, all conditions stated herein must be completed. -4- 10/9/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 5 11. Any complaints of loitering and/or noise will be cause for review by the Board of Zoning Adjustments for possible revocation of this Coastal Development Permit and Administrative Review. 12. Security system installed shall be reviewed and approved by the Fires -Department. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-27 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-60 Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Noecker A request to construct a Second Floor Bedroom addition above the garage that encroaches three feet (31) into the required fifteen foot (15') front building setback within the R1-CZ Zone. Subject property is located at 16961 Coral Cay Lane (West side of Coral Cay Lane near intersection of Marinabay Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California -Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff stated the applicant is proposing a Second Floor Bedroom addition on top of an existing garage. Staff has reviewed the project and is recommending approval subject to conditions. Daryl Smith opened the Public Hearing and Wayne Noecker was present. Mr. Noecker explained that his house was too small for the size of his family and they needed the additional 'Bedroom. He further explained the addition would not block the neighbor's views. Scott Hess explained the applicant would have to submit a revised plan to depict the twelve foot (121) front setback to the corner of the garage., There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY CRANMER, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-27 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-60 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWIFG VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-27: .1. The proposed single family residence addition conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. -5- 10/9/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 6 2. The Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the R1 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property, except as noted herein. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed single family residence can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 4. The proposed single family residence conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter.3 of the California Coastal Act. 5. Approval of Conditional Exception No. 85-60 will not result in any modification to the requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-60: 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. The lot is triangular in shape. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-60 to allow encroachment of a second story addition three feet (31) into the required fifteen foot'(151) front setback is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-60 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: 1. The site plan dated August 21, 1985, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. The site plan shall be revised to reflect an existing twelve foot (121) front setback to the corner of the garage. -6- 10/9/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 7 2. The proposed addition shall match the existing development in terms of building materials, colors and architecture. 3. The addition shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Building Code. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-66 USE PERMIT NO. 85-61 Applicant: David P. Oddo A request to construct a two-story, two (2) unit addition to an existing house with nonconforming setbacks and abutting an arterial highway; and a variance to permit a portion of the required on -site parking to be permitted on the street. Subject property is located at 902 Main Street (Southeast corner of Main Street and Tenth Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class l and Class 51 California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff said the property is zoned R-2 and is located at the corner of Tenth Street and Main Street on a 7,300 Square Foot, irregularly shaped lot. The applicant is proposing a two-story, two (2) unit addition to an existing residence. This would require five (5) on -site parking spaces; however, the applicant is asking for a variance to allow two (2) of these required spaces to be on the street. Most of the area is comprised of single family homes and Staff is recommending denial of the project because it is too intense for the area. Zoning, however, would allow three (3) units but Staff feels the size and shape of the lot make it impractical. The Public Hearing was opened by Daryl Smith and the applicant, David P. Oddo, was present. Mr. Oddo said he disagreed with Staff's report that the area was basically single family homes and listed several units in the area, including his own residence, which were not single units. Daryl Smith attempted to explain to Mr. Oddo that some of the changes might have been required because of the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown area. Mr. Oddo also disagreed with this statement and pointed out that lie had recently built another unit (the one in which lie presently lives) across the street. He further stated he could accommodate the additional two-(2) required parking spaces in the front yard of this development but felt it would not be too pleasant in appearance. -7- 10/9/85 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 8 Harold Ewell, 914 Tenth Street, said the main problem in the area is the parking congestion and residents cannot even find parking spaces for unloading groceries, etc., because of the parked cars. Arlene Howard, 917 Tenth Street, presented several copies of the "Notice Letter" with signatures of adjacent residents opposed to the project. Bruce Beaton, 909 Tenth Street, said he lives next door to this property and, if the second story unit is built, it will block his view and sunlight. Mr. Oddo said the Howard's have an apartment unit ifi their back yard but do not want his to be allowed. Mr. Howard rebutted with the statement that his second unit had been there for over thirty-five (35) years and the house in the front had existed for over twenty (20) years - long before the Code changed. Mr. Ernest T. Oddo, Father of.the applicant, stated his son purchased this particular property with full intent of building these units because it was in an R-2 Zoned location; and now these people are saying they don't want him to develop this property as he planned. This is infringing upon his rights. Furthermore, the projects he builds are high class and add to the prestige of the area. How.does he recoup his investment if he is not allowed to build? Scott Hess explained the applicant could still develop the property but not with the number of units and Bedrooms he is proposing; Daryl Smith further stated the request was for a variance in the parking and that was what the Board would have to vote on at this time. Mr. Smith also explained there would be a ten (10) day appeal period after the Board had made its decision. Larry Faith stated he had sold the applicant the property and had drawn the plans for the project. He further stated it was the City's suggestion that they ask for the variance. A -further discussion started to ensue between the residents and the applicant, and Glen Godfrey suggested closing the Public Hearing. Daryl Smith immediately closed the Public Hearing. UPON MOTION BY FVANS AVD SECOND BY GODFRFY, CONDITIONAL EXCFPTION NO. 85-66 AND USE PERMIT N0..85-61 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: - CONDITIONAL'F.XCEPTION NO. 85-66 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-61 1. The proposed duplex addition to the single family residence is too intense for the site. Although the zoning and'lot size -8- 10/9/85 - RZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments October 9, 1985 Page 9 permits the three (3) units, the site's irregular configuration and existing single family residence limits its developability. 2. On site parking and circulation are inadequate and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard on Tenth Street and Main Street. A total of five (5) parking spaces must be provided on site; only three (3) are proposed. 3. 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. 4. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 5. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working in the vicinity. 6. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-66/Use Permit 110. 85-61 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent .with limitations upon properties in the vicinity., AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Scott Hess explained that even if the applicant met the parking standards, the project would still require a Use Permit because it was located on an arterial highway. There was no further business to be discussed by the Board. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1985, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen . Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (3470d) -9- 10/9/85 - BZA