Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-28MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1996 -1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Herb Fauland STAFF MEMBERS: Susan Pierce, Mary Beth Broeren, Esther Baker MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-41 PETITION DOCUMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-41 (FENCE EXTENSION) APPLICANT: Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management REQUEST: To permit a two (2) foot high extension -to three (3) existing five and one-half (5.5) foot high block walls. LOCATION: 9292 Grand Avenue (north of Yorktown Avenue, east of Waterbury Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Susan Pierce Susan Pierce, project planner, presented photos and a site plan. Ms. Pierce stated that the overall height of the existing block wall is five and one half (5.5) feet. Ms. Pierce stated that the applicant received permission for the extension from the neighbor on the west side of the property as that wall is located on property line. Ms. Pierce stated that on the east the wall is not on the property line but rather all on the applicant's property. Ms. Pierce also presented photographs that were submitted of other fence extensions in the neighborhood. Ms. Pierce stated that the rear wall (Yorktown Avenue) is in City right-of-way and belongs to the City of Huntington Beach. She stated that any additions made to City walls are illegal and that the City does not have a process established at this time to allow approval to extend the block wall. Ms. Pierce stated that a letter had been received from the neighbor on the east who does not support the extension. This neighbor stated that the extension is something that should be easily maintained or does not require any maintenance and was concerned about impacts to property values. Ms. Pierce stated that this extension is not in compliance with the General Plan of the City because of the wood type materials used. Staff recommends denial of this application and recommends removal of the extensions within 14 days. Ms. Pierce reported that this application is a result of a Code Enforcement action. Mr. Fauland, Zoning Administrator, asked why there were two separate designs for the extensions. Ms. Pierce referred the question to the applicant. Mr. Fauland asked if staff has looked at any alternative designs for the Yorktown property wall. Ms. Pierce responded that staff recommends that if this is approved, the materials and construction of the extension should match the existing wall to make it more aesthetically appealing. Ms. Pierce also stated that the Public Works Department and the City Attorney's office recommend denial of the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Corrie Kates, 117-1/2 28th Street, Newport Beach, represents the property owners at 9292 Grand Drive. Mr. Kates responded to Mr. Fauland's earlier question and stated that his clients would make the fence extensions consistent in design if the request was approved. Mr. Kates also stated that in regard to the General Plan policy that allows for extensions, that it seems to be in conflict with the Department of Public Works' recommendation. Mr. Kates requested a continuance for this application rather than a denial. He stated that the applicant thought that he could put a wall extension up because there are many others like this in the area. Mr. Kates agreed there is a maintenance concern but that the applicant would do whatever is most aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Kates suggested the possibility of approving this request with conditions placed on it regarding maintenance and for a survey of the east property line to verify the wall is entirely on the applicant's property. Mr. Kates stated that if the Zoning Administrator granted a denial, then the violations of fence extensions citywide should also be investigated and enforced. Ron Johnson, 9312 Grand Drive, stated that he had submitted a letter regarding his position on the request. He then reiterated the subject content of the letter and his concerns. Mr. Johnson reported that his neighbor, the property owner, had asked them about the fence extension, and the Johnsons replied that they were against it. The property owners put the extension up and Mr. Johnson stated that was when he filed a complaint with Code Enforcement. The City made the determination that it was not within code and the fence was removed by the property owner. Subsequently, the property owner informed the Johnsons that they had permits and variances approved for the wall and a survey indicating that the fence was entirely on their property. The property owners requested permission to temporarily put the extensions back up until the matter was resolved. Upon contacting the City, Mr. Johnson learned that they did not have the appropriate approval. Mr. Johnson stated that the City should address the issue on a citywide basis. Kirk Kingham, 9292 Grand Drive, expressed his concern that an individual walking down the sidewalk on Yorktown could easily see directly into his backyard, master bedroom, living room, and kitchen due to the slope of the property. He also mentioned that he can see into the ZA Minutes - August 28, 1996 2 (min0828) neighbor's bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Kingham stated that he is currently getting licensed and bonded as a general contractor doing wood work and that the fence is very high quality. Mr. Kingham expressed concern about his German Shepherd's containment and safety as the dog can easily jump over the existing fence. Mr. Fauland asked Mr. Kingham why he chose the lattice style fence versus solid. Mr. Kingham responded that he chose privacy lattice work for the side fences. He chose a solid fence in the back because the properties across Yorktown Avenue are two (2) story houses and they look directly into his backyard and into the rooms of the house. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Fauland asked Ms. Pierce if the location of the block wall on the Yorktown side was on the property owner's property. Ms. Pierce replied that it was not and provided a cross-section from the approved tract map. Mr. Fauland asked Ms. Pierce if the applicant has attempted to get authorization from the City to use the block wall. She responded that they had not. She reported the City Attorney's office believes that until there is a policy established by the City Council and a program in place to regulate all City fence extensions, it is not in the best interest of the City to grant this approval. Mr. Fauland asked if there were any prior discussions regarding the accuracy or the location of the fence and property line. Ms. Pierce replied that the property owners on the east were able to document a five (5) foot easement on each property, but not the precise location. Staff believes the west wall is on the subject property. Mr. Fauland asked if the applicant had obtained authorization to build the extension on the west property line. Ms. Pierce responded that they had and that the City has this on file. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-41 WAS DENIED WITH THE FINDINGS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. HE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-41: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-41 for a two (2)-foot extension to three (3) existing 5 and one-half (5-1/2) foot high block walls will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The City of Huntington Beach has not granted authorization for the extension to the city -owned wall within the Yorktown Avenue right- of-way. Without the extension on the Yorktown Avenue wall, the east and west fence extensions do not provide privacy for the residential unit as sought by the applicant or enhance the visual appearance of the public street scene. The wall extensions are not compatible with existing wall construction on the subject property. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-41 will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The wall extensions are not constructed with permanent ZA Minutes - August 28, 1996 3 (min0828) materials consistent with the design of the existing walls to make a positive visual contribution to the public streetscape. (Huntington Beach General Plan policy UDL 3.5) ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-59 PETITION DOCUMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-59 (WEST COAST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY) APPLICANT: The Louie Group REQUEST: To expand office area of an industrial building to 24 percent of building square footage (in lieu of 10 percent maximum). LOCATION: 5901 Engineer Drive (at northern terminus of Transistor Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Mary Beth Broeren Mary Beth Broeren, project planner, presented the site plan. Ms. Broeren stated the tenant is requesting to expand the office space to 24 percent of the total floor area with the remaining area used only for warehouse. The Zoning Code allows industrial uses to have a maximum 10 percent of office space. Ms. Broeren presented drawings of the proposed changes and stated that the applicant is not proposing to change any of the circulation or parking configuration of the property. Ms. Broeren stated that new windows will be added to the front of the building. She stated that the City has not received any calls or written correspondence regarding the request. Staff recommended approval of the application with a covenant to restrict use of the building for warehouse and office only. Mr. Fauland asked if there would be adequate parking. Ms. Broeren responded that there would be sufficient parking with the restriction of 24% office area and the remaining warehouse use in the building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Louis Hernandez, 19312 Harding Lane, Huntington Beach,-92646, stated that they may move the location of the windows one to two feet. He stated that the tenant's business is for shipping and receiving only. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TOP SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-59 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. HE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZA Minutes - August 28, 1996 4 (min0828) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-59: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-59 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of an industrial building with 24 percent of the building square footage as office space will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The primary use of the building is industrial which is compatible with the surrounding area. Adequate parking will be provided on site for the warehouse use, and a covenant will be recorded limiting future use of the property to warehouse. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-59 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The use is consistent with General Industrial land use designation on the property. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-59: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated July 18, 1996 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover sheet of all working drawing sets submitted for plancheck. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following plans and items shall be submitted and/or completed by the applicant: a. The subject property shall record a covenant restricting use of the building to warehouse. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to building permit issuance. The document 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 Community Development prior to final building permit approval. 4. Prior to final building permit approval, the following shall be completed: ZA Minutes - August 28, 1996 5 (min0828) a. 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. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. The Zoning Administrator shall be notified in writing if any changes in use, floor area, or building elevations or open space are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Zoning Administrator has reviewed and approved the proposed changes. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to require that an amendment to the original entitlement be processed if the proposed changes are of a substantial nature. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 3. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 4. Construction shall be limited to Monday through Saturday, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and federal holidays. 5. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 96-59 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance occurs. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:02 P.M. BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996. Herb Fauland Zoning Administrator ZA Minutes - August 28, 1996 6 (min0828)