Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-20® MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2002 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Rami Talleh, Ron Santos, Paul Da Veiga, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: October 30, 2002 November 6, 2002 APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE ® ITEM 1: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-27/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 02-208 (FRANEY RESIDENCE) APPLICANT: William Brasher, 19661 Quiet Bay Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: David Franey and Stacie Coopman, 3602 Courtside Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To subdivide a 14,990 sq. ft. lot into two parcels approximately 7,661 sq. ft. and 7,329 sq. ft. The request does not involve any new development. The site is currently developed with two detached dwelling units. The application also includes a request for a waiver of parcel map requirements. LOCATION: 3602 and 3582 Courtside Circle (south side of Courtside Circle) PROJECT PLANNER: Rami Talleh Rami Talleh, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs stating the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a history of the proposed project and reviewed the suggested findings and conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the findings and subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report. No written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. :7 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. William Brasher, 19661 Quiet Bay Lane, applicant, stated that they agree to the suggested conditions of approval. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-27/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 02-208 WERE APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING 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) WORKING DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of a minor land division containing less than four parcels. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-27: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-27 for the subdivision of a 14,990 sq. ft. lot into two parcels • approximately 7,661 sq. ft. and 7,329 sq. ft., as proposed, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land use Designation of Residential Low Density and will not impact public views or access to coastal resources. 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. The project, as proposed, meets all development regulations for the Low Density Residential zoning district, including building setbacks, site coverage and parking, and is consistent with the City Design Guidelines. 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. The site is currently developed with two dwelling units, which are located in an urbanized area with all necessary services and infrastructure available. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The project will not impede public access or impact public views to coastal resources. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 02-208: 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 02-208 for the subdivision of a 14,990 sq. ft. lot currently developed is with two dwelling units into two parcels approximately 7,661 sq. ft. and 7,329 sq. ft. and a request ZA Minutes 11/20/02 2 (02zm1120) for a waiver of parcel map requirements is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element ® designation of Residential Low Density on the subject property, or other applicable provisions of this Code. The proposed subdivision complies with all applicable code provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the HBZSO. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The site is developed with two single-family homes previously on individual parcels. The proposed two -lot subdivision will be consistent with the previous lot configuration, which complies with all applicable code provision of the HBZSO including the minimum parcel size of 6,000 sq. ft. as required by the Low Density Residential zoning district. The proposed subdivision complies with the City's Standard Engineering Specifications for improvement and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, and environmental protection. 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. The site is currently developed with two detached dwelling units and does not serve as habitat for either fish or wildlife. 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. There are not currently any existing easements on the site. 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-27: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 4, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. 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. 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 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 02-208: The tentative parcel map for the subdivision of a 14,990 sq. ft. lot currently developed with two dwelling units into two parcels approximately 7,661 sq. ft. and 7,329 sq. ft. received and dated October 4, 2002, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The requirement for filing a final parcel map may be waived in accordance with Chapter 251 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Section 251.20.A.3) provided that a Certificate of Compliance, approved by the Planning Department, with an accompanying map or plat is recorded. The plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Public ZAMinutes 11/20/02 3 (02zm1120) Works Department, and applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to recordation with the County Recorder's Office. 3. The Departments of Planning and Public Works are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to parcel map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have 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 — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-27: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-27 shall not become effective until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed. For projects in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-27 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is November 20, 2003, 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 No. 02-27 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. 5. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $43.00 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. 7. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Zoning Administrator. • ZA Minutes 11/20/02 4 (02zm1120) ®` INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 02-208: Tentative Parcel No. 02-208 shall not become effective until the ten -calendar day appeal period has elapsed. For projects in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 02-208 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval, which is November 20, 2004. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-52NARIANCE NO. 02-13 (CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH STORAGE UNITS) APPLICANT: Donald L. Modglin, 17568 Oak Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 PROPERTY OWNER: Calvary Baptist Church, 8281 Garfield Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 REQUEST: CUP: To allow three outdoor storage containers (one 8-ft. by 39-ft. and two 8-ft. by 10-ft.) up to ten ft. in height in conjunction with an existing ® church. VAR: To allow (a) three storage containers at a zero street - side setback in lieu of a ten ft. setback; and (b) asphalt paving in lieu of 10 ft. of required landscaping along a street -side setback. LOCATION: 8281 Garfield Avenue (northwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Gregory Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and aerial photographs stating the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the suggested findings for denial as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request based upon the findings as outlined in the staff report. Staff stated that the request is the result of an action by the City's Code Enforcement Department. Staff stated that two letters supporting the request have been received; one from the Boy Scouts of America and one from a women's bible study group. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, and staff discussed the existing storage containers and the originally approved landscaping plans. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ® Dennis Jensen, 18801 Gregory Lane, neighboring property owner, urged the Zoning Administrator's denial of the proposed project. Mr. Jensen voiced concerns related to the unsightliness caused by the storage containers as well as safety issues. ZA Minutes 11/20/02 5 (02zm1120) Joseph Kenzelmann, 19022 Summerfield Lane, neighboring property owner, supported Mr. Jensen's • statements and urged the Zoning Administrator's denial of the proposed project. Donald L. Modglin, 17568 Oak Street, Fountain Valley, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed project and urged the Zoning Administrator's approval. Mr. Modglin addressed the zoning and uses of the proposed site. Patrick Cottrell, 18852 Lister Lane, minister, spoke in favor of the proposed project stating that they lack adequate storage space. Mr. Cottrell stated that the variance is needed to accommodate storage until a new structure can be built in the next five years. Kim Eberts, 20902 Queens Park Lane, director of the children's church, spoke in support of the proposed project stating that the storage is needed for classroom items. Michael Dean, 8582 Sable Drive, scout leader for the Boy Scouts of America Troop 226, stated that he is not a member of the church. Mr. Dean urged the Zoning Administrator's approval stating that the scouts have no place else to store their equipment. Gina Schreiber, 9772 Verde Mar Lane, teacher at the church, urged the Zoning Administrator's approval. Darwin Sterud, 6851 Loyola Drive, stated that he supports the proposed project. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE • REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, stated that correspondence was received from Mr. Dean requesting approval of the proposed project. Ms. Broeren stated that she did visit the proposed site today and stated the following: • The unsightliness of the property does not meet the intent of the City's zoning codes. • The space between the wall and the containers is too small to accommodate trees and would not meet approval by the City's landscape architect. • Building code issues exist as well as health and safety code issues. • If the request were to be approved, the aforementioned issues would present a liability to the City. Ms. Broeren and the applicant discussed a continuance of the item and the applicant agreed to a two -week continuance. Ms. Broeren confirmed with the applicant that given the holiday, two weeks would provide adequate time to explore relocation of the containers and landscaping options. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-52NARIANCE NO. 02-13 WERE CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2002 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ZA Minutes 11/20/02 6 (02zm1120) • ITEM 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-53 (TEDESCO LARGE FAMILY - DAYCARE) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Blanca E. Tedesco, 5652 Edinger Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To establish a large family -daycare (up to 14 children) at an existing single-family dwelling. LOCATION: 6861 Bridgewater Drive (north side of Bridgewater Drive, west of Goldenwest Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and aerial photographs stating the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff explained the State laws governing a large family -daycare and the City's role in the processing of a family -daycare conditional use permit. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and of the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Staff suggested modifying Condition No. 3.a to reflect the hours of operation to be between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Staff stated that the applicant has been operating a family -daycare since 1995 at her residence on Edinger Avenue and that Code Enforcement has received no complaints. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the findings and subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Staff stated that numerous comments opposing the request have been received, specifically in the form of petitions, telephone calls and letters representing 76 residences. Three telephone calls and eleven written communications have been received in support of the request. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, and staff discussed the hours and days of operation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Don Hohl, 16451 Redlands Drive, neighboring property owner, stated that he adamantly opposes the proposed project. Mr. Hohl voiced concern that the increase in traffic would present a danger to the neighborhood children who currently play in the street. He urged the Zoning Administrator to ensure public safety. Michelle Parolise, 6822 Loyola Drive, neighboring property owner and former customer of the applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. Nancy Perkins, 6871 Bridgewater Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Ms. Perkins voiced concern regarding increased traffic, lack of parking and excessive noise generated by the children. She stated that her home is only seven feet from the proposed site and she questioned her rights as a senior citizen to the enjoyment of her private property during her retirement years. ® Julia Martinez, 4727 Rey Drive, former customer of the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed project and urged the Zoning Administrator's approval. ZAMinutes 11/20/02 7 (02zm1120) Ron Perkins, 6871 Bridgewater Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Perkins also questioned his rights as a senior citizen to the enjoyment of his • private property during his retirement years and urged the Zoning Administrator's consideration for a denial. Mr. Perkins questioned the applicant's ability to comply with the parking requirements. Margarita Ezcurra, 25312 Campina Drive, Mission Viejo, grandmother of a child currently under the care of the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed project based upon the quality of care her grandchild is receiving. Deborah Thelin, 6872 Bridgewater Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding traffic, noise and devaluation of property value. Richard Manuel, 6851 Bridgewater Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding traffic and devaluation of property value. Mr. Manuel requested that staff clarify what the regulations are for daycare without a conditional use permit. Ms. Broeren stated that staff received a letter signed by Mr. Manuel expressing support of the proposed project. She asked Mr. Manuel what his position is concerning the request. Mr. Manuel stated that since signing the letter, he is in opposition to the proposed project. Jerry Rotramel, 6902 Bridgewater Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Rotramel voiced concerns regarding the volume of trash as well as traffic and parking concerns. • Tracy Smith, 5962 Gildred Circle, customer of the applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project and urged the Zoning Administrator's approval. Martha Dollbaum, 16421 Whittier Lane neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding noise. Ms Dollbaum stated that she'did not receive notification of today's hearing and suggested that the City expand the area of notification. Edwin Kato, 6902 Loyola Drive, neighboring property owner, stated that he supports the opposing comments voiced at today's hearing. Mr. Kato stated that he and many other property owners were not notified of today's hearing. Joe Pannone, 6792 Defiance Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding increased traffic, parking overflow, noise, and devaluation of property values. Mr. Pannone also stated that he was not notified of today's hearing. Phyllis Chan, 6821 Bridgewater Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project based upon devaluation of property values, traffic and parking. Tom Stanton, 6871 Loyola Drive, neighboring property owner, asked what could prevent a daycare center in a private home. • ZA Minutes 11/20/02 8 (02=1120) • Bob Graham, 6932 Loyola Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding traffic, parking, and deterioration of the neighborhood and property values. Ed Deuel, 6871 Defiance Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding traffic and property value. Mr. Deuel submitted a photograph of the small back yard of the proposed location. Yvonne Botzbach, 6892 Defiance Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding the applicant's ability to care for 14 children. Ed Gorman, 6882 Defiance, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Gorman voiced disagreement with staff s suggested findings for approval stating that approval of the request would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners. David Chow, 6832 Loyola Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concern that the proposed project is a commercial venture in a residential community. Dick Botzbach, 6892 Defiance Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project voicing concerns regarding noise and lack of a play area for the children. Mr. Botzbach urged the Zoning Administrator's denial. Blanca E. Tedesco, 5652 Edinger Avenue, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposed project and urged the Zoning Administrator's approval. Ms. Tedesco presented a brief history of her family daycare and stated that no complaints have been received. Rita Pannone, 6792 Defiance Drive, neighboring property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Ms. Pannone stated that the layout of the home presents a danger to children. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren explained the following: • The State laws governing the right to operate a daycare center in a private home. • The City's role in setting guidelines for a daycare conditional use permit. • The applicant's rights in operating a family daycare without a conditional use permit, and under the guidelines of the State. • The requirements as set forth by State law concerning the public notification process. • Expanded notification is not common for this type of request due to a lack of strong opposition in past instances. ZAMinutes 11/20/02 9 (02zm1120) Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to deny the request for the following reasons: • • The overwhelming opposition to this use in this neighborhood. • The incompatibility with the Bridgewater Drive community. • The potential for increased traffic on a currently quiet street. • The small yard area. • Opportunities for conflict in parking and limited space for pick-up and drop-off of children. Ms. Broeren also noted that the applicant's family daycare, situated at her former place of residence on Edinger Avenue, presented less intrusive opportunities upon that neighborhood and was situated on a busy street with an alley to the rear, which are very different circumstances than the proposed location. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-53 WAS DENIED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. 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 CEQA: 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 15274 of the CEQA Guidelines, because large family daycare is a statutorily exempt project. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-53: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-53 to establish a large family -daycare (up to 14 children) at an existing single-family dwelling will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity and/or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed use is opposed by a preponderance of residents in the surrounding neighborhood and is expected to generate traffic at volumes deemed disruptive to property owners and residents in the vicinity. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses, due to the volume of traffic generated by the proposed use and anticipated parking and noise impacts to adjacent properties. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:45 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2002 AT 1:30 PM. I < -A �: = = Ma Beth'Broeren Zoning Administrator rink ZA Minutes 11/20/02 10 (02zm1120)