Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-21r MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1999 -1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Herb Fauland STAFF MEMBER: Wendy Bounds, Ian Jones, Peter Vanek, Tony Duarte, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: None ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ITEM 1: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-31(NGUYEN RESIDENCE) (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 31,1999 MEETING) APPLICANT: Andrew Goetz, 240 Newport Center #231, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROPERTY OWNER: John and Connie Nguyen, 16081 Santa Barbara, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To permit a 2,321 square foot first and second story addition and remodel of an existing two-story single family residence. LOCATION: 16081 Santa Barbara Lane (west side of Santa Barbara, along the Long Channel) PROJECT PLANNER: Wendy Bounds Wendy Bounds, Staff Planner, stated the applicant has reviewed the Association's CC&R's regarding easements and requested that the matter be continued to May 5, 1999, to allow for site plan revision. The revisions will bring the request into conformance with CC&R requirements. Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, stated that the City does not enforce Homeowner Association CC&R's; however, he advised the applicant to obtain Homeowner's Association approval based on the fact that the item could be brought by the Homeowner's Association as a civil matter. The Zoning Administrator further stated that, regardless of the CC&R's, if the home conformed to the zoning ordinance, he could approve the item as submitted. The Zoning Administrator stated he would concur with a continuance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WERE NO PERSONS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-31(NGUYEN RESIDENCE) WAS CONTINUED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO MAY 5,1999. ITEM 2:COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.99-3/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-6 (VIS RESIDENCE) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Lori Vis, 16911 Westport Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To permit construction of a maximum 12 foot high wall in lieu of 42 inches, with seven (7) feet of retaining wall and five (5) feet of block wall within the rear yard. LOCATION: 16911 Westport Drive (along the west side of Westport, south of Davenport Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Wendy Bounds _ Wendy Bounds, Staff Planner, displayed a site plan stating that the project is located on Westport Drive in the Huntington Harbor area. The subject site is surrounded by a single-family residential area. The applicant is requesting construction of a maximum 12-foot high wall in lieu of 42 inches. The wall will be seven feet retaining and five feet block wall. The walls are permitted to exceed maximum height within the setback with the conditional use permit. With the approval of this conditional use permit the project will comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The wall is compatible with walls in the surrounding area that also have some pilasters every 16 feet and trip cap decoration with some landscaping. Staff has received no calls regarding this conditional use permit. Staff recommends approval with the recommended conditions. Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, expressed concern over the achievement of a consistent design and theme. Staff stated the design and theme were consistent with the surrounding area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Lori Vis, 16911 Westport Drive, applicant/property owner, stated the wall will be identical to the neighbors and will tie-in to their wall, and that the landscaping will be identical, as well as the backside of the property. The Zoning Administrator asked the applicant if she had a chance to review the conditions of approval. The applicant stated she had and was concerned with the requirement for soil testing. She stated her neighbor who had a similar project did not have this requirement. ZA Minutes 4/21/99 2 (99ZM0421) Staff explained that soil tests were a new requirement of the City. Staff also explained that the applicant had been advised to have the engineer meet with Building and Safety Department's Permit and Plan Check Manager and an alternative solution could be obtained. Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, stated that would be acceptable to him. Jerry Urner, Huntington Harbor Property Owner's Association, stated that they had reviewed and approved the plans. Mr. Urner asked for confirmation that the planter width would be the same as the neighbors and that the planter width would not be altered. The Zoning Administrator noted the site plans showed a plus or minus one -foot to ten -inch match to the neighbors. Mr. Urner stated that was satisfactory. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.99-3/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-6 (VIS RESIDENCE) 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.99-3: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 99-3 for the development project, as proposed or as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposal is a combination block/retaining wall in the rear yard of a through lot. The proposed wall will not negatively impact any public views or access because none exist on the subject site. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Walls are a permitted use in all zoning districts. The Ordinance allows deviation from the standards for height of walls within the setbacks with a conditional use permit. The wall will be consistent with all conditions imposed by this conditional use permit. 3: At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure is in place, thus, none is required to be provided. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. No public access or recreation exists on the subject site, therefore, no impacts exist. ZA Minutes 4/21/99 3 (99ZM0421) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-6: s- 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-6 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a retaining/block wall will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed wall is designed with decorative trim caps and includes a landscaping planter that will improve the aesthetics of the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed wall is similar to other permitted walls within the surrounding residential neighborhood. The wall will be identical to the wall on the property to the north of the site. 3. The proposed retaining/block wall will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located, as approved by this conditional use permit. The ordinance grants deviation from the height requirements within the setback area with the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed wall will conform to the conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential, Low Density on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Ensure that structures and sites are designed and constructed to maintain their long term quality (LU 4.2). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.99-3/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-6: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February 22, 1999 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The colors and materials shall be identified on the plans. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the second page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). b. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) ZA Minutes 4/21/99 4 (99ZM0421) 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. Blockwall/fencing plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 4. Prior to final building permit inspection and approval, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. b. 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 Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning 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 Planning 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. Coastal Development Permit 99-3/Conditional Use Permit 99-6 shall not become effective until the ten day California Coastal Commission appeal period has elapsed. 2. Coastal Development Permit 99-3/Conditional Use Permit 99-6 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 Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit 99- 3/Conditional Use Permit 99-6, 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. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. ZA Minutes 4/21/99 5 (99ZM0421) 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. ITEM 3: REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (EWELL RESIDENCE APPLICANT City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: Revocation of an existing home occupation permit for violations of Section 230.12 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. LOCATION: 16751 Marie Lane (west side, north of Lydia Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Ian Jones Ian Jones, Staff Planner, stated that the request is for a revocation of a home occupation permit based upon violations of Section 230.12 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Staff recommends the revocation based on the findings that the terms and conditions of approval of the home occupation permit have been violated. Mr. Jones indicated that the property owner at 16751 Marie Lane has been conducting business in an on -site garage and has displayed visible signage advertising the business from the garage window. The business has increased pedestrian and/or vehicle traffic to the residence and through the neighborhood. Staff noted that Code Enforcement Officer, Anthony Duarte, was available to answer questions regarding this issue. Staff also indicated that they had received telephone calls regarding this issue, all of whom indicated they would not be able to attend this hearing. The callers said they would send letters of objection, however, none had been received. Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, stated he had received and reviewed a letter dated April 12, 1999, with the letterhead of Jason's Glass Tinting, which he believed was also sent to the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Fauland requested that Mr. Duarte, present a history and evidence of violations at this location. Mr. Duarte's report was as follows: 1. On February 19, 1999, a complaint was received regarding Jason's Tinting. Upon investigation, Mr. Duarte observed a car's windows being tinted in the garage and signage advertising the business in the garage window. At that time, Mr. Duarte advised Mr. Jason Ewell that he is in violation of the home occupation conditions. On February 24, 1999, Mr. Duarte issued a notice of violation after observing Jason Ewell tinting a truck's windows in the garage and observed tinting equipment. 2. Mr. Duarte stated that on July 27, 1998, Mr. Ewell was issued a violation for not having a home occupation permit, a business license and for displaying a sign advertising the business in the garage window. ZA Minutes 4/21/99 6 (99ZM0421) Mr. Fauland asked Mr. Duarte if he had photographs of the violations and Mr. Duarte responded that he did. In response to Mr. Fauland's questions, Mr. Duarte stated that the complaints against Mr. Ewell go back as far as July 1998. He noted the dates of violation as 7/12/98, 8/24/98, 11/12/98, and 2/12/99. Mr. Fauland asked if Mr. Ewell complied with the requirements to obtain a home occupation permit, a business license, and indicate compliance after each complaint and investigation. Mr. Duarte responded that Mr. Ewell did get the proper permits but did not indicate compliance. Mr. Fauland asked what follow-up action and compliance has taken place since the last notice of violation. Mr. Duarte stated that he has driven by and left a card but observed no activity or violations. Mr. Duarte also stated that Mr. Ewell was given information about the home occupation permit and its requirements. He did observe a partial cover-up of the garage window sign, but that Mr. Ewell did not fully comply. Mr. Duarte stated that Mr. Ewell has a mobile glass tinting business license and home occupation permit, which means he can conduct off -site business and on -site office work but no window tinting is permitted on the premises or in the garage and no signage advertising the business is allowed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jason Ewell, 16751 Marie Lane, property owner, stated that the facts are misleading and that he has had a business license for several years. Mr. Ewell stated that he did receive a notice of violation from Tony Duarte, which he did not appreciate receiving since he does have a business license, and to his knowledge he is not in violation of the home occupation permit. Mr. Ewell stated that he does take business telephone calls from his home and go off -site to conduct his business, and that he occasionally does tint neighbors' car windows in his garage. However, he stated he has complied with the conditions of his permit. Mr. Ewell stated that he had been contacted in the past by the City regarding a business license, but gave reasons why he was unable at that time to comply. He stated that he has since complied. Mr. Ewell stated that he has enhanced the property since moving in and poses no nuisance to the neighborhood in 'spite of harassment and death threats targeted at him. Mr. Ewell spent considerable time elaborating on the fact that he is an asset to his neighborhood because he is at home during the day to keep an eye on the neighborhood. He stated that he felt he has been treated rudely and in a slanderous manner by the City in his attempts to obtain names of individuals for subpoena purposes to present before this hearing. Mr. Ewell stated that he has tinted vehicle windows for friends and neighbors in his garage. Robert Lund, 6971 Lydia Drive, stated that Mr. Ewell is an asset to the neighborhood, and that he has seen no increase in traffic or unruliness, and he sees no problem with Mr. Ewell's activity and considers him to be a good neighbor. Chris Hernandez, 6942 Verlene Circle, stated Mr. Ewell is the type of neighbor one would want to have and that he has not observed an increase in traffic due to Mr. Ewell's activity. ZA Minutes 4/21/99 7 (99ZM0421) Ken Brice, 6941 Lydia Drive, stated he doesn't know Mr. Ewell real well but that he improved his house thereby improving the area. Mr. Brice stated that Mr. Ewell exhibits no unruly behavior and is an asset to the neighborhood. Dr. Judy Osako, 16761 Marie Lane, stated she is Mr. Ewell's immediate neighbor, and not once has she found his area to be disruptive and the neighbors enjoy talking to him. As for the sign, she was there when Mr. Duarte issued the citation, and the sign is no longer there. She further stated she is worried about the death threat to Mr. Ewell and this is a waste of his time and that this action against him is not necessary. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Fauland, Zoning Administrator, stated that he drove by the property and noticed no sign in the garage window or any other activity. Mr. Fauland stated that the Police Department has been notified to investigate the death threat, and that Mr. Ewell's character seems to be that of a fine person. Mr. Fauland stated that the hearing today is to determine whether or not Mr. Ewell has violated the conditions of his home occupation permit. Mr. Fauland stated that based upon the written and verbal testimony, even testimony by Mr. Ewell, it appears that Mr. Ewell has tinted car windows for friends and neighbors in his garage. Mr. Fauland stated that this is a violation of his permit and that Mr. Ewell is not supposed to increase traffic to his residence as a result of his home occupation permit. Mr. Fauland suggested to Mr. Ewell that he conduct no further window tinting business in his garage because it violates the conditions Mr. Ewell agreed to comply with when he signed his home occupation permit. Mr. Fauland indicated that the signage, as shown in the photograph, has been removed and that is a step in obtaining compliance with the permit. Mr. Fauland apologized on behalf of the City to Mr. Ewell for any grief he has experienced in his attempts to obtain information from the City for this hearing. Mr. Fauland stated that he was considering not revoking the home occupation permit, but instead put Mr. Ewell on a six-month probation period. He warned Mr. Ewell not to tint any windows in his garage and to conduct his mobile business off -site as stated in the home occupation permit and remove all signage. Mr. Fauland further stated that based upon the evidence, the public testimony and written information provided to him today, all indications are that Mr. Ewell is in violation of his permit; but would put him on a probationary period. Mr. Ewell indicated that this would hamper his business and that he couldn't abide by his permit conditions. Mr. Fauland asked Mr. Ewell if he understood his permit requirements when he signed the permit. Mr. Ewell stated that the requirements of the home occupation permit were not made known to him. Mr. Fauland asked Mr. Duarte if Mr. Ewell has a signed home occupation permit outlining the conditions, and Mr. Duarte stated yes. Mr. Fauland indicated to Mr. Ewell that when he signed the permit he acknowledged understanding of the conditions and that he would abide by them. Mr. Fauland noted that if violations of the conditions occur, the permit could be revoked. Mr. Fauland reiterated to Mr. Ewell his willingness to put him on probation to indicate an ability to abide by the permit conditions. If not, then Mr. Ewell would be brought back for another revocation hearing and ZA Minutes 4/21/99 8 (99ZM0421) L 1 the permit would be revoked. Mr. Ewell reiterated his inability to earn a living with the restrictions of the permit. Mr. Fauland reiterated the basis for today's hearing and whether or not Mr. Ewell could indicate compliance during a probationary period. He further reiterated the requirement to comply with the home occupation permit or he has no other option than to revoke the permit. Mr. Ewell further objected stating he doesn't need permission to answer phones in his home nor to park his vehicle in his garage. He stated he obtained the home occupation permit to allow him to do these things and that was exactly what he was told he could do. He then requested a variance to his home occupation permit so that he can tint windows in his garage. Mr. Fauland told him that a variance could not be granted for this permit. Mr. Ewell again requested the ability to tint car windows in his garage. Mr. Fauland asked Mr. Ewell if he would continue to tint car windows or anybody's windows in his garage and conduct this type of business at his residence. Mr. Ewell stated yes. Mr. Fauland stated that he had no choice but to revoke the permit. THE REVOCATION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH FINDINGS. HE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:17 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1999 AT 1:30 PM. Herb Fauland .Zoning Administrator :rmk ZA Minutes 4/21/99 (99ZM0421)