Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-08MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8,1997 - 6.00 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Herb Fauland STAFF MEMBER: Wayne Carvalho, Susan Pierce, Hannah L. Brondial Bowen, Mary Beth Broeren, Kim Langel (recording secretary) MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 96-51 (TRAFFIC CONTROL GATES APPLICANT: Cliff Hoskins, 3017 Warren Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PROPERTY OWNER: Central Park Estates #9 Homeowners Association, 18702 Jockey Circle, Huntington Beach, CA REQUEST: To permit the installation of traffic control gates at the entry to Tract 13439 (Central Park #9) at the intersection of Derby Circle and Saddleback Lane. LOCATION: 18311 Saddleback Lane (intersection at Derby Circle) PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Wayne Carvalho, Staff Planner, stated this item was continued from the December 11, 1997, Zoning Administrator meeting. He stated the request is to permit the installation of traffic control gates at the entry to Tract No. 13439 at the intersection of Derby Circle and Saddleback Lane. Mr. Carvalho stated that they received a letter from the applicant on January 6, 1997, requesting a continuance of this item for a minimum of four (4) months. Staff is recommending continuance of this item to a date uncertain. Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, stated he would accept the request to continue with the requirement that staff re -advertise and re -notify the public of the rescheduled public hearing date . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-51 WAS CONTINUED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 96-6R (TACO BELL) APPLICANT: Tom D. Luther, Jodika Enterprises, Inc., 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite N2, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PROPERTY OWNER: Jodika Enterprises, 1851-13 N. Vista Way, #262, Vista, CA 92083 REQUEST: Review of non -audible drive -through ordering system to determine compliance with City's Noise Control Ordinance. LOCATION: 818 Pacific Coast Highway (at Ninth Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Susan Pierce Susan Pierce, Staff Planner, stated that this application was approved by the Zoning Administrator in August 1996, with the condition that 90 days after installation of the non -audible ordering system a noise study be prepared to determine whether the system is equal to or lesser than the previous ordering system. The applicant contacted an acoustical analysis firm who prepared a study. The study indicates that there is so much ambient noise on the site generated from the traffic and other activities in the neighborhood, that the site itself does exceed the noise ordinance. However, the new system is not contributing to this noise. Public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and no comments have been received regarding the proposed action. Staff is recommending acceptance of the report and find the system in compliance with the noise ordinance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Tom Luther, 818 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, stated that they are in compliance with the noise ordinance and concur with staff s recommendation. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE NOISE STUDY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-6R WAS ACCEPTED AND FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. NO FURTHER REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED. HE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. ZA Minutes 1/8/97 2 (97ZM0108) ITEM 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 96-54NARIANCE NO 96-22 (ADDITION/ROOFTOP DECK, APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Marty Sundy, 410 Seventh Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To permit a third level deck on a two (2) story addition with variances to allow 57 percent site coverage in lieu of 50 percent and a three (3) foot side yard building setback in lieu of three (3) feet, nine (9) inches. LOCATION: 410 Seventh (east side of Seventh Street, 100 feet north of Orange Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Susan Pierce Susan Pierce, Staff Planner, displayed an area map, a site plan and photographs. She stating the proposed project is located at 410-7th Street just north of Orange Avenue. The proposed project is in a neighborhood that has single family and multi -family residential, a church, and a variety of other types of uses. The subject property currently contains a one (1) story older home. The proposed first floor addition will consist of a large game room and a three (3) car garage. The proposed second floor addition will consist of two (2) bedrooms, two (2) baths and a breakfast room. A roof top deck is proposed and contains a large covered area that includes a barbecue, a sink and a dumb waiter. Ms. Pierce indicated that the plans could be modified to meet the minimum sideyard setback requirements by trimming off nine (9) inches in two (2) areas and shifting the garage to meet the setback requirements. Also, the proposed addition will exceed 50 percent site coverage and staff can not justify the increased site coverage or the reduction in the side yard setbacks. The RMH-A zoning ordinances establishes a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet, with a 25 foot minimum frontage. This subject site is one and one-half (1-1/2) lots, therefore larger than the standard single family lot in this area. Staff has received calls and communications from interested parties in the neighborhood. Several of them are concerned that the addition will be used as a separate apartment unit. Staff does not support the request. Staff feels it is inconsistent with the General Plan because the addition will dominate the site and it will contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. Staff also feels the project decreases light and ventilation opportunities to adjoining properties and it exceeds the design and development standards that were established within the neighborhood. Also, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a land related hardship to warrant granting of the variance. Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, asked staff if there had been discussion with the applicant regarding compliance with the minimum sideyard setback requirements and the maximum 50 percent site coverage requirement. Staff stated that the issues had not been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Fauland asked staff if precedent had been set in the immediate area for a site coverage and/or a setback variance. Staff stated they had not. ZA Minutes 1/8/97 3 (97ZM0108) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Marty Sundy, 410-7th Street, applicant, stated he was trying to upgrade the property. He stated that it was originally intended as a granny unit, but they have revised the plans to comply with the zoning ordinance. He stated that he did not think the sideyard setback variance requests was out of the ordinary for the vicinity since he has one and one-half (1-1/2) lots. He also stated that he does not feel that the 57 percent site coverage request is excessive. Dan Gurzi, 3497 Braemer Lane, architect for the applicant, stated that the 57 percent site coverage and the reduced sideyard setbacks will allow the applicant to have garage space to park vehicles on - site in lieu of on street where there is currently a parking problem. He stated that he feels it is compatible with the design of homes in the general area and that it is in compliance with light and ventilation requirements. Bob Reed, 1831 Pine Street, stated he does not feel the proposed project will be detrimental to the area or the City. Mr. Reed stated that the mass of the structure is at the rear 60 percent of the property and will not affect the surrounding properties. He feels it will improve the property site and reduce the on street parking problem. He also noted that some homes in the immediate area had been built with 55% site coverage. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, stated that he had asked staff if there had been any precedent set in the vicinity for a variance to minimum sideyard setbacks and/or maximum site coverage. He noted that some of the testimony indicated that there may be some evidence of precedent regarding site coverage and if the information could be provided, he would be willing to consider the information. He also stated that he believes the plan can be modified to comply with the sideyard setback requirement. He urged the applicant to comply with the minimum sideyard setback and provide information on the site coverage of homes in the immediate area. He requested staff to work with the applicant on these issues. Mr. Fauland stated that he likes the provision of additional on -site parking in the downtown area and noted the benefits to the surrounding area and the City. The also felt that the expansion is a great improvement to the property. He stated that he would like to continue the item for two (2) weeks to allow the staff to work with the applicant to try to comply with the minimum sideyard setback requirement and show evidence of other properties in the vicinity with 55 percent site coverage. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-53 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-22 WERE CONTINUED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE JANUARY 22,1997 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING. ZA Minutes 1/8/97 4 (97ZM0108) ITEM 4: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 96-19 (NIELSEN ROOM ADDITION) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Bert Nielsen, 16791 Coral Cay Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To permit a 520 square foot room addition on the first floor of an existing single family residence. LOCATION: 16791 Coral Cay Lane (Huntington Harbor) PROJECT PLANNER: Hannah L. Brondial Bowen Mary Beth Broeren, Staff Planner, displayed floor plan and photographs stating that the request is for a 520 square foot addition to an existing single family residence in the Huntington Harbour. The home is located adjacent to the water, and the coastal development permit is required because the addition exceeds ten (10) percent of the dwelling. The addition will be a single story addition. The applicant is requesting to fill in a courtyard with living area, as an extension of the family room. Staff stated that the proposed site plan meets all code requirements, will not impact any public views or coastal access and is consistent with code requirements. Staff has not received any telephone calls or communications regarding the proposed request and is recommending approval with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bert Nielson, 16791 Coral Cay Lane, applicant, stated he concurred with staff s recommendation. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.96-19 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. HE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.96-19: 1. The request to permit a 520 sq. ft. room addition to the existing one-story single family residence, as modified by the conditions of approval, conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The project will not impact public views or access. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 96-19 is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the RL Zoning District, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, including site coverage and setbacks. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed addition to the existing one-story single family residence will be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure currently exists on the site. ZA Minutes 1/8/97 5 (97ZM0108) 1 4. The proposed 520 square foot room addition to the existing one-story single family residence conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreational opportunities will be affected by the new construction. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 96-19• 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 6, 1996 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 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. The Zoning Administrator shall be notified in writing if any changes in building height, floor area, setbacks, 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: 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 Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 96-19 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. ITEM 5: VARIANCE NO. 96-23 (WEILER ADDITION) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: PROJECT PLANNER: William & Rae Weiler, 6852 Lafayette Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 To permit the first story of a two (2) story addition to encroach two (2) feet into a required five (5) foot side yard setback. 6852 Lafayette Drive (north of Heil, south of Edinger, west of Goldenwest) Hannah L. Brondial Bowen ZA Minutes 1/8/97 6 (97ZM0108) Mary Beth Broeren, Staff Planner, displayed site plan and elevations stating the request is to add on to an existing single family residence, which is a two (2) story residence. The applicant is proposing to build a two (2) story addition, however, only the first story of the addition is the subject of the variance request. The applicants request for a variance is to allow for a walk area around a spa. Staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of relocating the patio or the addition area, however, there are existing structures on the site that preclude them from doing that. One is an existing wooden lattice patio cover and the other is a firepit. Staff is supporting the request on the basis of the existing structures that preclude them from putting the addition in the rear portion of the lot. Staff feels the existing structures are a site constraint for the addition. Staff has a letter on file from the adjacent property owner indicating that they are not opposed to the addition. Staff has not received any calls or concerns regarding the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Rae Weiler, 6852 Lafayette Drive, applicant, stated that the site they have chosen for the addition was done so because it is the least intrusive place on the site. She stated they are installing the spa for health reasons. She also stated that they were confident the addition would not impact the privacy of their adjacent neighbors. Ralph James, 786 Pinecalls Avenue, Walnut, contractor for the project, stated that there were not any spas on the market long and narrow enough to fit the area, that is the reason for the spa they chose and the walk around area. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. VARIANCE NO.96-23 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. HE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO. 96-23; 1. The granting of Variance No. 96-23 to permit the first story of a two story addition to encroach two (2) feet into a required five (5) foot side yard setback will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Variances for reduced setbacks have been granted throughout the City for similarly zoned properties. ZA Minutes 1/8/97 7 (97ZM0108) 2. 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 an identical zone classification. The single family dwelling contains a fireplace on the first floor which projects two feet from the easterly exterior wall face of the residence and projects into the proposed location of the first story addition. If the fireplace did not project two (2) feet beyond the wall face, the first story addition could be accommodated without the need for a two foot encroachment into the side yard setback. Consequently, there is an area in the"rear of the property that could accommodate the first story and second story addition, thus eliminating the need for a variance, but that area contains a circular fire pit which is part of the property's hardscape. There is also an existing wood lattice patio cover attached to the rear of the single family dwelling, but like the fire pit, this would also have to be removed in order to accommodate the first story and second story addition. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The portion of the proposed first story addition that would encroach into the side yard setback is similar to a bay window in design, with the exception that the addition extends from the floor to the ceiling, and not merely a partial protrusion of an exterior wall. Pursuant to Sec. 230.68 of the HBZSO, bay windows may encroach a maximum of 2.5 feet into the side yard setback, whereas this project would involve a maximum encroachment of two feet. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. The subject property and the adjacent property to the east are separated by a 6 foot high block wall which has an additional two foot high shrub (along 29 ft. of the block wall), atop that. Thus, visibility from the neighboring property would be minimized because of these physical barriers. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO.96-23: The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 22, 1996 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. b. The proposed second story addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing single family residence in terms of materials and colors. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). ZA Minutes 1/8/97 8 (97ZM0108) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit one (1) copy of the site plan indicating colors and materials proposed for the addition pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community Development. 4. Prior to final building permit inspection, the following shall be completed: 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. 5. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS• 1. Variance No. 96-23 shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Variance No. 96-23 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Variance No. 96-23, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:45 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15,1997 AT 1:30 PM. Herb Fauland Zoning Administrator :kjl ZA Minutes 1/8/97 9 (97ZM0108)