Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-10MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 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 Regular Meeting of November 19, 1986. Daryl Smith stated he was still not comfortable with what he had reviewed in the Minutes and he felt Glen Godfrey had been more explicit. He continued that Mr. Godfrey had made a good point that the review was for a minor change to an architectural feature of a building and he (Mr. Godfrey) was not uncomfortable with reconsidering the conditions and allowing the change in the building. According to Mr. Smith's recollection, Susan Pierce had not only been a Staff member but had also served as a Board member; and she had said Ken Reynolds was in attendance at the first meeting and the Board might wish to notify Mr. Reynolds again since he could have some concerns. However, Mr. Smith continued, the Board heeded Mr. Godfrey and the Staff member, Scott Hess, who felt it was minor and the Board could reconsider this Use Permit (86-27) without public notice. Mr. Smith stated that, with this information added to the Minutes of this meeting, he could move for approval of the Minutes of November 19, 1986. Glen Godfrey said he would second the motion. Les Evans added he had concerns about changing the conditions of the Use Permit without a Public Hearing and he remembered asking Glen Godfrey how the Board could do it. Mr. Evans recalled Mr. Godfrey had replied the Board could and had modified conditions without readvertising the project, and the action we took later that day was based on his remarks. Mr. Evans stated he would like the Minutes to reflect that he had recalled Mr. Godfrey saying this Use Permit could be changed without a Public Hearing. Glen Godfrey then stated on a number of occasions insignificant condition i ambiguity in a condition. ever said the Board could Permit without benefit of distinction, Mr. Godfrey he did not recall saying that but had said the Board could modify a somewhat n order to clarify a condition or an Mr. Godfrey added he did not think he had completely remove a condition from a Use a Public Hearing. In the context of that continued, the matter (Use Permit) was at Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 2 one time required to go before the Board for approval but the Code has now been written so that the Department Director can make the decision. The Director of Development Services thought it should come back to the Board for their consideration as a courtesy only. Mr. Smith added that was basically what he remembered Mr. Godfrey saying at the meeting in question and the ambiguity requiring a Parcel Map was the reason he wanted reconsideration of the map. Mr. Smith continued that, in his opinion, the map was not required because the Map Act was quite clear on that particular issue. There had been an ambiguity on that condition and three members of the Board had agreed. MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 1986, WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Krejci - Dennis Krejci stated he was abstaining because he had not been present at the meeting in question - November 19, 1986. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-95 USE PERMIT NO. 86-89 Applicant: Herbert M. Lee CE 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. UP REQUEST: To permit alteration to a legal nonconforming structure. 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 1 and Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff member, Laura Phillips, reported the site is a twenty-five foot (251) lot in an R-1 Zone. The applicant wants to expand the front area by adding a Living Room with a second story Master Bedroom and by constructing a deck over the garage at the rear of -2- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 3 the lot. With these additions, the lot coverage would be at fifty-four percent (54%) and'the applicant is asking that the front balcony be considered to meet the open space requirement. Staff further stated the project was advertised and a letter had been received from an adjacent property owner objecting to the addition. Staff recommended conditional approval based on the land -related hardship of the twenty-five foot (251) lot and the fact the R-1 Standards were written and designed for larger lots. Daryl Smith commented that a section of the Code allows fifty-five percent (55%) lot coverage when the parcel is located adjacent to a park site over one hundred feet (100') wide. Upon questioning by Mr. Smith, Ms. Phillips said that was correct; however, in this particular case, the park was across the street from the lot. Glen Godfrey stated he did not think that Code section would apply in this case since the park was not directly abutting but rather was across the street. The subject of a circular stairway was introduced by Dennis Krejci. He stated the Building Code would not allow an area over four .hundred (400) Square Feet to be serviced by a circular stairway. Glen Godfrey asked if a "Jacob's Ladder" stairway would be acceptable and Mr. Krejci said he was not familiar with that type. Ms. Phillips suggested adding a condition calling for a stairway to meet Code requirements. Mr. Krejci said he just wanted to make the applicant aware that, even though the Board approved the project, the addition might not meet the restraints of the Building Code when it was plan checked. Tom Poe added that the Board was only approving conceptual plans and not approving anything else. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Tom Poe. The applicant, Herbert M. Lee, was present. Mr. Lee stated he was basically in conformance with the Town Lot area requirement which allows the fifty-five percent (55%) lot coverage, and also that he would have no problem with installing another type of stairway if required. Mr. Lee added he was being married in the near future and needed the additional living space. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Daryl Smith stressed the fact the project was meeting all the setbacks for the area and he did not agree with Mr. Godfrey's interpretation of the Code insofar as consideration of the park was concerned. Mr. Smith said he felt the park should be considered with respect to the open space requirements and lot coverage. -3- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 4 Glen Godfrey mentioned that Mr. Smith's reasons,for'approvaljshould be listed as "Findings" rather than conditions;_.__.=•Mr:; Godfrey reiterated his earlier statement that Development-=Ser:vi'ces Department's interpretation of the Code would not consider the park as being adjacent. After further discussion, Les Evans asked that a condition be added calling for the two and one-half foot (2-1/21) alley dedication. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-95 AND:.USE�PERMIT NO"::-86-99 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS _FORT APPROVAL •-_ COND-I.T:IONAL•' EXCEPTION NO. 86-95 : 1. Because -of- specia•1 circumstances applicable -t"o, the.• subject•-= property," iincluding•si1ze,4'•=shape',topography;, locations;or •surroundings;'`the•tstrict' appli' tion`:'of the'Zoning'Ordiria�ice is found,• to,• deprive-, the', subject�.property, � of privileges' enjoyed by other properties• in-°the--vic'•in-ity-)an'd-'und'e'r• Identical' zone class,i�ficat'i'onS:,'li.:.L.r'-i�; :t'!`t. i•_i.i;f. �,,, , ... 1i3� , f'l ..t .��7 - i.._ i`�i. ,...%ti. ;; .- :�f'i�`�`•-:1+... c.'i';��...:n- ... + 2.• The: granting of� • Cond,,it�'ionail" Exception No."'86=95--wil'i-,+not be- mAterTA•lly''detrime'rita'1l'td- t3ie pi�blic� taelf'ar`e,''or `i`�ijurious'='to p'r'ope'rty' 1 �th'e' same' zone''clas'6i'fications: 3:' The-- granting of the. C6nd1tional3-Except1on- will not,. adversely, 'affect -the General- Plans of the= City, of Huntington"-' Beach'. ''' 4'. Building, setbacks, are, -An: compliance- on the parce'L, and; - since + the- property - is-Ilocated- across•'th6=' street.=• from'" a public park site, fifty-five percent (55%) lot coverage could be allowed. 5. The buildable area.,of-:the= site. -'is: reduced' -by` an alley' which is not typically found;.on. R-1 -lots. CONDITIONS.OF APPROVAL, -.CONDITIONAL -..EXCEPTION N0,',86-95: 1.-- ,The .site plan,- floor--:plansir�and' elevations receivedand"dated- _ November- 10,, 1986;;-shall-.be_ the approved_,layout.with,'-the' '- following.:modifications:; __...: _' _ a. Revise'stairway�and/or,sundeck,-area to:meet=the Building`. ..Code. _ _ cc_ 2. All Conditions:.of-Approval. of ,Use- Permit -, No. 86-89 -shall' be applicable. -4- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 5 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 86-89: 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. 86-89 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 site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 10, 1986, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Revise stairway and/or sundeck area to meet the Building Code. 2. 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. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, a two and one-half foot (2-1/21) alley dedication shall be made to satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 6. 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. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. -5- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 6 AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith' NOES: None ; ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL,EXCEPTION NO. 86-100 Applicant: Roger Craft A request to.permit aIsix inch' (6"') side yard setback-in-lieu.of required five foot ('51)'`sid'e`yard setback andia four foot-.(4') rear yard setback in ,lieu of five foot (51) rear yard setback for accessory structure. Subject'pioperty is located at 204411-Mansard Lane (West side.of Mansard Lane at-intersection••with-Bainfor"d Drive). This request 'is covered.by'CAtegorical-Exemption; Class Sy California Env ronmefital'Quality'Act, 1986.-• ,' According to Staff, the applicant has a-boat-shed'and a tool shed which are presently located on the lot. The boat shed is only six inches (,6") from the,side property line in lieu of the required five feet (5'). Staff'h&s drawn'revised plans•showing•the�-applicant ways the structures can "-be rel'ocat'ed `"on the -lot and - stilI%meet r.Code; however, the applicant -feels' he 'does- riot-want•'to- move them: Staff recommended denial of'the'request.' The Public- Hearing was opened`an&'1the applicant, Roger Craft, ;was present. Mr. ­Craft stated'he'did-not=wish to-moveithe structures because of the 'difficulty, of maneuvering the boat trailer: into the boat shed. He'further- ,stated''he had'made several,attempts'to locate boat storage elsewhere in the`City but had not -been successful. Suggestions were made to Mr. Craft relative to possible solutions such as storing the boat'in'one section -of his three (3) car -garage, but Mr. Craft said he,had several other vehicles which needed.to be kept in the garage. Tom Poe also called the Board's -attention to the fact a boat was being stored in the shed with -flammable , materials in it - so it would. -have to be moved"away -from-the- property line. 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 GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-100 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING'FINDINGS; BY -THE -FOLLOWING VOTE: - -6- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 7 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 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. 2. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-101 Applicant: Timothy J. Hund A request to permit a five foot (51) encroachment into required ten foot (101) rear yard setback. Subject property is located at 8181 Whitburn Circle (North side of Whitburn Circle approximately seventy feet (701) East of Weymouth Lane). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Ms. Phillips explained the request was to legalize a room addition which had been built in the early 1980's without benefit of a building permit. The lot has an irregular configuration and has in excess -of 1,200 Square Feet of open space. The applicant has obtained letters from adjacent property owners stating they have no objections to the addition. Glen Godfrey asked if there was a letter from the adjacent property owner who is most directly affected by the addition and Ms. Phillips replied in the affirmative. The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant, Timothy J. Hund, was present. Mr. Hund explained he had not built the addition but it had been part of the property when purchased. Now, according to Mr. Hund, he was attempting to sell the property again and could not do so without legalization of the residence to meet the Code requirements. Daryl Smith inquired where the applicant had obtained all the photographs which had been presented to the Board if he had not -7- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board,of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 8 built the addition. Mr.•Hund explained he had obtained them from the previous owner when he -found himself in this "Catch 22" situation. t , There was a discussion initiated by Dennis Krejci concerning electrical wiring, plumbing; etc;.,:and how the-Building-Inspedtors would establish -conformance with the Code. It was explained to the applicant that he would have to meet the Code by inspections which could require removing portions••of the walls,•etc'. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-101 WAS APPROVED -WITH THE, -FOLLOWING -FINDINGS AND'CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:, - FINDINGS FOR•APPROVAL:,• 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be-detrimental,to:•.,- ; a. The general •welfare --of •persons,,residi;ng�or working -irr• the ,vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,. shapei;.: topography; Jocat,ion� :or• • -- surroundings,, the strict application of;--the-Zoning-Ordinance-is found to deprive the,.suk?ject property -of •privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. ; 3. The granting of.Conditional Exception No. 86-101 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same,zone classifications'. 4. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not adversely affect the General- Plan .of the• City of Huntington Beach. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.OF-APPROVAL:. - 1. The site plan-, floor plans,- and- elevations• received -and- dated November 24, 1986, shall-be.the approved layout. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:. 1. The room addition shall comply -with all -applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building -Division, and -Fire Department. -8- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 9 AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: Krejci ABSENT: None Mr. Krejci explained his "NO" vote was because he felt that granting exceptions like this encouraged other people to build structures without building permits or without meeting Code requirements. Daryl Smith added he had voted in favor of the request because of the excessive size of the lot, the fact the present owner had not constructed the addition, and the fact the addition would still have to meet Building Code requirements. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-55 Applicant: Joe Oakley, Jr. A request to construct a two (2) story, two thousand eight hundred forty-two (2,842) Square Foot office building. Subject property is located at 18582 Main Street (South side of Main Street approximately two hundred forty feet (2401) East of Florida Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 3, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. According to Staff, the proposed building is located behind Dr. R. Graham's Chiropractic Clinic and will be used for general office rather than medical facilities. The project was originally approved for a smaller size but it will still meet parking requirements because of the difference in uses. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Dennis Krejci mentioned some dimensions had been missing on the plans and asked Staff if she had satisfied herself that the project met Code. Ms. Phillips replied in the affirmative. Les Evans broached the subject of the reciprocal access and parking arrangement which had been required originally. This was followed by a lengthy discussion. The applicant, Joe Oakley, Jr., was present and stated he was the Architect,for the project. He explained that cutting a hole in the wall would cause the loss of parking spaces. Dr. R. Graham was also present and mentioned people driving through the area could create a hazardous condition and he reiterated that Mr. Adler would lose parking spaces. Glen Godfrey explained the Code had changed since the original approval and the Board would have to take these things into consideration before approving this project. Mr. Godfrey continued that one condition should be that Dr. Graham's existing sign be -9- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning -Adjustments December, 10, 1986 Page 10 brought,into conformance with the new Sign Code. Dr. Graham told the Board members how expensive his sign had been to construct and he did not wish to remove, .it.. - •Les Evans stated -he' would feel -=better about considering the project -.without the sign issue and the'•� Planning:Commission would ha.ve•the prerogative•of,'appea,lingk th`e' project if:_they,had concerns with the sign. Daryl Smith suggested revising the condition to say that all signs for the proposed building shal•l,be,in-compliance with the Huntington Beach'Ordinance Code. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND,.BY EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: NO. 86-55 WAS -APPROVED WITH THE,FOLLOWING CONDITIONS;:-BY'THE- FOLLOWING VOTE:, SPECIAL CONDITIONS -OF APPROVAL:i, 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 10, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to,issuance,of building permits, the applicant shall submit -the following plans: a,i Landscape.and.irrigation,plan'to`thetDepartment,of Development Services and Publ'ic,Workst,-for=revi�ewc�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.- Ins,tallation of�required landscaping and -irrigation -systems shall be completed prior to final- inspection.-,-, 4. 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. 5. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 6. Natural gas, shall be stubbed in at the• locations,•of. cooking facilities, water heaters,:,and central heating units,-,',Y: 7. Low -volume heads, shall be used .on. all -.spigots •and -water• -faucets. 8. 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. -10- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 11 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent South properties. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to occupancy. 10. 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 with the exception of the front sign. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards with the exception of the front sign. 3. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 3. New signs shall comply with Article 961 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. Landscaping shall comply with Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke Administrative Review No. 86-55 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. AYES: Evans, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: Godfrey ABSENT: None There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their review. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1986, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -11- 12/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments December 10, 1986 Page 1'2 AYES: Evans, Godfrey',, Krejci, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary i Board of Zoning Adjustments j t, (6980d) -12- 12/10/86 - BZA