Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-21MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1999 -1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren, Acting STAFF MEMBER: Peter Vanek, Sandra Thornton, Jane James, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: June 23, 1999 and July 7, 1999 Minutes continued to the July 28, 1999 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ITEM 1: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.99-8/VARIANCE NO.99-8/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.99-133 (PINE STREET SUBDIVISION) (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 7, 1999 MEETING) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Talbert/Sackin, 1815 Pine Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 REQUEST: To subdivide an existing 100 foot wide lot into two 50 foot wide lots in lieu of a minimum required lot width of 60 feet. LOCATION: 1815 Pine Street (west side, north of Springfield) PROJECT PLANNER: Peter Vanek Peter Vanek, Staff Planner, displayed the site plan stating that the request was continued from the July 7, 1999 meeting to allow proper notification time for the negative declaration. Staff stated that the 20-day comment period had not expired as of the July 7 meeting. Staff stated the 20-day comment period has run its course at this point. Staff stated that this request is to subdivide an existing 100-foot wide lot into two 50-foot wide lots. Staff stated that the minimum lot size is 60 feet, therefore, there is a variance. Staff stated that the variance is in accordance with properties in the surrounding area and that the majority of the residential properties in the general area have been subdivided to a minimum width of 50 feet under previous requirements. Staff stated that there are no special privileges granted under the variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance in conjunction with the tentative parcel map and the negative declaration. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, asked staff if any comments were received on the negative declaration and staff responded that there were none. In response to a question by Ms. Broeren, Staff stated that there was no development proposal at this time, and that Staff understands that this is to be for future development of two single-family dwellings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Philip Talbert, 1815 Pine Street, the applicant/owner, stated that the proposal is to retain an existing older home on one lot, and then to build a new home on the adjacent lot that would be subdivided. Ms. Broeren reviewed the plan and asked Staff if the existing home is in compliance. Staff stated that it is. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.99-8/VARIANCE NO.99-8/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.99-133 WERE APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.99-8: 1. Negative Declaration No. 99-8 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. 2. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Zoning Administrator that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO.99-8: 1. The granting of Variance No. 99-8 for the subdivision of an existing 100 foot wide lot into two 50 foot wide lots in lieu of a minimum lot width of 60 feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The majority of the properties within the general vicinity are 50 feet wide. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, 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 identical zone classification. The property is surrounded by single family residential development that consists of single family dwellings on 50 foot wide lots. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The variance request will permit the property owner to develop the subject parcels in accordance with what has been granted to the surrounding property owners. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 (99ZM0721) 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed 50 foot lot width will allow the property to be well integrated into the surrounding neighborhood, and will be more compatible with the surrounding properties that contain one single family dwelling on one lot. 5. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property as the subject lots will comply with the minimum lot size, therefore not compromising the maximum density of seven units per acre of the Residential Low Density general plan designation. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.99-133: 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-133 for the subdivision of one lot into two 50 foot wide lots is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property and other applicable provisions of this Code, with the exception of the lot width reduction from 60 feet to 50 feet. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The existing 100 foot wide lot will be subdivided into two 50 foot wide lots for the future development of two single family dwellings. The development of two single family dwellings on the two lots is consistent with the surrounding development which consists mainly of single family dwellings on 50 foot wide lots. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An environmental analysis and Negative Declaration has been prepared as the proposed project will not produce any substantial negative impacts. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements exist on the subject property currently. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — VARIANCE NO.99-8/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-133: 1. The tentative parcel map received and dated March 24, 1999 shall be the approved layout. 2. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. On -site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. b. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described ZA Minutes 07/21/99 3 (99ZM0721) in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. c. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital -graphics file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. d. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded parcel map, along with a digital graphic file of the recorded map per the City of Huntington Beach "CAD Standard Manual for Consultants", shall. be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. 3. This map shall record prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Negative -Declaration No. 99-8Nariance No. 99-8/Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-133 shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Negative Declaration No. 99-8Nariance No. 99-8/Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-133 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning 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 Negative Declaration No. 99-8Nariance No. 99-8/Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-133, 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. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 5. Park and Recreation Fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map by the City Engineer. (PW) 6. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination 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. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 4 (99ZM0721) ITEM 2: VARIANCE NO.99-6 (COOPER GREENHOUSE) (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 14, 1999 MEETING) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Mark S. Cooper, 8402 Jalm Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 REQUEST: To allow a two foot six inch side yard setback in lieu of five feet and a five foot building separation in lieu of 10 feet for a new proposed 754 square foot greenhouse. LOCATION: 8402 Jalm Drive (on Jalm Drive west of Newland Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Sandra Thornton Sandra Thornton, Staff Planner, displayed site plans, stating that the surrounding uses are residential to the north, east and south, and the Good Shepherd Cemetery to the west. Staff stated that the applicant is requesting to allow a two foot six inch side yard setback in lieu of five feet and a five foot building separation in lieu of 10 feet for a new proposed 754 square foot green house. Staff stated that at the July 14, 1999 meeting staff was directed to explore the possibility of a time constraint variance and to draft findings for approval. Staff did not feel that a time constraint is necessary, and has drafted findings for approval. Staff outlined the suggested findings for approval and stated that the greenhouse would not set a precedence for other property owners because the City currently allows encroachments such as bay windows and chimneys. Staff stated that she has received only one telephone call from a neighbor expressing concern on the location of the greenhouse. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, reviewed photographs and site plans reflecting the neighboring property where the greenhouse would encroach. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren asked Mark Cooper, the applicant/property owner, why the greenhouse could not be of a smaller size. Mr. Cooper's response was that the structure of the greenhouse would be compromised because it is an existing prefab structure. Ms. Broeren addressed the requirements of the building permit. Ricky Ramos, Staff Planner, stated that a building permit is needed, stating that anything greater than 120 square feet requires a building permit. Ms. Broeren raised the question regarding a different fire rating on the wall, and Staff advised that is only needed when walls are within three feet of another wall. Ms. Broeren instructed Staff to add in the findings that the adjacent property on one side is vacant, and to reflect in the conditions of approval that a building permit would be required prior to installation and that there are no other building requirements. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 5 (99ZM0721) VARIANCE NO.99-6 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15305 Class 5 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it is a setback variance which will not result in the creation of any new parcels. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO.99-6: 1. The granting of Variance No. 99-6 to allow a two (2) foot -six (6) inch side yard setback in lieu of five (5) feet and a five (5) foot building separation in lieu of ten (10) feet for a new proposed 754 square foot greenhouse will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Encroachments into the five (5) foot setback are allowed in the case of bay windows and chimneys and are common in this zone classification. 2. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape and topography and 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 identical zone classification. The subject property is a pie shaped property with a slope condition in the rear yard that prevents the installation of the requested greenhouse in a manner that will comply with the zoning code. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The two (2) foot -six (6) inch side yard setback in lieu of five (5) feet and the five (5) foot building separation will allow the installation of the requested greenhouse which will only encroach into the side yard setback five (5) square feet. 4. The granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. Encroachments into the five (5) foot side yard setback are allowed in the case of bay windows and chimneys and are common in this zone classification. In addition, the encroachment into the side yard setback abuts a large vacant portion of the neighboring property which will allow a large buffer zone between the greenhouse and the neighboring residence. The building separation of five (5) feet in lieu of ten (10) feet will affect the applicant only and will not be detrimental to the general public or other properties in the same zone classification. 5. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property which permits the proposed use. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 6 (99ZM0721) 6. The proposed accessory structure will comply with the development standards and provisions of the Residential Low Density land use district, and other applicable provisions with the exception of the reduced side yard setback and building separation. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — VARIANCE NO.99-6: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 14, 1999 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Walls within three (3) feet of the property line shall not have any openings and must be of one hour fire rating construction. (BD) 3. Building permits are required prior to the installation of this structure. 4. Plans, calculations, and details required at plan check submittal. Design to reflect current Building Code standard. (BD) 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. Variance No. 99-6 shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Variance No. 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 Department of Planning a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Variance No. 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. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 5. 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. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 7 (99ZM0721) 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 Department of Planning within two (2) days of the Zoning Administrator's action. ITEM 3: ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.99-5 (WEST BAY CAFE) (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 14,1999 MEETING) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Jay Buettner, 16600 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To delete Condition of Approval No. 7 of Use Permit No. 95-4, Coastal Development Permit No. 95-2, and Variance No. 95-7, which limits the sales of alcoholic beverages to beer and wine only at the West Bay Cafe. The request is to permit the sale of hard liquor/cocktails in addition to beer and wine. LOCATION: 16600 Pacific Coast Highway (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Admiralty) PROJECT PLANNER: Jane James Jane James, Staff Planner, displayed site plans, and stated that the request is to upgrade the existing alcohol license from beer and wine only to all types of alcohol. Staff stated that the item was continued from the July 14, 1999 meeting where the previous conditions of approval were reviewed and were primarily drafted to increase the compatibility between the restaurant and adjacent residents. Staff summarized the previous conditions of approval. Staff stated that the reason for the continuance was to allow more time to address concerns that were presented by neighbors, and to review any possible conflicts between the City's conditions and those of the Alcohol Beverage Control board (ABC). Staff advised that the applicant's reason for not complying with the condition of a chainlink fence in the parking lot was to avoid any liability in preventing access by emergency vehicles. Staff advised that the fire department considers this to be a secondary access (a delayed access) and recommended that the chain be placed across the parking lot and secured with a Knox Box. Therefore, Staff stated that she added condition 2.c outlining the requirements for the chainlink fence. Staff stated that another condition of approval was added requiring that all previous conditions remain in effect. Staff stated she received a telephone call from an adjacent resident advising her that because there was no chainlink fence in place, a delivery truck made a delivery at the restaurant on Monday morning at 5:12 A.M. Staff stated that time has prevented the applicant from responding to this complaint. Staff recommended approval of this request noting that the police department has expressed no concerns, and that the ABC has preliminarily approved the upgrade in license. Staff stated that the applicant should be aware that all of the previous conditions of approval will be enforced by the City ZA Minutes 07/21/99 8 (99ZM0721) [ I C Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, inquired into code enforcement violations and/or complaints. Staff briefly presented the three violations as outlined in the July 14, 1999 meeting. Staff mentioned that last week she was asked by the Zoning Administrator to pursue the previous condition of approval that the applicant was to repair a wall that was actually serving the Tiburon residents when the project was originally approved. Staff stated that although they do not have building permit records of that repair, the applicant did provide Staff with a letter to the residents that discusses the repair and cost of the block wall stating that she believes the repair did occur. Staff also noted that in response to a second request by the Zoning Administrator last week, there have been no code enforcement complaints regarding truck deliveries. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jay Buettner, 17212 Sims Street, the applicant/property owner, stated that the subject newspaper racks in the code enforcement complaint are not on his property but on the sidewalk. Mr. Buettner stated that the wall was originally built by the owners of the homes on Tiburon as part of their association, and was permitted by them and is actually on their property and not on his property. In response to a question by Ms. Broeren, Mr. Buettner stated that the repair was actually done by Team Construction. Ms. Broeren asked the applicant why the chain was a problem. Mr. Buettner's response was based on the issue of liability. Ms. Broeren asked if and when the applicant would comply with the recommended condition for securing access and placing a Knox Box. Mr. Buettner stated that the chains are ready, that he would comply, and that the Knox Box was to be done by the fire department. The applicant requested that the condition state (as in the original condition) that access be chained when the restaurant is closed and upon departure of the last employee. Staff noted that this was a CUP condition. Ms. Broeren reviewed the ABC condition. Ms. Broeren instructed Staff to change condition 2.c to reflect the wording "when the last employee leaves." THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.99-5 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SHE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project is a minor change to the continuing operation of an existing restaurant. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 9 (99ZM0721) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO 99-5: 1. Entitlement Plan Amendment 99-5 to delete Condition of Approval No. 7 of Use Permit No. 95- 4, Coastal Development Permit No. 95-2, and Variance No. 95-7 to allow the sale of hard liquor/cocktails in addition to beer and wine at West Bay Cafe 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 existing restaurant has been in operation at this location for approximately three years with the sale of beer and wine. The Police Department has reviewed the request and has no concerns with the change in operation. In addition, there has been no history of code enforcement complaints relating to alcohol use or noise issues. The addition of hard liquor/cocktails will not cause the restaurant to become incompatible with the surrounding uses. 2. The entitlement plan amendment will be compatible with surrounding uses because all other previous conditions of approval established with the original approval of the restaurant with beer and wine -sales ensure compatibility. The existing conditions of approval regarding hours of operation, closure of rear restaurant doors, securing the parking lot after hours, restrictions on use of trash area after 10:00 PM, and limitations on delivery hours, etc. were designed to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and will remain in effect. 3. The proposed entitlement plan amendment 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. No development or physical changes to the property are proposed at this time and the existing restaurant was approved with the appropriate entitlements. 4. The granting of the entitlement plan amendment will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Neighborhood Commercial-F-1 on the subject property. In addition, because the existing conditions of approval will remain in effect, the project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Achieve the development of a range of commercial uses (LU 10). b. Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards (LU 10.1.6) . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO 99-5: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 18, 1999 shall be the conceptually approved layout. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 10 (99ZM0721) �J 2. The use shall comply with the following: a. Prior to the sale of hard liquor/cocktail type alcoholic beverages, a copy of the amended Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) license, along with any special conditions imposed by the ABC, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for the file. Any conditions that are more restrictive than those set forth in this approval shall be adhered to. b. All existing Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 95-4, Coastal Development Permit No. 95-2, and Variance No. 95-7 with the exception of Condition of Approval No. 7, which is hereby amended, will remain in effect. c. As required by the previous conditions of approval, the applicant shall secure the parking lot with a cable/chain when the restaurant is closed and upon departure of the last employee. A Knox lock system, reviewed and approved by the Fire Department, shall be provided on the parking lot chain or cable. 3. 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, floor plans, or operations of the restaurant are proposed in the future. Building permits or new Certificate of Occupancy 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. Entitlement Plan Amendment 99-5 shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Entitlement Plan Amendment 99-5 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 Entitlement Plan Amendment 99-5, 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 and restaurant operation 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. 5. All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, a building permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 11 (99ZM0721) 6. 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. �iUT[� � i DlillZ�7r Y _[I)�[I]�K�7:L � "D Dl�f �C�7?►� �M D � iY 1�►[I� 12/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.95-37 (BJ'S CHICAGO PIZZA AND BREWERY) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Robert Koury Properties, 200 Main Street, #206, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: Revocation of Coastal Development Permit No. 95-12/Conditional Use Permit No. 95-37 for violations of Condition of Approval Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 that pertain to the location of the outdoor dining. LOCATION: 200 Main Street No. 101 (northeast corner of Main Street and Walnut -- Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Jane James Jane James, Staff Planner, displayed site plans stating that the project was originally approved in 1995 for outdoor dining and was permitted to have such use on private property only. Staff stated that the revocation is a result of code enforcement activity. Staff outlined various code enforcement violations such as tables and chairs going beyond their approved boundaries and encroaching onto public property. Staff displayed photographs as evidence of these violations. Staff stated that code enforcement issued a notice of violation and three administrative citations for noncompliance. Staff stated that Pete Rogers, the director of operations, contacted her last week inquiring on how to amend or correct the situation. Staff stated that he was given an entitlement plan amendment application in order to pursue expanding the outdoor dining area. Staff stated that he was advised that at this time, he should comply with the current conditions of approval immediately. Staff stated that code enforcement's inspection last week verified compliance. - Staff stated that the application for the entitlement plan amendment was submitted this date at 1:00 P.M. Therefore, Staff recommended that the item be continued for one month to allow continued observation and inspection by code enforcement, and to make sure that compliance with the approved conditions remain while they pursue the entitlement plan amendment. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, asked if all fines associated with the administrative citations have been paid. Staff stated that the first fine had been paid but not the second and third fines. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Alain Bally, 700 South Flower St., 11" Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, spoke on behalf of the applicant and apologized noting that this is not the manner in which the applicant does business. Mr. ZA Minutes 07/21/99 12 (99ZM0721) L Bally stated that they are prepared to comply with the prior grant, remediate the conditions and submit the entitlement plan amendment. Mr. Bally stated that the fines would be paid on Monday. Mr. Bally asked what the scope of discretion is under a revocation. He asked if the conditions could be modified on the original grant, or does it occur through the application that they are applying for today. Ms. Broeren stated that the latter case applied. Mr. Bally presented the items that would be requested in the amendment and photographs were reviewed. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren stated that for the record the applicant is to see to it that the fines are paid prior to the next meeting, and that she will expect the applicant to have the plans completed and reviewed by Staff by the next meeting. REVOCATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.95-12/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.95-37 WAS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 18, 1999 MEETING. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:03 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 28,1999 AT 1:30 PM. Mar �eth roeren, Acting Zoning Administrator :rmk ZA Minutes 07/21/99 13 (99ZM0721)