Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-03MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1986 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Phillips Chairman Tom Poe asked for a motion for approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 19, 1986, as presented to the Board and the following discussion ensued: Daryl Smith stated there appeared to be some explanations relative to a miscellaneous item - Use Permit No. 76-9 - which had not been included in the Minutes, and Les Evans added that the same situation applied to Use Permit No. 86-27. Les Evans said he had asked Glen Godfrey at that meeting how the Board could reconsider conditions of a Use Permit without a new Public Hearing, and both Mr. Godfrey and Mrs. Pierce responded. Mrs. Pierce responded that the alterations would not require a Use Permit under the current code and Mr. Godfrey also gave an explana- tion that is not here. Mr. Evans added he relied on Mr. Godfrey's explanation of that revision on Use Permit No. 86-27 on the next item which was Use Permit No. 76-9, and it was important, to him at least, that Mr. Godfrey's explanation be included in the Minutes. Daryl Smith added that there were other miscellaneous items where conditions were being changed without a Public Hearing or renotifying people, and, in his opinion, Use Permit No. 86-61 - the Oilmax application - was similar in that the Board was revising, reconsidering, or changing Conditions of Approval that were basically subject to the same explanations Mr. Godfrey had given on Use Permit No. 86-27 and Use Permit No. 76-9. Daryl Smith added there was a lengthy discussion and it might have been necessary to cut out some of the verbage; however, with the Secretary's excellent shorthand records, the Minutes could be reconstructed to justify the decisions made by the Board without Public Hearing, Mr. Smith moved that the Minutes not be approved until these items could be corrected. Chairman Tom Poe asked if Mr. Smith meant the Minutes to be corrected to the Board's satisfaction and Mr. Smith answered in the affirmative. Les Evans seconded the Motion. Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 2 Glen Godfrey stated the distinction being made was between minor modifications or clarification of an ambiguity in a condition which might come back under a miscellaneous item - and completely removing a condition placed under a Public Hearing without another Public Hearing. He added that was quite a different matter and the Board did not have the authority to do that without placing the item on the Agenda as a Public Hearing item, expecially when the matter was controversial to begin with. MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 1986, WERE NOT APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Krejci REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 86-391 (Cont. from 11/19/86) Applicant: Cambro Manufacturing Company A request to consolidate six (6) parcels into one (1) parcel for purpose of building construction. Subject property is located at 7601 Clay Avenue (North side of Clay Avenue between Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and Huntington Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff member, Laura Phillips, informed the Board the applicant had submitted a written request to withdraw his application and Staff would recommend approval of the withdrawal. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 86-391 WAS WITHDRAWN, AT THE APPLICANT'_S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None RECONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-48 (EXTENSION OF TIME) CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-102 Applicant: Unocal Corporation AR REQUEST: A request for an Extension of Time for previously approved Administrative Review No. 85-48 (to permit modernization of an existing service station). -2- 12/3/86 - BZA F1 1 Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 3 CE REQUEST: To permit the upgrade of an existing service station that is not in compliance with service station development regulations, including landscaping. Subject property is located at 16471 Bolsa Chica Street (Northwest corner of Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff reported the Extension of Time for Administrative Review No. 85-48 was approved by the Board on November 12, 1986. Subsequent to that approval, it has been determined that the Board's action was not legally appropriate inasmuch as the Ordinance Code had been amended and the project was no longer in compliance. To accommodate deviations in the project, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Exception for variances in landscaping, berming, planter widths, etc. Staff has reviewed the project and, if the Board should desire to extend Administrative Review No. 85-48, they would need to also approve Conditional Exception No. 86-102. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Les Evans questioned the date of the site plan and Ms. Phillips explained it had been submitted with the Conditional Exception but was identical to the one submitted to the Board on November 12, 1986. Dennis Krejci asked for what period of time the extension would be granted and Staff replied one (1) year. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Tom Poe and Tufan Ince was present to represent Unocal. He said he had no comments but was available to answer questions for the Board if there were any. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Daryl Smith asked if the applicant had submitted the request in writing for the one (1) year extension and Staff replied in the affirmative. UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-102 AND RECONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-48 (EXTENSION OF TIME) WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -- CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 86-102: 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; -3- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 4 b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-102 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 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 - existing layout of structures and pump islands on site. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-102 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-102: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 21, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. All Conditions of Approval of Administrative Review No. 85-48 (Extension of Time) conditionally approved December 3, 1986, shall apply. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-48 (EXTENSION OF TIME): 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 21, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating all lots on the subject property. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection. 3. 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. -4- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 5 C. Provide minimum of five (5) fifteen (15) gallon trees along the West and North property line planters. 4. Wheel chair ramp shall be installed at the intersection per Public Works standards. 5. There shall be no sale of alcoholic beverages and vending machines shall be limited to no more than three (3) at the location. 6. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 7. Street lights shall be provided along Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street per Public Works standards. 8. Dedication of thirty-two foot (321) corner radius is required per Public Works standards. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Applicant shall record an irrevocable offer to dedicate a reciprocal access easement for the benefit of the adjoining shopping center property, to become effective at the time the service station property recycles. 12. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-48 (EXTENSION OF TIME): 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. 3. The major identification sign shall be removed or altered to comply with Article 961 within ninety (90) days of the approval date. -5- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 6 4. All signs shallcomply,with Article 961 of:the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs:shall be low -profile, monument -type signs. . - 5. The Board of Zoriing 7Adjustments reserves ,the 'right to revoke Administrative Review-No."85-48 (Extension of Time) if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: -None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.:86-91 (Cont. from 11/26/86.) Applicant:- Wayne Howard Construction A request to permit six hundred sixty (660) Square,Feet-of open space in lieu of nine -hundred (900) Square Feet.. Subject property is located at 6421-Antrim Circle -(North -side of Antrim Circle approximately one hundred thirty-five feet (135'-) East of Toway Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Ms. Phillips stated this request was before the Board the previous week. The applicant was asking for a reduction in the open space for construction of an addition and the Board granted a continuance to give the applicant and Staff an opportunity to work out a solution. The applicant has determined that an extension in the front and moving the driveway would not be -economically feasible for the property owner. The space is needed in the back portion of the residence. Staff and the applicant have been unable to -resolve the problem so Staff is again recommending Denial. The Public Hearing was opened and Bob Wolf was -present to represent the applicant. Mr. Wolf said they had done a survey of the yard and there had been an error in his original calculations. They would be losing additional open space because of the dimensional mistake. He further stated that, if the owners attempted to change the garage to a front entry arrangement, it would only be eighteen feet (18') in depth. He reiterated the statements from the previous week that the owners wanted the space at the rear of the residence and a front area addition would not meet their needs. addition and about six Dennis Krejci said that, as he recalled, it was a large asked about the square footage.- Mr. Wolf replied it was hundred (600) Square Feet. -6- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 7 Christiane Garisoh, owner of the property, stated that the whole neighborhood had been "working" with them and making suggestions for redesigning the house. She further said that a variance on the minimum dimension had been granted in 1984 to another resident down the street, and she felt she deserved the same consideration. Mrs. Garisoh added that if they could use the fifteen foot (151) dimension rather than the twenty foot (201), they would have two open yard areas. She again mentioned that the dining area space was desperately needed for her large family and they would like to have the additional space in the bedroom area. Tom Poe asked if the variance which had been granted was for a side entry garage and Ms. Phillips replied in the affirmative. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Les Evans said he did not see how the Board could approve this request because it was too far out of bounds for a Conditional Exception. He further stated the Board was being faced with these types of requests more and more because people were not moving so much; that when they need more space, they are enlarging their existing residences. The City Council needs to take another look at the Code and/or give the Board more latitude. Daryl Smith added he had said this a year ago. Since the cost to buy in Orange County is astronomical and many of the children are returning home, people are needing to enlarge their homes. They do not need the open spaces so much now because of parks, health clubs, etc., which are available. The Board is dealing with an antiquated Code and there are several developments going on in the City which do not meet all this criteria such as PUD's, etc. When houses like this were built, they were placed in the middle of the lot. They could have gone as close as twenty feet (201) but this home was built with a twenty-two foot (221) setback. The owners are now suffering because of this. Mr. Evans said he felt this request should be referred to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. The Commission could set a policy that applies to existing homes based on lot coverage rather than just open space. Mr. Smith said he would like either to have some findings for approval or he would go along with Mr. Evans' suggestion for referral to the Planning Commission. Mr. Evans added that, if the Board approved or denied the request at this time, they would really have accomplished nothing insofar as future requests were concerned. If it is sent to the Planning Commission, then maybe the Board can get some guidance from the Planning Commission for future projects. Mr. Smith agreed the Board should request guidance on these things - open space requirements, minimum dimension figures, setbacks, etc., since the Board is faced with these things each week.. -7- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 8 Les Evans said he would move for referral with recommendations that the Conditional Exception be approved based on the Board's findings that people do not move so much now and need latitude to enlarge their houses, and the Code needs to be looked at to allow the Board of Zoning Adjustments more latitude for approving expansions into the setback areas. Daryl Smith said he would second if the maker of the motion would add "reconstruction of those Ordinance sections themselves". The maker of the motion agreed. Mr. Smith asked if there would be any cost to the applicant for the referral and Glen Godfrey said there would be no fee. The applicant would, however, have to furnish labels for notification. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY SMITH, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-91 WAS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None Mr. Godfrey added he had voted "NO" for the same reasons previously stated at the last meeting - that a tradeoff could be accomplished between the dining room space and the bedroom space. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-33 Applicant: Carl L. and Jane T. Randolph A request to permit addition of eight hundred (800) Square Feet to the second story of an existing two (2) story house. Subject property is located at 16812 Baruna Lane (East side of Baruna Lane approximately one hundred fifty feet (1501) South of Kamalii Drive). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Ms. Phillips reported this request was for an addition to the front portion and top story of a house located in an area which would require Coastal Commission permission for construction of the addition. This addition would bring the house to a total of over four thousand (41000) Square Feet. There are no variances requested and surrounding residents have been notified without any comments - adverse or otherwise. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant, Carl L. Randolph, stated he was present to answer any questions the Board might have. Tom Poe inquired about the type of roofing and the applicant said he planned a continuance of the existing shake roof. Mr. Poe said the City had not outlawed shake roofs but the Fire Department would -8- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 9 highly recommend a fire retardant roof. The applicant then replied he:had not ruled out reroofing the entire house. Mr. Poe said that Fire might, upon finding that one residence was too close to another, require a fire retardant roof on new construction. Staff asked that a condition be added requiring the "Letter of Agreement" to maintain the residence as a single family unit. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY G05FREY, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-33 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed 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. The proposed single family residence conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 30, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. A nineteen foot by eighteen foot (19' x 181) garage area shall be maintained clear of obstruction. 3. 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. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 5. Prior to 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. -9- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 10 6. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development 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 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-82 USE PERMIT NO. 86-78 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-52 Applicant: Lake Properties CE REQUEST: To allow bay windows and balconies to encroach into exterior side, interior side, and rear yards, 2) to allow stairs to encroach into rear yard, and 3) to allow front and exterior side setbacks to be credited toward open space requirements. UP REQUEST: To permit a twenty-four (24) unit apartment complex. Subject property is located at the Southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Lynn Street. This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-52. Staff said that, during the last week, the Board members had raised several concerns - some of which were how these smaller parcels would affect the drainage, oil well locations on the parcels, and maintenance of the small parcel. Staff mentioned there were several representatives of the applicant present to answer questions. Daryl Smith asked if Development Services had requested any interpretations from the Legal Department relative to the legalities of this project, and Staff stated they had not done so. The Public Hearing was opened was opened on all three (3) items concurrently, and Gerald Sy Golob, Architect, said he could answer some of the questions but that the Engineer, Rick Scianni, was present to answer any questions concerning structural load calculations, etc. JoAnne Berg, Vice President of Lake Properties, stated they had prepared a complete survey of the subject property which might clarify for the Board some of the issues involved. She said Lake Properties would be the record owner of the large parcel in about one week, as well as Parcel 2 which abuts the corner of Warner -10- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 11 Avenue and Lynn Street. Plans have been submitted for street improvements and sidewalks except for the twenty-five foot (251) area where Lake Properties might not be able to get the cooperation of that property owner. Lake Properties has made several offers on the property but we have gotten no response from their attorneys. She said they will be planting grass, irrigation lines, etc. She said that, if the project is approved and things look good, getting the cooperation of this parcel owner will be easier. Ms. Berg added that the property owner will come to realize they have no use for this small piece of property. We did offer them $18,000.00 for the property but to no avail. Glen Godfrey asked if Lake Properties or Carl Weaver owned the surface rights to the two parcels. Ms. Berg said Mr. Weaver had been pumping oil but they would be purchasing everything including surface rights. Les Evans asked if they would be grading the small parcel. Ms. Berg said they could do so but she did not feel it was necessary. Mr. Evans added he did not think the City would want to require grading on someone else's property without their permission. A lengthy discussion followed about possible ways this dilemma could be resolved regarding the sidewalk area, grading, street improvements, access to oil wells, etc. Mr. Evans suggested the possibility of obtaining a petition of all other adjacent property owners, instituting Chapter 27 for installation, and then filing a lien against the property. There were further discussions regarding parking, turnarounds, filing a Tentative Parcel Map, access rights, landscaping, locating oil wells on the map, etc. Mr. Evans then suggested the Board might wish to deal with the Conditional Exception and Negative Declaration at this meeting and postpone action on the Use Permit until the City Attorney's office could be consulted on legalities of the project. Ms. Berg requested that the Board go ahead with approval of the project with conditions to assure their conformance with the City's requirements. Mr. Scianni said comments had been made that the three parcels were not located on the map. He asked what was missing that was needed since the oil wells had been located. He presented a map to the Board and Mr. Godfrey stated that it was what was needed since it had been signed by Alfred Aguirre, LS 3125. Mr. Scianni asked if the Board would still be requiring a parcel map and Mr. Poe said not right now. -11- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 12 Gerald Sy Golob spoke regarding the architectural features of the buildings, balcony encroachments, meeting setbacks, lot coverage, and other design amenities. Mr. Golob said he felt they had worked very diligently with Staff to'develop an attractive and viable project which would be an asset to the City. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Upon questioning by Daryl Smith as to whether approval of the Use Permit was still being considered, Les Evans said that maybe a condition of the Use Permit could be that it was subject to approval by the City Attorney's Office regarding the "gap" in the sidewalk - or installation of improvements over the "not a part of" parcel in the public right-of-way be accepted subject to approval of the City Attorney and Directors of Public Works and Development Services. Glen Godfrey stated he still had concerns with the subdivision of the property originally and he would like to see a condition that proof be presented to Development Services and Public Works Departments that the parcel was legally created and/or a Parcel Map be submitted. He further stated he had a concern with the easement for pipe lines which runs right under the buildings. Tom Poe was concerned with the oil well situation and asked that oil wells be abandoned per standards of the Fire Department and the Department of Oil and Gas. Dennis Krejci expressed concern that the City would be requiring landscaping of a parcel which the developer did not own and said he would prefer seeing that "occur on its own" rather than being a requirement. UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-52, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-82, AND USE PERMIT NO. 86-78 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-82: 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. -12- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 13 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-82 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 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 Conditional Exception No. 86-82 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-82: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 6, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. All Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 86-78 shall be applicable. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-78: 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. 86-78 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. 86-78: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 6, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 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. -13- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, f. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 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. 3. 'Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection'. 4. Drainage from exceptions to -Parcel No. 1 shall not be impaired and property shall not be graded. 5. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 6. 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. 7. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 8. Natural gas and 220V electrical outlets shall be stubbed in at the location) of clothes dryers. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. 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. 11. The developer shall contact FAA prior to issuance of building permits. 12. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Wheel stops shall be provided in garages to protect walls. 14. A Parking Assignment Plan shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Development Services. 15. One hundred (100) Cubic Feet of storage area per dwelling unit shall be provided. 16. No permanent structures shall be located on exceptions to subject parcels. 17. Applicant shall relinquish access to Warner Avenue. -14- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 15 18. Installation of improvements over "not a part of" parcels, public right-of-way areas, and future public right-of-way areas shall be accomplished with approval of the Director of Development Services, City Attorney, and Director of Public Works. 19. Easement to "not a part of" parcel shall be granted. 20. Submit proof of legal creation of lots to satisfaction of Development Services and Public Works Departments or submit a Tentative Parcel Map. 21. The applicant shall provide a "Quit Claim" for twenty foot (20 ) street easement. 21. Storm drains shall be installed in Lynn Street and Warner Avenue to satisfaction of the Public Works Department. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 3. 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). 4. 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. 5. Landscaping shall comply with Article 912 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, 6. All oil wells on site shall be abandoned according to current Department of Oil and Gas standards and Fire Department standards. -15- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 16 7. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke Use Permit No. 86-78 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-94 Applicant: Carolyn L. Deden A request to permit a six foot W ) high block wall to encroach five feet (51) into required fifteen foot (151) front yard setback. Subject property is located at 3402 Venture Drive (South side of Venture Drive approximately one thousand thirty feet (1,0301) West of Sundancer Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff said this request would involve the wall on the East side of the property and the applicant is requesting that a six foot (61) high wall be allowed. Previously, the Board had approved a wall on the opposite side of the property for privacy because of the public walkway along the rear of the lot. This request for a wall on the East side does not fall under the same hardship and Staff is recommending denial. Chairman Poe opened the Public Hearing and Carolyn L. Deden was present. Mrs. Deden said she would like to know why it was necessary to have a hardship in order to do something on your own property. She further said she would like to show Staff and the Board a petition which she had circulated to her neighbors and also pictures she had taken of other walls located within the fifteen foot (151) setback. She also added they were concerned about the aesthetics and all they were asking for was to be treated in the same way as others on the street. Daryl Smith asked what Mrs. Deden was asking the Board to compare. She replied they had gone up and down the street and measured walls over forty-two inches (42") in height and then had the owners sign the petition. Mr. Smith asked Mrs. Deden if she was saying that all these people had obtained permits from the City or all the walls were allowed under the Code when they were built. Mrs. Deden replied she did not have that information. -16- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 17 Mr. Smith then added that some places in Huntington Harbour were granted variances by the Planning Commission or City Council when built originally because of lay of the land or where the Coastal Commission required dedications for public right-of-way. Mr. Smith further stated he could not recall a time since he had been on the Board that such a variance had been granted where an adjacent property owner was objecting - only when neighbors had been notified and had no complaints. Mrs. Deden asked what the complaints were and said maybe she could show how they could take care of the complaints. Mr. Smith reminded Mrs. Deden that Mr. Goodyear, the adjacent property owner, had helped pay for the block wall and that their "understanding" had ultimately turned into a "misunderstanding" when the additional "courses" had been added to the wall. George Deden stated that Mr. Goodyear was aware that a permit had been pulled for a six foot (61) high block wall. He added that Dick Lunsford had checked the wall for height and George Bendlin had been out later to also check the wall. Mr. Deden said they needed the wall for security purposes because they had previously had three break-ins. Calvin Droege said he was an Attorney representing Francis and Pegi Goodyear, the adjoining property owners at 3422 Venture Drive. Mr. Droege stated the Board was aware that this was a party wall and the initial permit was issued by the City for a six foot (6') high wall. Mr. Droege continued that the two property owners in question had agreed to build the wall five feet (51) in height and it was built, inspected, approved and signed off at the five foot (51) height. The applicant thereafter increased it by two (2) courses and moved it forward five feet (51). Mr. Droege added there was no permit obtained for the height increase nor for the encroachment and my client objected to that. Also, a request for permission for this construction was not submitted to the Trinidad Homeowners Association and Mr. Droege submitted a letter from their Architectural Committee. He added further that the wall is obstructing the view from the Goodyear's residence. The need for a wall on this side is not the same as on the opposite side where the swimming pool is located, and they felt the strictest applications of the Zoning Ordinance should be applied in this case. Daryl Smith asked Mr. Goodyear if he had wanted the "staircase" situation. Mr. Goodyear replied he had told George Deden he did not want that because it would "tunnel vision" his residence. Mr. Smith reminded Mr. Goodyear that he had stated at the last meeting that this wall was built and capped off and everyone was satisfied with it. You (Mr. Goodyear) went away and, when you returned, there were men again working on the wall. Mr. Goodyear verified Mr. Smith's -17- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 18 statements and added that he had instructed the workmen to stop because the wall was also on.his property. Joe Robertson, owner of the property on the opposite side of the Goodyear's home, stated he had lived at that location prior to the time the Goodyears had built their residence. He said they had "closed" him,in without any consideration for his needs. He further stated Mr. Goodyear's garage extended farther out than the wall the Dedens built. Mr. Robertson added that the Goodyears were registering a complaint in this case but were not living by their own rules. He said he was sure the Board would want fairness to all parties in a case such as this. Mr. Deden said that, when he chipped the top off, he had talked with Leroy Grove because the original permit was for a six foot (61) high block wall. He added that George Bendlin came out and said he had a right to build it six feet (61) high for privacy and security. Also, Mr. Deden added, Mr. Goodyear signed the application which shows a ninety-six foot (961) wall of six (6) courses in height. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Les Evans stated there had been a lot of testimony which was irrelevant to the issue and the Board needed to get back to what they had to work with - the Code. The issue that needs to be determined is whether or not there is a land -related hardship, and Daryl Smith agreed. Mr. Smith added that the original plan which the Board had reviewed and approved was for the swimming pool site and there was a hardship in that case. Now the Dedens are asking for the same thing on the other side and there is no hardship. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-94 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. 1 -18- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 19 3. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-94 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-95 Applicant: Herbert M. Lee A request to allow fifty-four percent (54%) site coverage in lieu of required fifty percent (50%) maximum and 2) to permit reduction in required open space area. Subject property is located at 942 Eleventh Street (South side of Eleventh Street approximately two hundred fifty feet (2501) West of Lake Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff reported that, in reviewing this request, it was determined that a Use Permit was needed to accompany this Conditional Exception. The applicant has been informed and has filed for the Use Permit; however, it required advertisement for a Public Hearing so Staff is recommending a one (1) week continuance. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-95 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None MISCELLANEOUS AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 86-84 Applicant: Country Cottage A request to change the date on previously approved Use Permit No. 86-84 to December 13, 1986, to permit only a one (1) day Temporary Outdoor Event in lieu of three (3) days. Subject property is located at 6885 Warner Avenue (Portion of the Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Golden West Street). Staff explained that a request had been received from the applicant to change the date on a previously approved project for a Temporary Outdoor Event and Staff recommended approval. -19- 12/3/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 3, 1986 Page 20 UPON MOTION BY EVANS AND SECOND BY POE, USE PERMIT NO. 86-84 WAS AMENDED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The conceptual site plan received November 6, 1986, shall be subject to approval of the Fire Department. 2. 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 five (5) days prior to the event. 3. A Certificate to Operate, as required by S.9730.80 of the Ordinance Code, shall be issued prior to the event. 4. The applicant shall provide for clean up of the area after the closing of the event. 5. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits. 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 POE AND SECOND BY EVANS, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 8, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None kiieri A. k7oarrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (6909d) 0 1 -20- 12/3/86 - BZA