Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-25MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25. 1987 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Phillips MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY EVANS, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1987, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cranmer, Godfrey UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY SMITH, MINUTES OF THE, REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1987, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cranmer REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-1 (Cont. from 2/18/87) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-3 (Cont. from 2/18/87) 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 11, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986 According to the Staff member, Laura Phillips, this request had been continued from the previous meeting because the property owner reported on the application was incorrect. The applicant had shown the owner as Pacific Heritage when, in fact, the City of Huntington Beach was the owner. The City had not given consent for use of the Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 2 lot and the request was continued to give the applicant time to rectify the situation and obtain permission from the City. The applicant has met with members of the Redevelopment Department and, if the application is approved here today, it will still be necessary for the applicant to obtain further permission from the City Administrator before opening the parking lot. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. The Public Hearing was reopened by Vice Chairman Les Evans since it had remained open from the previous meeting. The applicant's representative, Ed Bonnani, was present and broached the question of surfacing the lot as he had done in past years. Mr. Bonnani stated he had talked with Paul Cook, Director of Public Works, who told him that Department would prefer that there be no surfacing of the lot this year. Ms. Phillips said the condition relative to surfacing stated it should be to satisfaction of the Fire and Public Works Departments. Les Evans agreed that the condition should cover the situation. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the request so the Public Hearing was closed. Daryl Smith requested that the condition relative to seeking approval of the City Administrator prior to opening of the lot be listed as Condition No. 1. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CRANMER, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-1 AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-3 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-1: 1. The Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the CZ suffix and the Downtown Specific Plan, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 2. The proposed temporary use is located at a site where the existing street pattern is consistent with the Certified Land Use Plan. 3. The development increases the public access to the beach and, therefore, conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 4. Because the temporary use enhances beach access, the project proposed by the Coastal Development Permit application conforms with the applicable plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the Certified Land Use Plan. -2- 2/25/87 BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-1: 1. The conceptual site plan received and dated January 20, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. All Conditions of Approval of Administrative Review No. 87-3 shall apply. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-3: I. Prior to operation of the parking lot, the applicant shall obtain permission from the City Administrator. 2. The conceptual site plan received and dated January 20, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 3. The site shall be maintained in a clean condition free from trash and debris. Trash containers shall be placed on the site sufficient to accommodate and store all trash that accumulates on the lot. 4. Lots shall be secured to prevent overnight parking between the closing hour of one business day and the opening hour of the following business day. 5. An attendant shall be on duty at all times during business hours. 6. Directional and informational signs shall be displayed on -site to provide identification of entry into the parking lot and charges for parking and hours of operation. Such signs shall be located at the entrance in a copy size visible to motorists entering the parking lot. On -site signs shall not exceed twelve,(12) Square Feet and shall not be more than eight feet (8')'high nor less than six feet (6') high. Said signs shall be removed from the site each season no later than the third weekend each September. 7. An approved fire extinguisher shall be -provided on, the during business hours. premises 8. A Certificate of Insurance and a Hold Harmless Agreement, in an amount deemed necessary by the Administrative Services Department, shall be filed with them at least five (5) days Prior to opening the parking lot. 9. An inspection shall be made by Land Use and the Public Works Department to insure that the above -imposed conditions have been met prior to opening of business. -3- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 4 10. No signs, swags, cables, post -signs, etc., shall be allowed in the public right-of-way. 11. This approval is valid from May 22, 1987, to September 20, 1987, inclusive. 12. Lot surface shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire and Public Works Departments. NOTE TO APPLICANT: You are hereby notified that, for future projects, this Department must receive your complete application a minis umm of four (4) weeks prior to the opening date for adequate review .and processing. It this procedure is not followed, your application will not be processed. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None USE PERMIT NO. 87-5 Applicant: Lamppost Pizza, Inc. A request to permit the establishment of a pizza restaurant in a retail center. Subject property is located at 10056 Adams Avenue (Southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff reported this was a request to relocate an existing pizza parlor from one location in a shopping center to Building A in the same center. The existing restaurant accommodates 132 seats and the proposed area would seat 148 patrons. This would increase the parking demand by two (2) spaces over the existing use. Staff also stated that, when Site Plan Amendment No. 86-10 was approved for construction of the new building pad by Business Properties, a restriction had been placed that no restaurants or night clubs would be allowed because of the proximity to the adjacent residences in Meredith Gardens. Those residents had objected to the prospect of noises, odors, loading and unloading of delivery trucks, pests, etc., and the Board had conditioned the project to mitigate those concerns. Staff further added there were already two existing restaurants in that area of the shopping center, and Staff recommended denial of the request because of the previous restrictions. The Public Hearing was opened and the applicant's representative, Dan Barro, was present. Mr. Barro stated he would like to address the residents' concerns and added he had a letter from property -4- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 5 owners adjacent to his existing restaurant which stated they had no complaints over operation of the pizza parlor at that location. Mr. Barro further added he would have deliveries made through the front of his location because there would be no drive behind the restaurant and this would eliminate most of the truck noises. He added the peak hours of operation for the pizza parlor would be in the evening after retail businesses had closed and that would ease any parking problems. Les Evans asked why the applicant wished to move to another location and Mr. Barro replied for better exposure from Adams Avenue which should bring more business from the Costa Mesa area. A representative of Business Properties, Joe Walthour, was present and stated the restriction of no restaurant at the location had been generated by Robert Franklin and the property owners of Meredith Gardens. Mr. Walthour added that Lamppost Pizza would mitigate the concern of truck noises by not having rear deliveries and the pizza odors were not that unpleasant. Mr. Walthour also stated that, in his.opinion, the intent of not allowing a restaurant on that pad was because of the parking situation in that area of the shopping center. He further felt that, since the pizza parlor was presently existing in the center, it would not increase or impact the parking and added they would be putting in a retail operation where the pizza parlor was now located. Mr. Barro added he would be willing to sign a document stating he would only accept deliveries through the front entrance. Paula Macenski said she was representing the Meredith Gardens Home Owners Association and asked if her letter had been received. Ms. Phillips stated it was in the file and the Board members also had copies for their reference. Ms. Macenski added she did not understand how Mr. Barro could say they would not generate more traffic because he had also stated his reason for moving to a new location was to attract more business. She further stated she liked Lamppost Pizza and frequented the business - but she thought it should remain where it was. She added that if Lamppost Pizza moved to the new building pad, it would create a precedent for another restaurant or night club to occupy the building if Lamppost Pizza moved out. Ms. Macenski added the existing restaurants in that area had caused enough problems without creating additional ones. Another resident, Rudolf Johncola, stated his opposition through concerns over rats, odors, garbage or trash disposal, etc. He added that he had personally killed twenty-seven (27) rats in that area because of the existing restaurants and an additional eating establishment would create more. He further added that, in walking his dogs through the center, there was always trash and garbage around the front of Lamppost Pizza. -5- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 6 Joe Walthour reminded Paula Macenski that any restaurant replacing Lamppost Pizza would be required to come to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for a Use Permit and the residents would be duly notified at that time. Ms. Macenski countered with the statement the residents had already been through this process twice and they did not wish to go through it again. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Daryl Smith said he had originally understood this was a new restaurant coming into the shopping center instead of an existing one relocating to a new site. Glen Godfrey reminded Mr. Smith that the previous Site Plan Amendment had conditioned that no restaurant or night club could be located on that particular pad. Mr. Godfrey also mentioned approval of that request had been sought in order to conform with the flood plain elevations. Robert Franklin had met with the adjacent property owners and their request was that no restaurant or night club be allowed at that location. Mr. Smith added that, in acting as the "Devil's Advocate", the people who signed the letter stating there had been no problems created by having Lamppost Pizza in their area would not have had the pizza parlor odors blown into their homes; however, the prevailing winds would carry those odors into the adjacent residences on the other side of the center if Lamppost Pizza moved to the new location. Glen Godfrey reiterated the statement the Board's previous approval was based on the residents' concerns and would preclude any restaurant being allowed on that pad. He further advised Mr. Johncola that he should contact the Health Department relative to the rats in the area. Mr. Smith said he wanted it made clear that Staff did not go to the residents and make promises about "no restaurants" without also talking with Business Properties. He also wanted it understood that Business Properties had been aware of the restriction at the time Site Plan Amendment No. 86-10 was approved. Tom"Poe added that they had accepted those restrictions without appealing the Board's action. UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY GODFREY, USE PERMIT NO. 87-5 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties due to traffic, noise, lighting, and activity. -6- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 7 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-5 Applicant: Reginald de la Cuesta A request to restripe parking area and fence off a portion of the parking area. Subject property is located at 18061-65 Redondo Circle (West side of Redondo Circle approximately one hundred sixty-five feet (1651) South of Talbert Avenue). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff stated this was a proposal for restriping a parking lot. The applicant wants to cut down or eliminate the use of his lot by the adjacent tenants. The driveway was to be a reciprocal arrangement but the parking was not. The actual use of the buildings is to be for warehouse/storage and, based on that usage, a total of thirty (30) parking spaces would be required. Staff, however, would recommend that six (6) parking spaces be eliminated from those provided by the applicant - Nos. 25, 30, 31, 35, 36 and 37. Ms. Phillips added that the applicant was proposing a six foot (6') high chain link fence but Staff would suggest a thirty-two inch (32 ) high decorative block wall and that,no gates shall be installed. The applicant, Reginald de la Cuesta, was present and, upon questioning by Les Evans, said he had not seen a copy of the conditions. After reviewing the conditions, Mr. de la Cuesta said the major issues of concern to him were the parking and the block wall suggested by Staff. He said the block wall would be extremely expensive and the thirty-two inch (32") height would not prevent people from parking on his lot - that they would just step across the wall. Mr. de la Cuesta added he was losing $4,000 per month and was just trying to improve the lot for prospective tenants. He also added there were many industrial buildings in the immediate area with chain link fences and he did not understand Staff s recommendation for the block wall - that he felt it was creating a definite hardship for him. -7- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 8 Daryl Smith asked the applicant if he felt it was definitely necessary to have a six foot (61) high fence and the applicant replied in the affirmative. There was a discussion initiated by Glen Godfrey as to how Units B and C would be used, if there would be incidental office space in the warehouse units, and the amount of parking allocated for these uses. Mr. Godfrey also asked the applicant if he had discussed the parking problem with the adjacent property owner and the applicant replied he had asked people parking there to not do so. Mr. Godfrey then informed the applicant that matter would be one between him and the property owner - not the tenants. Daryl Smith added he understood the applicant's position regarding the fence since it was an industrial area. Mr. Smith suggested a chain link fence with top and bottom rails and subject to approval of the Development Services Department. Daryl Smith said he would move for approval with these stipulations regarding the fence. Tom Poe added he would second if Mr. Smith would consider installation of fencing similar to what is required by the Fire Department around oil well installations. Mr. Smith declined, stating that type of fencing would deter the Police in their surveillance of the industrial areas. Mr. Poe concurred with Mr. Smith and seconded the motion. Glen Godfrey expressed concern that, since the applicant had not leased the spaces to tenants, the Board might be approving a request where there would be insufficient parking. Daryl Smith said he did not feel that was correct - the Board was just approving restriping of the parking lot and the fencing. Mr. Godfrey reiterated Staff's statement that Mr. de la Cuesta had indicated he would be providing for storage in Units B and C and Building A would be for another use. If he changes the usage in the future, he might be creating a parking problem. Mr. Smith said he would like to amend his motion by saying that the approval of the fencing and restriping is based on the uses currently in effect. Glen Godfrey said he would prefer it read that Units B and C be authorized for warehouse/storage as indicated on the site plan. Messrs. Smith and Poe concurred with Mr. Godfrey's amendment. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-5 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -8- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 9 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated January 28, 1987, shall be the approved layout, with the following modifications: a. Delete parking spaces numbered 25, 30, 31, 35, 36 and 37. 2. The proposed fence shall consist of a six foot (6') high chain link fence, with top and bottom rail. Specifications and plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Development Services before installation. 3. No gates shall be installed that would block traffic flow through the site. 4. This approval is based on existing uses. Use of Building Nos. B and C shall consist of warehouse/storage with incidental office space. 5. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 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 Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke Administrative Review No.87-5 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-115 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to create two (2) parcels: Subject property is located on the West side of Gothard Street approximately three hundred feet (3001) North of Ellis Avenue. This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 15, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. According to Staff, this was a request to divide one (1) five -acre parcel into two (2) parcels. The property is currently being used as the City's heliport site. Access to Parcel One will be from Gothard Street and Parcel Two will be from the City's fire training center. A twenty foot (201) dedication will be required on Gothard Street. Staff recommended approval with conditions. -9- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 10 Glen Godfrey asked Tom Poe if he had checked with the Fire Chief regarding access through the fire training center and Mr. Poe replied in the affirmative. A representative of the City of Huntington Beach, Dan Brennan of Property Management, was present and stated access through the training center property would be no problem. Mr. Brennan also agreed to the conditions as presented. UPON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY POE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-115 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision of one (1) parcel for purposes of industrial use in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for light industrial allowing industrial uses was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCEL(S) FOR ANY PURPOSE: I. The Tentative Parcel Map received by the Department of Development Services on February 5, 1987, shall be the approved layout (with the amendments as noted thereon). 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Gothard Street shall be dedicated to City standards. -10- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 11 4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s). 5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s). 6. Applicant shall obtain irrevocable reciprocal access easement from abutting northerly property to provide access to Parcel No. 2. 7. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said Parcel(s) is/are developed. 8. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances. 9. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed. (Contact the Department of Public Works for additional information). 10. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. 12. All vehicular access rights along Gothard Street shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by -the Board of Zoning Adjustments. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-130 Applicant: J. P. Kapp and Associates A request to legalize two (2) existing parcels. Subject property is located at 6781-6791 Warner Avenue (North side of Warner Avenue approximately seven hundred feet (7001) West of Golden West Street). This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff reported this request was to legalize two (2) developed parcels on the North side of Warner Avenue near the intersection of Golden West Street. The parcels are incorporated in a shopping center complex and the United States Post Office is located to the West of these parcels. Staff would recommend approval with conditions. -11- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 12 Glen Godfrey asked if there were easements along the side and Staff replied she was unaware of any - that the parcel was divided in 1973. The applicant's representatives, Donald P. Jones and John Roberts of J. P. Kapp and Associates, were present. Mr. Godfrey asked Mr. Jones whether there was a reciprocal easement with the bank property and Mr. Jones said there was with the whole shopping center. Daryl Smith -asked Staff if she had researched the files regarding changes in the parking lot and Staff replied she found nothing. Mr. Smith, addressing himself to Mr. Jones, stated he recalled some Board action regarding parking changes on the lot. Mr. Jones said they had made an addition onto a building on the West side of the center but added they now had a reciprocal easement between the two parcels. John Roberts asked Les Evans if the access rights along Warner Avenue could be dedicated through the Certificate of Compliance process but Mr. Evans replied it could not, that all requirements for legalization of the parcels would have to be shown on the map and recorded. Messrs. Jones and Roberts accepted the conditions as presented by Staff and clarified by Mr. Evans. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CRANMER, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-130 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING -VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision for purposes of commercial use in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that,type of development. 2. The General Plan has -set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for community business district allowing commercial buildings was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be.constructed-in compliance with standards plans and .specifications on file with.the City as well -as -in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City -Subdivision Ordinance. -12- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 13 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 February 9, 1987, shall be the approved layout (with the amendments as noted thereon). 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s). 4. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s). 5. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed. 6. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances. 7. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. 8. All vehicular access rights along Warner Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. 9. Applicant shall record an irrevocable reciprocal access and parking agreement between subject property and abutting easterly property. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Daryl Smith stated the Lamppost Pizza request would probably be appealed to the Planning Commission. He asked Staff to make sure the letters from the adjacent property owners be included in any Staff reports. There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their review. -13- 2/25/87 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments February 25, 1987 Page 14 UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY POE, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1987, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Godfrey, Poe, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments jgh (7497d) r -14- 2/25/87 - BZA