Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-07• MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2004 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Jason Kelley, Paul Da Veiga, Kathy Schooley (recording secretary) MINUTES: June 9 and 23, 2004 APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE ITEM 1: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-05 (GOUGHARY RESIDENCE) APPLICANT: Otis Architecture, Karen Otis, 16871 Sea Witch Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 PROPERTY OWNER: Dennis Goughary, 16322 Walrus Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To permit the demolition of an existing single -story single-family dwelling and the construction of a new 4,071 sq. ft. two-story dwelling. The construction consists of a 1,949 sq. ft. of first floor area and 2,122 sq. ft. of second floor area. The dwelling will have an overall building height of 28 ft-11 in. The request includes a review and analysis for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout. LOCATION: 16581 Peale Lane (west side of Peale Lane and North of Gilbert Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Jason Kelley Jason Kelley, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions as outlined in the executive summary. One telephone call was received from an adjacent neighbor who is present at today's hearing. No other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, confirmed with staff that the setback coverage on the plans is accurate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Robert Bailey, 16591 Peale Lane, neighboring property owner, voiced concern that the proposed project would limit his view to the channel, and that the proposed master bedroom window would result in a view into one of their bedroom windows. Mr. Bailey asked staff to define what 49.2 lot coverage meant. Pamela Bailey, 16591 Peale Lane, neighboring property owner, concurred with her husband's aforementioned comments. Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 16871 Sea Witch Lane, applicant, approached the plans and addressed the aforementioned window concerns. Ms. Otis stated that the proposed project does meet the requirements of the Infill Lot Ordinance. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Staff defined the 50% lot coverage requirement. Ms. Broeren asked staff to address the window placement and staff's analysis as related to the requirements of the Infill Lot Ordinance. She confirmed with staff that none of the windows would conflict with the ordinance. Ms. Broeren reviewed the plans and engaged in discussions with the applicant and the neighboring property owner concerning a view into the adjacent neighbor's bedroom. She asked the applicant if they would agree to install obscure glass in the two southerly most windows even though the proposed project meets the requirements of the Infill Lot Ordinance. The applicant agreed. Ms. Broeren stated that the zoning code provides for the right to develop to a ten -foot setback. She stated that channel views are not a guaranteed right in the zoning code. She asked staff to modify the suggested conditions of approval as follows: The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 18, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved design except the two southerly most windows in the master bedroom shall be obscure glass. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-05 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS. E ZA Minutes 07/07/04 2 (04zm0707) 11 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 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the replacement of an existing structure and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-05: Coastal Development Permit No. 04-05 to demolish an existing single -story single-family dwelling and construct a new 4,071 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with an overall building height of 28ft-11 in conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The project is consistent with Coastal Element Land Use Policy C 1.1.1 to encourage development within, contiguous to or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it. The proposed construction will occur on a previously developed site, contiguous to existing residential development. 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, complies with all applicable development regulations, including maximum ® building height, minimum yard setbacks, maximum site coverage and minimum on -site parking. 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 proposed addition will be constructed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area with all necessary services and infrastructure available, including water, sewer and roads. 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-05: The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 18, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved design, except the two southerly most windows in the master bedroom shall be obscure glass. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, ® and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or ZA Minutes 07/07/04 3 (04zm0707) annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. ITEM 2: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-07NARIANCE NO. 04-03 (LUPIA ROOM) APPLICANT: Scott Brownell, 1950 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92663 PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph and Carol Lupica, 16461 Ladona Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: CDP: To permit the construction of first and second floor additions totaling 452 sq. ft. to an existing single-family dwelling; VAR: to permit a 16-ft. driveway/garage setback in lieu of 20 ft., in conjunction with the conversion of an existing garage from side entry to front entry. LOCATION: 16461 Ladona Circle (northwest corner of Ladona Circle and Minstral Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Paul Da Veiga, Staff Planner, sitting in for Ron Santos, displayed project plans and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. 0 Staff identified options to accommodate the proposed elevator while maintaining compliance with the minimum setback as well as the minimum 40% front -yard landscaping. Staff recommended denial of the proposed project based upon the suggested findings for denial. Staff presented a letter and a petition with 17 signatures in support of the proposed project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Scott Brownell, 1950 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA, applicant, approached the plans and stated that the engineering division would not permit moving the driveway out toward Ladona Circle because it would encroach too close to the corner thereby changing the curb profile. Mr. Brownell stated reasons as to why the suggested findings for denial are incorrect. He referenced a written narrative and a letter submitted to staff urging approval by the Zoning Administrator. He asked why other properties on Humbolt Island have non conforming driveways, one of which was granted a variance. Carol Lupica, 16461 Ladona Circle, property owner, spoke in support of the proposed project. Ms. Lupica stated reasons why pushing the garage door out would not be feasible as suggested by staff. • ZA Minutes 07/07/04 4 (04zm0707) • Joseph Lupica, 16461 Ladona Circle, property owner, asked why a variance was granted to a home on Davenport Island having the same floor plan with similar changes to the door. Mr. Lupica presented a letter from a neighboring property owner in support of the proposed project. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren stated that she visited the subject site and has read the materials referenced by the applicant. Ms. Broeren reviewed the project plans. Discussions ensued concerning the pitch of the roof; the elevator doorway; lack of handicap accessibility in the hall to the master bathroom; inaccuracies in the proposed plans depicting the 4-ft. high block wall that steps down to 2-% ft; the type of hydraulic cables for the residential elevator, the required minimum distance between the elevator and elevator equipment room, and compliance with the requirements of the UBC. Ms. Broeren addressed the questions raised by the applicant and property owner concerning variances and deviations from code that may exist in the harbour. She stated that City policies change over time and that variances are reviewed and evaluated upon their individual merits. Ms. Broeren advised that the City is not always aware of changes done without permits. She stated that in recent years variances have been discouraged, and advised that findings for variances are set forth by State law. She stated that in the harbour some of the homes were built with tract variances and were approved with ten -foot setbacks in driveways. Ms. Broeren stated that the proposed driveway is a safety hazard. Discussions ensued concerning the driveway and negotiability of vehicles backing out of the garage. Extensive alternatives to the project plans were discussed to accommodate turning requirements in and out of the garage and driveway. Staff concluded that the alternatives discussed would create a structure jetting into the view along Ladona Circle thereby reducing the neighbors view out of their driveway. Ms. Broeren asked staff to address the two variances issued in 1993 and 1986, which were referenced in the applicant's narrative. Ms. Broeren suggested a one -week continuance. The applicant concurred. Ms. Broeren stated that she had serious reservations and would like the applicant to eliminate the parking and driveway concerns as well as the potential danger to pedestrians and motorists. Discussion also ensued concerning whether or not the applicant's goal could be accomplished without a variance by considering an interior re -modeling. Ms. Broeren stated that any substantial changes would necessitate re -advertisement of the request and would cause a three-week delay. She further advised that a continuance would not necessarily guarantee an approval of the request. She stated what changes she would expect to the driveway should the applicant decide to pursue the current plan. ZA Minutes 07/07/04 5 (04zm0707) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-071VARIANCE NO. 04-03 WERE CONTINUED TO THE JULY 14, 2004 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. 0 THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:00 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2004 AT 1:30 PM. Ma Beth roeren Zoning Administrator • • ZA Minutes 07/07/04 6 (04zm0707)