HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-01u
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
Room B-6 - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1986 - 1:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Franklin
MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY POE, MINUTES OF
THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1986, WERE
APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Godfrey, Krejci, Poe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Evans, Smith
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-65
Applicant: Paul Dobrasin
A request to permit two foot (21) side yard setback in lieu of three
foot (31) side yard setback for a garage for a proposed single
family dwelling. Subject property is located at 505 Alabama Street
(West side of Alabama Street approximately twenty-five feet (251)
North of Pecan Avenue).
This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5,
California Environmental Quality Act, 1984.
Daryl Smith arrived at the meeting at this point - 1:38 P.M.
Staff member, Robert Franklin, reported the request was to permit
encroachment of an attached garage for a single family dwelling into
a side yard setback. The applicant wants to provide four feet (4')
for an entry on the opposite side yard of a twenty-five foot (251)
wide lot. Staff has analyzed the request. Their parking would be
off Alabama Street instead of the alley. The Building and Fire
Departments have concerns regarding the arrangement because of
access to the property. Staff is recommending Denial of this
request and has prepared Findings for Denial; however, Staff has
also prepared an alternate for approval with conditions for the
Board if they so desire.
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page 2
Tom Poe stated a fence could not be installed within two feet (21)
of the residence - that three feet (3') was the absolute minimum in
the downtown area.
Les Evans arrived at the meeting at this time - 1:45 P.M.
Dennis Krejci asked about the alternate recommendation. A
discussion followed regarding a four -foot (4') easement along the
adjacent property line. Glen Godfrey asked if there had been other
approvals in the area for garages in the front and Staff replied
most of the garages were located on the alley. Mr. Godfrey also
interjected a question regarding the twenty -foot (201) width
requirements for the garage— that three foot (31) side yard
setbacks on each side would:only leave space for a nineteen foot
(19') garage. Staff replied the Zoning Code did not require twenty
feet (201) in that area and the applicant's floor plan indicated a
nineteen foot (19') garage but the site plan did not.
The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Tom Poe and the applicant,
Paul Dobrasin, was present. Mr. Dobrasin stated the house on the
southern side of his property was built on his property line. Daryl
Smith asked for clarification and Mr. Dobrasin explained the eaves
of the residence extended to the property line. Tom Poe asked if
there were openings on that side and the applicant replied there
were two windows. He further explained the property had recently
been split into two (2) separate lots. Daryl Smith then inquired if
the applicant was planning to build a block wall with the adjacent
house on a zero property line. The applicant explained that, by
moving the garage over one foot, it would give the applicant a
four -foot (41) walkway on that side.
Robert Millay, 509 Alabama Street, spoke in objection to allowing
the two foot (21) side yard setback because he was concerned over
the environmental impact it would have on his home. He stated the
applicant's proposed home and garage would shadow his southern
exposure and might eventually cause increased utility costs.
Mr. Millay further stated the Codes were established to prevent
homes from piling up on top of each other. Mr. Millay suggested
that he be given the right to use and maintain the portion of land
between his home and Mr. Dobrasin's proposed garage in exchange for
support of the variance. Daryl Smith asked Mr. Millay where access
was to his garage and Mr. Millay replied he did not have a garage.
Mrs. Robert Millay, 509 Alabama Street, also spoke in objection to
the proposed project. She further mentioned they owned two (2) lots
for a fifty foot (50') frontage and did intend to construct an
addition at a later date.
-2- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page 3
An inquiry by Dennis Krejci led to a discussion about the legality
of the applicant's split lot and how it was shown on the Assessor's
Parcel Map.
There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the
project so the Public Hearing was closed.
Daryl Smith pointed out that Mr. Dobrasin could obtain a building
permit for the residence if he maintained three feet (31) on each
side. He needed the variance to shift to four feet (4') on one side
and two feet (21) on the opposite side for the garage area only.
Tom Poe reiterated the information that the three foot (31)
clearance was needed for fire protection.
UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY KREJCI, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
NO. 86-65 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique
topographic features of the subject property, there does not
appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises
involved that does not apply generally to property or class,of
uses in the same district.
2.- Since the subject property can be fully developed within
.regular established setbacks, such a Conditional Exception is
not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights.
3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be
detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or
residing in the vicinity.
4. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be
detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in
the neighborhood.
5. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-65 would constitute a
special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties
in the vicinity.
AYES: Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Evans
-3- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page 4
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-69
Applicant: Mabry A. and Dana N. Moody
A request to permit the reduction of a five foot (51) side yard
setback to a two foot (21) side yard setback for an existing patio
cover. Subject property is located at 20372 Camfield Lane (East
side of Camfield Lane approximately ten feet (101) North of Truxton
Drive).
This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5,
California Environmental Quality Act, 1984.
Staff explained the request was for a variance,to maintain an,
existing patio cover which was constructed without benefit of a
building permit. Staff -further explained a letter'had,been'received
from the adjacent property owner who was objecting to allowance of
the variance. Staff explained the patio cover needed to be a
minimum of two and one-half feet (2-1/21). Staff recommended Denial
of the request with.Findings.
The Public Hearing was opened and Mabry A. Moody, the applicant, was
present. Mr. Moody presented photographs to the Board of similar
projects in the neighborhood and then requested permission to read
the letter which had been received from the adjacent pro erty
owner. Mr. Moody -then explained the owners had not lived in the
adjacent residence for over ten (10) years and the residence had
been a rental unit since that time•. Mr. Moody -stated he had
constructed the patio cover but was unaware a building'permit was
required. -Now, he was selling -his residence to anew owhe'r and the
title company had required -that -this patio structure be legalized.
Daryl Smith asked for a further explanation and Staff said that
interpretation of the Code required posts to be°a•minimum of five
feet (5') from -the property -line and the overhang had to be kept to
two and one-half feet (2-1/21). A discussion followed with the
applicant as to possible solutions., The applicant felt moving the
Posts would create access problems.
Dana Moody, 20372 Camfield Lane, said the patio was not large and
moving the posts in further would detract from its usability.
Mrs. Moody also expressed unkind words about the former neighbors.
Dennis Krejci suggested that the Board divest itself -from -the
involvement of personalities and consider only the issues at hand.
He further explained the Building-Code's,requirements'to Mrs. Moody.
The prospective purchaser, Fred Kiser, was also present. He
explained the neighbor's second story windows -looked down onto the
patio and privacy would be lost without benefit of the larger
cover. He further stated he felt the wood fence would be a greater
fire danger than the patio cover. There were further discussions
1
-4- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page 5
between Mr. and Mrs. Moody, Mr. Kiser, and the Board members in an
attempt to resolve the problem but no solution was reached. Daryl
Smith felt removing the posts and reinstalling them would be a
costly, time-consuming and unnecessary process. There was no one
else present wishing to speak so the Public Hearing was closed.
UPON MOTION BY KREJCI AND SECOND BY POE, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
NO. 86-69 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique
topographic features of the subject property, there does not
appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises
involved that does not apply generally to property or class of
uses in the same district.
2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within
regular established setbacks, such a Conditional Exception is
not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights.
3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be
detrimental to the general welfare of persons working -or
residing in the vicinity.
4. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be
detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in
the neighborhood.
5. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-69 would constitute a
special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties
in the vicinity.
AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe
NOES: Smith
ABSENT: None
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-73
USE PERMIT NO. 86-64
Applicant: Marca Weston Whitfield
CE REQUEST: To permit four and one-half percent (4-1/2%)
landscaping in lieu of six percent (6%).
UP REQUEST: To permit the addition of four thousand eight hundred
(4,800) Square Feet of floor area to an existing automobile
dealership.
-5- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page-. 6
Subject property -is located, -at 16800 Beach Boulevard .(-East S side of
Beach Boulevard approximately;,one hundred fifty. feet (150')-South of
TerryAvenue).
CE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: -This request is covered,by Categorical
s
Exemption, Clas, , California Environmental Quality Act, 1984.
UP ENVIRONMENTAL -STATUS: -.This. request is covered,by Categorical
Exemption, ass- ali,fornia Environmental -Quality Act,"1984.
Staff reported' the proposed..project .is. located in• the�,redevelopment
area for . Beach: Boulevard" and:. he had, during_ the meeting;' received a
report-. from- the- Redevelopment;. Department approving the project. The
applicant had proposed additional landscaping for the portion of the
lot fronting ' on,' Beach Boulevard- to- -promote "a 'mb're� pleas`arit= street
scene:-..Staff,mentioned concerns. -over -the stacking:of early morning
customers' automobiles on Beach Boulevard which caused a hazardous
situation. This matter had been discussed with the Manager and a
circulation and parking management plan was suggested. Staff also
reported'th'e-project is adjacent to an R1 residential area and some
of the property owners are present today to express their concerns.
Staff has.reviewed the project --and recommends -approval' with
conditions. -,-
Glen Godfrey inquired relative.to the.required-parking and Staff
said the applicant would.have to conform to the new Parking
Ordinance in establishing the number of parking spaces. Mr. Godfrey
asked -that,"CUSTOMER-PARKING.ONLY" be so -.designated --when the parking
lot was restriped:_;-_: -
The Public:Hearing;-was opened and Jack Weston was present to
represent the architectural firm of Marca-Weston-Whitfield.
Mr. Weston said he -was in concurrence with;Staff's report and
conditions, and that -the dealership -Manager and -a representative of
Ford Motor Company were-.also.present to.answer questions.
Les Evans asked how the dealership proposed to -.alleviate the problem
of stacking -cars onto Beach -Boulevard. Chet Clark, Manager, said
large.trucks.were parking on Beach Boulevard adjacent to their
location; and, if these trucks could be forced to park elsewhere,
the dealership would.have:the-space-.needed for cars:entering their
service area_., Mr. Evans -reminded -_Mr. Clark.that;Beach-Boulevard was
slated for a_"super,street" and there would be no parking allowed on
that street; therefore, some arrangements would have to be made for
getting these cars onto -their lot and:off the streets. Mr. Evans
further suggested the applicant make someone available to allow the
early customers into the "service write-up" area. Mr. Clark said
this would be no problem.
-6- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page 7
Joseph Hewes, 16791 Leafwood, was present to express his concerns
relative to the expansion of the agency. Mr. Hewes said he lived
directly behind the agency and was disturbed by noises emanating
from the work areas. Mr. Hewes stated that one condition placed on
an earlier request was that loading and unloading be done on -site,
but the dealership was loading and unloading their vehicles on Terry
Drive which was causing a problem.
Mrs. Joseph Hewes said her major concern was the noise since she was
at home during the day - that the repair noises echoed off the
building across the street - and they were disturbed by guard dogs
barking at night. Upon questioning, it was determined the dogs
belonged to a previous agency owner. Mrs. Hewes then mentioned the
problems with paint odors and the painting residue landing on their
property. She further requested an emergency number for use in
reporting complaints. Tom Poe said that all painting work was
required to be done inside.
There was a general discussion relative to loud telephone bells and
the paging system being used. Lee Vincent of the Ford Motor Company
stated these problems would be resolved and reminded the Board the
location was zoned for car dealerships. The Board then determined a
limit should be placed on the hours of operation for the service and
repair areas and all operations must comply with the Noise Ordinance.
There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the
request so the Public Hearing was closed.
UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY KREJCI, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
NO. 86-73 AND AND USE PERMIT NO. 86-64 WERE APPROVED WITH THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-73:
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.
2. The granting of a Conditional Exception is necessary in order
to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property
rights.
3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-73 will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to
property in the same zone classifications.
-7- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board.of.zoning.Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page, 8
4. ...The granting of the Conditional Exception -wi,ll.-no,t,.adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington -,Beach.
5. The applicant is. -willing and able to carry• out.- th1e purposes. for
which the Conditional Exception is sought and-he:.will proceed
to-do so without unnecessary delay.
SPECIAL -CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -.CONDITIONAL -;EXCEPTION N0.-86-73
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated
September_.23,_1986, shall be the approved layout.
2. All. Conditions of Approval,.for.- Use: Permit: No-.=. 86-64 sha.11, apply.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT- NO.- 86-64
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 Use Permit No. 86--64 will not adversely affect
the_ General, Plan of the: City of Huntington Beach.'
3. The proposal -is -consistent with -the goals -and objectives of the
City's General -Plan and' Land Use Map.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-64:
1. The site plan, -floor plans,.and elevations received and -dated
September_ 23,.1986, shall be the approved layout.
2. Amplified telephone bells shall be prohibited and outside
speakers shall be adjusted in direction and volume to minimize
noise impacts on the adjacent R-1 residential areas.
3. Loading and.unloading of -trucks and/or vehicles shall be done
completely on -site and not on Beach Boulevard nor Terry Drive.
4.- On -site -access shall' -be -provided one-half hour earlier than
opening time to permit -early morning customers into the service
"write-up" area to prevent stacking of automobiles on Beach
Boulevard. No work shall commence on automobiles until the
advertised starting time. Hours of operation for service and
repair work shall be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
-8- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
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. A planned sign program shall be approved for all signing. Said
program shall be approved prior to the first sign request.
7. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire
Department, shall be posted and marked.
8. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations
occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the
applicant will be liable for expenses incurred.
9. All painting and repair work shall be conducted wholly within
the building.
10. 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.
11. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with
existing structures.
12. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water
heaters and central heating units.
13. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets.
14. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to
issuance of building permits.
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - USE PERMIT NO. 86-64:
1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of
the Ordinance Code, Noise Code, Building Division, and Fire
Department.
2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and
Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards.
-9- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board
October 1, 1986
to
of Zoning Adjustments
3, The applicint'shall`obtai�n the necessary permits f:rom:the-_South
:. Coast Air Quality- Management District.
4�- -Prior.. to issuance ,_of building per the applicanf -sha1l ==
restripe the parking lot so that it conforms to provisions of
Article-.960,-of the` Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
5.. On -site__ _'CUSTdME!R- PARKING -ONLY" =areas shall:`be:-provided�and so
_ _designated.
6._ ;The,Boar.d o ._Zoning--�dYjustments-reserves--the=-right to revoke
U-se_:Perm t,-,-No._.-8.6-64' if --any _violat-ion, of= these conditions=of
the -Huntington rBeacif-- Ordinance -`Code 'occu'zs.=
AYES: Evans,_God
frey, jci, Poe, Smith
NOES-: None _f L I
MISCELLANEOUS, AGENDA --ITEMS-:-.
USE'PERMIT�NO. �µ86--T�: .,_:=_�u��._,,... ;•;���. _ ..-->>.: ,.� _.: _-�_ -...,:._� �:.-� Applicant:- -Prim -Shea
w ._ 5 .� _ -_ r. is r. 4 i ; . _ , _ 7 - • - ^-
A request to permit a tYiree `('3) 'day =temporary indoor event with live
entertainment -for a. -Grand. Opening..- Subject property is located at
18582 Beach Boulevard, FUnit=20-'(East_-�side,-of,'Beach =Boulevard - =
immediately : South --of - E11is.-Avenue -i Town -_and- Country_- hopping
-
Center).
Staff -reported=the-=application=was fo a-tempor.ar_y__indQ_ event in
conjunction -_with a, -Grand Opening and there would be live
entertainment. '-The event -will -be from Friday; October-3 through
Sunday; October_5;--1-986:,-The`-applicant has'worked with -Mike Strange
of the - Land 'U`s&__Divis'ion-- to -_work 'out"details=of the event: -Staff is
recommending .approval_ with conditions: `71
cantt�Piim--Shea, was present and agreed to the conditions.
The appli
Dennis-Krejci asked -_the applicant_if-_she had obtained the approval
of surrounding property. `owners t-o-have -the live--entertainment.,�;= .
Ms. Shea.- presented` the "'lett"er's-. to the�B'oard;= along with a- copy_ -of
the Lease Agreement. Mr. Krejci then inquired how many people were
expected -at -the opening --and Ms. Shea said they were expecting about
fifty (50)_- to, sixty_ _(,6,0-)'., people each-'ni-ghtr: - Tom Poe= cautioned
Ms. Shea about exceeding: th-e_ legal`occupancy„ limit, for the - -�
establishment. J
UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND NECOND BY INGSVAND,USE CONDITIONST BY•THE-76 WAS
APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FIND
FOLLOWING VOTE:
_10_ 10/l/86 ,- BZA
Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Page 11
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. The granting of Use Permit No. 86-76 will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
City's General Plan and Land Use Map.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The temporary event shall be for Friday, October 3 through
Sunday, October 5, 1986. The event shall terminate on Sunday,
October 5, 1986.
2. A Certificate to Operate shall be issued by the Department of
Development Services as required by Section 9730.8 of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
3.- The applicant shall obtain clearance from the Public Liability
Claims Coordinator, Administrative Services Department, and/or
shall provide a Certificate of Insurance and Hold Harmless
Agreement to be executed at least two (2) days prior to the
event.
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. The proposed event shall comply with all applicable provisions
of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department.
AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their
review.
UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS
ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1986, AT
10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
-11- 10/1/86 - BZA
Minutes-,,H. B Board of- Zoning- Adjustments
October 1, 1986
Pa ge- 12
AYES: -= Evans, -=Godfrey, Krejci:, Poe,--SmithNOES: .. -. None =
ABSENT: None
Glen K. Godf"rey-, -Secr`et_ary
Board of Zoning'=At3justments
(6385d)
-1:2- 10/1/86 = BZA