Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-281 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1986 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Franklin MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY SMITH, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 30, 1986, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Evans REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-25 Applicant: William Woods A request to permit expansion of an existing parking lot. Subject property is located at 8101 Slater Avenue (North side of Slater Avenue approximately four hundred twenty-five feet (4251) East of Beach Boulevard). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff member, Robert Franklin, reported the request was for expansion of an existing parking lot for the Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley Board of Realtors office, but the office building itself was not being remodeled or changed. Based on the square footage of the office, the applicant has an excess of parking spaces but once a month the Board reaches a peak load when they have their monthly meeting. Staff has evaluated the proposal and eliminated six (6) spaces on the parking plan for better on -site circulation and a minimum of seventeen foot (171) clear parking spaces. Staff is recommending approval with conditions - one of which is dedication of Slater Avenue. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 2 William Woods, the applicant, was present and stated he had no problem with the dedication. Mr. Woods, however, stated the turnaround area would create a problem since the object of the proposal had been to create more parking spaces - not less. He further explained the realtors would drive through the parking lot and back onto the street if there were no spaces available, thus eliminating the need for a turnaround. Mr. Woods went on to explain they frequently had to limit the number of people attending meetings, seminars, etc., because of the lack of available Darkina spaces. Upon questioning by Tom Poe, Mr.. Woods explained most of the meetings were held between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. and people in attendance would be going with the "traffic flow", not against it. Daryl Smith asked about the number of parking spaces there now and Mr. Woods stated they had sixty-nine (69). He further stated theirs was a non-profit, membership organization. Les Evans and Bob Franklin explained the new Code requirement for drive aisles of twenty-four feet (241) for better on -site circulation. Mr. Franklin further stated the applicant would need a conditional exception to overrule this Code requirement and he could not find a land -related hardship to substantiate it. Lonnie Langas stated he had driven up and down Beach Boulevard and there were numerous businesses without proper circulation or turnarounds. Staff explained the Ordinance had just gone into effect the previous week. Mr. Langas then asked if the fact their application had been submitted before the new Ordinance had taken effect would have any bearing on their application, and Staff stated it would not. Tom Poe stated he would be abstaining from any vote on the project because of his association with the Paramedic program. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-25 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 7, 1986, shall be revised and resubmitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Parking spaces shall conform with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 979, Division 9. u 11 -2- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 3 b. Provide landscape pocket at southern end of the parking aisle. C. Intermix full size and compact parking spaces. 2. 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. 3. Landscaping shall comply with S. 9792 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 6. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall restripe the parking lot so that it conforms to the provisions of Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 8. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke this Administrative Review if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 9. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Dedications shall be made along Slater Avenue. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Poe -3- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 4 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-14 Applicant: Richard L. Anderson A request to permit the addition of six hundred sixty-eight (668) Square Feet to an existing single family dwelling. Subject property is located at 16852 Marina Bay Drive (East side of Marina Bay Drive at end of Cul-de-Sac). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported the application was for an addition to an existing single family residence in the Huntington Harbour area, and the lot was of ample size to accommodate,the second story addition and deck. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Glen Godfrey asked if this was an existing two-story building. Staff replied it was but there would be no change in the roof line or height limit. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Tom Poe and Richard Anderson, the applicant, was present. Mr. Anderson had no problems with the conditions as presented by Staff. Dennis Krejci mentioned there some walls which might be in excess of the height limitation but Bob Franklin stated they were behind the setback. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-14 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed six hundred sixty-eight (668) Square Foot addition to an existing single family residence conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 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. 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- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 5 4. The proposed single family residence conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations dated April 23, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence - will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-16 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-33 Applicant: The Kar Kare Company A request to permit a seasonal parking lot. Subject property is located at 3166 Admiralty Drive (Admiralty Drive at Pacific Coast Highway). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff stated the request is to use an existing parking lot, which is owned by Bank of America, for a seasonal lot to accommodate people going to the beach. The applicant has permission from the Bank to use the lot but would have to allow access to the automatic bank teller locations. Staff recommended approval with conditions but only for use on weekends. Glen Godfrey asked if the parking lot was totally secured and gated but Staff stated there was no gate shown on the plans. Daryl Smith stated there had been concern about noise, trash problems, etc., from adjacent property owners when the Bank received the original entitlement. Staff stated there had been no calls received concerning the project. -5- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 6 The Public Hearing was opened and Ed Bonanni was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Bonanni agreed closing the area off would be a good idea except for the automatic teller machines. He further stated they saved ten (10) spaces for these users. Stan Sorenson, owner of property to the East of the lot, stated there had always been a problem with the weekend parking because of noise, drinking, partying, trash, etc., but the real problem had been blocking of the emergency gate at the end of the street. Mr. Sorenson further stated he would be amenable to the applicant using the lot if spaces adjacent to his property could be kept vacant and if the emergency gate was not blocked. Mr. Bonanni said he would be happy to keep the emergency gate clear but he did not feel it was fair to ask that the nine or ten spaces adjacent to Mr. Sorenson's property not be used. Les Evans stated he was inclined to approve the project with a portion being chained off during non -working hours. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. There was further discussion by the Board regarding the items previously mentioned. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-16 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-33 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed seasonal parking lot conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. The Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the C4 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. The proposed seasonal parking lot can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. 4. The proposed seasonal parking lot conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. -6- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning'Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated May 9, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. All Conditions of Approval of Administrative Review No. 86-33 shall remain in effect and shall be met. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Smith NOES: Krejci, Poe ABSENT: None COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-17 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-34 Applicant: The Kar Kare Company A request to permit a seasonal parking lot. Subject property is located on the North side of Pacific Coast Highway between Second Street and Third Street. This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1184. Staff reported an error had been made in advertising this project and the correct property owners had not been notified. The request has been readvertised for the June 4, 1986, meeting. Tom Poe opened the Public Hearing and Ed Bonanni was present to represent the applicant. Staff explained to Mr. Bonanni that the Board wanted access off the alley only and not off Third Street. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project but the Public Hearing was left open. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-17 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-34 WERE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 86-35 Applicant: Russell and Laurel Beecher A request to permit a five hundred fourteen (514) Square Foot addition to a nonconforming site. Subject property is located at 809 Oceanhill Drive (North side of Oceanhill Drive approximately two hundred fifty feet (2501) West of Beach Boulevard). -7- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 8 This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported this was a request to add to a nonconforming site in the "Old Town" section in a Mola Corporation development near Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard. When constructed, it had conformed to the smaller home standards; but, earlier this year, the standards were changed which makes the whole tract nonconforming. The applicant is willing to provide a Second Floor deck at eight feet (81) rather than six feet (61). Tom Poe mentioned there might be a problem with the adjacent oil well tanks and some type of condition should be included for approval by the Fire Department. The Public Hearing was opened and Laurel Beecher was present. Mrs. Beecher said their Architect had drawn a beautiful plan but should have checked the Codes first so they would not have had to go through this process. She stated the homes on each side of her were two (2) story homes but there were other single story homes in the tract. Mrs. Beecher said the addition was for a bedroom. Tom Poe then stated that, if there were two (2) story homes on each side of her residence, there probably would be no problem with the oil well protective equipment. 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 POE, USE PERMIT NO. 86-35 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 514 Square Foot addition 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. -8- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 9 4. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated April 24, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. A revised floor plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Increase Second Floor deck from six feet (6') to eight feet (8') wide. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 5. 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. 6. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 7. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke this Use Permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 8. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 86-36 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-27 Applicant: Siavash Afshar A request to permit the construction of an eight (8) unit apartment project. Subject property is located at 2402-06 Delaware Street (East side of Delaware Street approximately one hundred twenty-five feet (1251) South of Yorktown Avenue). This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-27. -9- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 10 Staff reported the applicant had requested a continuance of his request to the meeting of June 4, 1986, and had submitted a letter to that effect. The Public Hearing was opened by Tom Poe but there was no one present to represent the applicant or adjacent property owners. The Public Hearing was left open to the following meeting. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY POE, USE PERMIT NO. 86-36 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-27 WERE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-31 Applicant: Dennis Trausch A request to permit the addition of a four hundred forty-eight (448) Square Foot solarium entrance to an existing retail building. Subject property is located at 16242 Beach Boulevard (East side of Beach Boulevard approximately three hundred feet (300') South of Stark Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported the applicant had submitted a written request for a continuance to the meeting of June 4, 1986, and Staff concurred. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-31 WAS CONTINUED, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1986, BY,THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Daryl Smith left the meeting at this point -2:55 P.M. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 86-199 (W) Applicant: Graves Engineering, Inc. A request to consolidate three (3), lots into one (1) lot and Waiver of Final Parcel Map. Subject property is located on the Northwest corner of Graham Street and Oceanus Drive. This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. -10- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 11 Staff reported the request to consolidate three (3) parcels into one (1) parcel is a condition of a previously approved Administrative Review, and the applicant is attempting to obtain building permits. Their proposal has been evaluated, and Staff members from Public Works and Planning feel a Waiver is appropriate. Staff recommends approval with conditions. The applicant's representative, Joseph La Cava, was present and stated the only question he had was in relation to the ten (10) day appeal period. Mr. La Cava requested the ten (10) day appeal period be "waived" so building permits could be "pulled" but was told it could not be done. The applicant's representative agreed to the conditions as presented by Staff. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 86-199 (W) WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR WAIVER: 1. The proposed consolidation complies with the requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood and water drainage control, appropriate and approved public roads, sewer and water facilities; environmental protection, and other requirements of Article 992 of the Subdivision Section of the Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCEL(S) FOR ANY PURPOSE: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map received by the Department of Development Services on May 7, 1985, shall be the approved layout (with the amendments as noted thereon). 2. The applicant shall file, through the Huntington Beach City Clerk's office, and have recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office, a Certificate of Compliance in conjunction with the approved plat map. A copy of the recorded Certificate of Compliance and plat map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits on the subject property. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe NOES: None ABSENT: Smith Daryl Smith returned to the meeting at this time - 3:08 P.M. -11- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 12 MISCELLANEOUS AGENDA ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-37 Applicant: Wilson Ford A request to permit pennants for a period of one (1) year. Subject property is located at 18255 Beach Boulevard (Southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Taylor Drive). Staff reported the request for displaying pennants was the result of our Land Use people noticing last week that the pennants were being placed on the applicants property without benefit of approval from the Board. Their Office Manager came in last week and filed the forms for this request. Staff has evaluated the request and recommends approval onlyy for a forty-five (45) day period retroactive to the da the pennants were put in place. This would mean the pennants could remain in place for only forty (40) additional days from today's date. Daryl Smith asked if the Code would allow only a stipulated period of time but Staff replied the time element was up to the Board. Glen Godfrey mentioned the time period previously established by the Board had been for from thirty (30) to ninety (90) days only per request for special occasions. Mr. Smith then stated he had been in attendance at a special adjourned meeting of the City Council. The feeling he had gotten, Mr. Smith added, was that car dealers or agencies were bringing in large revenues to the City and City Council wanted them to be competitive with major companies up and down the freeways. According to Mr. Smith, Council wanted more leeway given to the dealerships than was being allowed under the Sign Code, and he added several agencies still have banners, pennants or signs up on their premises. Glen Godfrey said the Land Use people have had almost one hundred percent (100%) compliance with their requests for removal of such banners, and the City Attorney has stressed that no one type of business can be singled out to be treated differently than others. Furthermore, other adjacent cities have been contacted and most of them are limiting displaying of banners to thirty (30) days or less, with the exception of Santa Ana. Daryl Smith then stated sixty (60) days would be a reasonable time period. The applicant's representative, Dick Wilson, was present and stated he had owned Wilson Ford for over nineteen (19) years. Mr. Wilson further stated he had been displaying banners, pennants, etc., for the last three years and, to his knowledge, he had not been in -12- 5/28/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 13 violation of any City Ordinance until he was contacted by Susan Tully, Michael Strange and Don Shaw. According to Mr. Wilson, his company had contributed $423,000 to the City coffers and had, on the previous weekend, contributed over $10,000. He further stated the cost of putting up the pennants is over $5,000 and he did not intend to put them up for just one weekend. Based on Susan Tully's complaint, Mr. Wilson said that Gail Hutton, City Attorney, had brought him up to trial on a previous incident of displaying banners but the case had been dropped. Mr. Wilson said when we plant trees and flowers which create attention, we are displaying a sign; and he further mentioned his company's extensive advertising budget to bring people into the City. Don Shaw, Land Use Technician, had been present to answer any questions the Board might have relative to this or similar cases which Land Use had handled. Les Evans said he would move for approval of this request for a period of six (6) months or whenever City Council and/or Planning Commission adopt something definite, whereupon Dennis Krejci asked if City Council action would affect the time element. Daryl Smith said it would be affected; i.e., if City Council adopted a Sign Ordinance which would only allow two (2) months, then expiration of this permit would be based on that time element. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-37 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The proposed pennants shall be limited to a period of six (6) months from date of approval or until City Council adopts the new Sign Code and it is effective; the time specified in the Sign Code shall be the period, whichever occurs first. 2. Each pennant shall be removed within one (1) day following the termination of promotion period. 3. Each pennant shall be properly secured. AYES: Evans, Poe, Smith NOES: Godfrey, Krejci ABSENT: None There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their review. -13- 5/26/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments May 28, 1986 Page 14 UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY EVANS, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1986, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Glen K. Godfrey, ecretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (5431d) 1 11 -14- 5/28/86 - BZA