Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConditional Exceptions - 1980-1981 - 80-29, 80-09, 80-08, 80 tM "r' t E 1 ToGAU_H.utton, City Attorney Date 2/18181 --- Attached is word that we often send to appellants . Who. haaivgbeen denied Conditional Use Permits, .Massa e er'mi is etca Do we do the same with Webb Morrow's JoUi t.tonol Exception? Usuall g ave 5 days to Jify persons of Council 's decision. 1 _cou "I find that cMtiQn in Cndiag&* r L we do have to write _this letter. Do we do it afar PLEASE REPLY TO --)P. Signed tf ', the findings are adopted? Bra * : 1L -4 10, OIW- -Jim aJ2 • + ti � 1,,j•r a:224��� r • ��I�tuf�l1fZi�1�I� � �; � .�'I y ' Date d r. �4546�5 SIND PANS 1 AND 7 W M CANON$ IWACt. !�t'el!!0OhlMMI PART 3 WRL K IFTURMM WOM MKV. l r l• ands 4) D AY CITY GOUT j IN'I'rll; Superior Court - CM CLSM uF TNR STATE OF CALIFOHNIA In and for the County of Orange i CM OF HUNTI NCTON BEACH r CITY CLERK tROOF OF RLIBLI TION ..._,,.,.. Public Hearing 80-29 State of California ) County of Orange Rlty Jo Richter That I am end at all tion herein mentioned wen a citizen of the United Stater,over the.age of twenty-one years,and that I ern not a parry to, nrrr interested In the above entitled matter; that!am the pri-wcipal clerk of the printer of the Hwitit toss $� th rldePt; *I t R fear e oew+"Vor of grt►err mla� on,pub rK n tlit ty n WMIlttte" Unch County *(Orange mid which newspaper Is p+ihlished for the dlowminstion of loal near and intelligtriee of a general cheree- ter, and which newspaper at all throes htmin mentioned had and still has a tx)na tide subscription list of paying aub>SCHI ere, mnd which =*gaper has been established, printed and pub- MAW at tr ulst intervals in the raid Cntrnty of nranizt for M period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the i annexed is a printerb copy, has been puhliml-ed in the regular and entire;ague of said newspaper,and not!n any supplement thereof,on the folk►wing dow,to wit: February 5, 1961 des under penalty of 'u that the for. o- ! certify ins declare) M y pet, ry � ing Is tm and correct. >bst.dat......... Carden Brave ........ ...... ....... .... .. .... .. Signature • Form Ne..CAf-d1�0 i N Cd""rY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .'Y w+�w�IPY-M�.#FU■�.�#i.-�� ..YY��WY�1. r�M + 2=MAIN STREET C.ALIFORNIA 92MO OFF= of Tti OTV CLINK March 4. 1981 Webb ftrrroww P. 0. Box 2236 Nwrtingtout catch, CA 92646 t The c,i ty tounci 1 of the City of Huntington teach at its regutar meting held !larch 2, 1981 adopted findings relative to its denial of Conditional Exception No. 80-29. 'this is a final decis1cm. You are hereby noti f led that pursuant to provisions of SY1094.6 of the Cade of Civil Procedure of the State of California, you have ninety days from March 4j, 1981 to apply to thr courts Tor judicial review. ANcia M. Wentworth city Clerk IJ, fir''`'; '• '+ '•� . A •r / CITY of CA Lip, 1, +i 'ltni Ar P;,t Ne January 10, 1081 OAY ,.1 �.',0p�'��' ti ArW a To: Huntington Beach City Council I Re: Appeal from planning commission rejection of Conditional Exceptiun 79-20 . Gentlemen: Approval of Conditional Exception 79-20 is requested for the reasons given below. Conditional Exception 79-20 is a request to permit the front courtyard wall to encroach into the 15' set back for a depth of from zero to 3'8" , and the total length of the encroachment Is only 181 of the approximate Got width of the lot at this point. A drawing is attached ahowing the requested exception. 1 . THE EXCEPTION REQUESTED IS A VEP,Y MINOR ONE . The exception requested is a very minor one, and is needed to preserve the architectural integT!ty of the des-ign. 2. EOCH EXCEPTIONS ARE COMMON IN THE AREA . ` WPhin one block of the property in question there is an r 1most :identical exceptlon where the main wall of the house Itself is -within 101211 of the side- walk and the wall is only 7'8" from the sidewalk. In 79-20, the main walls of the house are all beyond the 15 r set back, at one point as much as 40 feet. lit the immediate area there are numerous examples of garage walls, house i walls and garden walls iht%t range up to zero suet-back from the sidewalk. 3. 'GRAN'TING EXCEPTION 79-20 WOULD NOT EFFECT THE CHARACTER OR I APPEARANCE OF THE AREA. If the gall were muved back beyond the 1511ine the external appearance to neighbors and passerahy would not be improved, the change would not even be noticeable to outsiders. In fact, one of the purposes of the wall is to viwuslly reduce the overall height of the house. Moving the wall closer to the houso will reduce this beneficial effect. 4. WITHHOLDING EXCEPTION 79-20 WOULD BENEFIT NO ONE The appearnee of the neighborhood would not improve, the character of the neighborhood would not changtt, it would mean denying a type of exception that has been granted many times in the paot. Surely it would be unfair to grant so many, and suddenly clamp down and refuse one more, less ;..tmodve, encroacbment, especially when the area is already almost +completely developed. -1 • .1 5. DENYING TIT EXCEPTION WOULD DAMAGE THE OWNER . The front courtyard was designed to pravide a spacial transition from cxt4rnal to internal areas. Moving the wall will cause the courtyard to appear "crarnped" , without any benefit wha!ever to outuldera, neighbors , or the appearance of the area". ti. IF THE REQUEST IS SO REASONABLE, WHT% DID THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY IT? I was not present at the meeting when the natter was heard. This was because I had been informed that the matter would not be on the agenda. When, belatedly, I was informed that the matter had been restored to the agenda, it was too late for and to prepare or to be present. A transcript of that gearing is attached. It should be noted that nowhere in the seven- teen pages of discussion is there a sair+gle statement, by anyone , defining any detrLaental effect that would result from granting the exception. 7. NO O&TECTIONS WERE VOICED BEFORE THE PLANS WERE APPROVED. The plane including the wall were submitted to the Coastal Commission , the City, and the Homeowners before the hearing at which the original plans were approved. No objections were voiced. The plans were not marked to show that additional approvals were required, as would normally be the case. Therefore, construction proceeded In the good faith belief :hat all necessary approvals had been obtained. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Exception 79-20 be granted . I will be prei ent at the council meeting of February 2, 1.981. , to personally request this exception and answer aay questions regarding it. Very truly yours, Webb Morrow cc: City Council Members s E I i i i ,I i I 1 �. ... ..:..: ._ _ � t I+►_ is �,w►fi�I � N 1 ' .._..,�u,� NOW .17'. FLU. ... _� . ol IL r ' •r MAO, S CUM = + o'-o�' 3801 - rag Ime circle 4 � b r d r Vinutds , H . H. r11 anrinr A.mi s: ion becember 16 , 1980 Page�;2 i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : " Dr . Dennis kitf , 3791 Ragtime Circle, addressed the Commission in regard to a wall being constructed in alloged violation of the zon- ing ordinance next door to his place of residence . He said that the wall had been constructed beginning Spturday morning , Dezember 13 , and the owner had informer neighbors'-lit was being constructed with the permission of the City . Dr . Riff further discussed the legality of this action and questioned whether this property owner was to be allowed to violate the code with impunity . In response to questioning from the Commission , Savoy Pell.avia re-- viewed the history of the project, informing the Conutission that the wall had been requested through a Board of Zoning Adjustments conditionAl • exception , had been denied and subsequently appealed to the~ Planning Commission in September . At the public: hearing before thR Cainmi sgion the request had been continued at the applicant' s request to the meeting �A December 16 , 1980, but had inadvertently not been included on the evening ' s agenda . The hp dicant, however , he.4' been ' in contact with the department first to fI e a request for tho' withdrawal of this condEFional exception on December 15 and ttir "I to request another cc.ntinuance upon b'eing informers that the project Mould be heard as a discussion item by the Planninq Commis- s . -n at this Derember 16 me-ating . In regard to the actual con. struction cf the wail , Mr . Hellavia noted that the wall on the south property line has bean constructed to an illegal height of six ( 6 ) feet via a building permit issued specifically for a wall height of forty-two (42). inches . Tha Building Division has issued a stop work order; however, the fence or, the south property line has been totally constructed over the past weekend . The commission discussed enforcement of the ordinance code , and legal c:, insel Charles Mathefs and Secretary James Palin reviewed the steps open to the applicant and the options available to the City in this regard. Mr . Matheis outlined the time frame for enforcement in-the event the City is required to take legal action to correct any viola- tion . Chairman Porter reopened the public hearing on the appeal to Condi- tional Exception No. 80-29 . Menrieth Yairyan, 3782 Ragtime Circle, property owl.er directly to the south"of the stab joct residence, addressed the Commission to state ' • that the owner of subject property had violated their prior agreement by c6nstructing the wall without the approval_ by the City of hi:;_ . valiance and consequently-he- (Mr. Yaryan) is oppo,ed'~to the well . In tie 5piyfiVn •ito' hardship 'has been demonstrated as rf.quired by code, and he further ,stated that uninspected electrical work bad been in- stalled and covered within the pilasters for the wall . The" were no other persons to spear for or against the proposed walL arna+"the Publlc ;hearing was osed . in rlosing'the hearing ,* Chairman Porter expre7s5-7y directed that Dr. Rif f 's opening remarks be included as part of the public hearing record . womb t v� M'`tnutes , H . B . Pla, *ping Corr,-nassicn December 16 , 198C Page 3 +r i d t ' J . T:re Commission discussed tr.e proposal and the information pre-- setted by taff and the public . ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK. THE COMMISSION DETERMINED NOT TO ACCEPT THE "PLICANT ' S REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-29 -IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THkT THE -WALL HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN HE FIELD WITHOUT ,BENEFIT OF AN APPROVED VARIANCE, AND TO SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF f'f E BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BY THE L)ENIAL__Q) CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-29 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: f FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: I 1 . The applicant has failed to ova cli figig"-•---harxI hip as man- d►ted by the ordinance code to justify granting a ondition&l exception. 2 . Gran of a ,�,ndi�i�nal�-exc�p�Y�n,would cons�it�te a rant of special privilege not consistent with t,-her properties under sim -e .ieciante;#:eres and under the same zoning classification . AYES: Bannister, Kenefick , Winchel.l, porter, Greer, Schumacher , Bauer NOES: ' None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY DWNIS TER AND SECOND BY..BAUER T:31=; PLANNING DIVISION WAS REQUESTED TO INVESTIGATE NOT ISGUI G A14Y OCCUPANCY PERMIT OR F'1NAL INSPECTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT 13NTIL ALL STRUCTURES ON THE SITE COMPLY WITH ALI, OF THE PLANS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY, BY TliE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greek, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None 'IBSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA -ITEMS : .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-2J/TENTITIVE TRACT NO. A.OBS3/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 80-5 (Cont. from September 16 , 1980) Applicant: Mole Developmeent+'aCompany �. TO permit construction of a 224-unit condominium project in a one- lot, subdivision of 14 acres located on the east side of Aolse Street approximately 700 feet south of Warner Avenue. Jim Barnet reviewed the history of the project and the environ- mental assessments on the property, and described thn CEQA-mandated proc4dures which have been followed in the d4seemination of the onvLrowental impact report. He rooted that it had been sent to a -3- 12-16-80 - P .C . l i 1• Transcription from p.Lr_)ing_Commission Meeting o �ece;;�ber 16 , 1984 o COMMUNICATiONS : Riff: My name is Dennis Riff, I live at 3791 Ragtime Circle . I am a physician. I have lived in this city for approximately six years. I have worked in the city and I own rental property ire the city, and I am note sure that any of that is more impor- C tent than if I was to say that I was an immigrant and renting r an apartment in Huntington Beach , or more important than if I was to say that I was a builder building industrial buildings and Claiming to have a lot of inf.luerice in the city . As I stand here, t em filled with a lot of mixed emotions and the first one is a lot of anger . And what I am referring to specifically is Conditional Exception, No. 90-29 , first brought up in August, put down to September 16, and supposedly resched- uled for this evening. I am angry for a lot of reasons and my anger is sharee by all of :may neighbors, and the reason for the Y anger is because this is the third time we hive been here. The first two meetings When it was scheduled , we were not in- formed that it had been -:anc.';.led, and we did not learn that it was to be brought up, or that, this was not to be broilght up today, until a few hours ago. I am very hopeful and very grateful that I seen am allowed to be giver, a chance to be here and to speak and what I would like to do , basically, is to take a --ew minutes and beg your indulgence to give you a little ,bit of case history of thi.i issuer .and to discuss .'it ; I think that this is probably possibly and very likely one of the most important issues that you deal with. It is not an issues o-s a silly wall . It is an issue of whether you have a purpose. It is an .issue of- whether you have any power. It is an issue r•f Ohother an ordinary citizen of this community has any rights at all, and it is an issue of whether people sitting her in -A fancy room behind fancy desks issuing Ver- dicta and decrees have any abilities to Larry out the zoning rules and regulations of the City . And it really is open to question among the people in our neighborhood. Little bit of backgrounds Many months ago when this home was being built I spoke to the builder of this house and he told hik 2 me he was going to build the most expensive home in Hunt- ington Harbour . lie did not say the nicest, he slid not; say the prettiest, he raid not gad► anything else. He said the most expensive horre in Huntington Harbour. Several xtionths thereafter wtgn he got into a fight with the neighbor to the west over a. wall that was being built, and which is at issue now and at three other mgptings : he said, and I quote, and I quote without the benefit of a witness to substantiate this I but at least three other: neighbors have been told tEz same thing - he said, "I will do what I want to . I ?crow a lot of- People, I nave a lot of money, and it' mill go whatever way I want, They can try to block it, they can try to put up rules , but I will co what I want. " Sub8equent to that there was a hearing about a variance and before that hearing for the variance I went and I spoke to my neighbors and my neighbors spoke to me and all the neighbors in our tittle tiny cul-de--aac said "we do -not want this wall" and the reasons are unimportant, because that is not really the issue that is here. And the thing that was most scary to me and really depressing was the face: that one neighbor, a woman whose husband works for Vie Federal Bureau of Inver4igation, said "It is a waste . you: are a little person, we are all little persons; he is a builder and he is going to get what he wants . " And that is really scary. If a secretary told me that, if an ordinary housewife told me that, but when somebody who is the wife of a person that has been in the FBI for 20 bears tells you you don'.t have a chance you say are you in Chicago or are you in Huntington Beach? And 3.•c is scary. And we went to this hearing and the hearing and the hearing conmissrion said, quote : "There is no reason, justification, or legality for the wall to the east. The wall to the west atay be justified; we turned dowry the whole thing because you are applying for a wall to the east, you are applying for a wall to the west. Re-apply for the wall to the west and there is a good chance that you will get it. " okay? Subsequent to that, again with an incredible &Mount of, audacity, both walls were applied for on a conditional excep- tion and an appeal was made to this body. 5irce that time there have been two gtar.ts for extensions and both times the reoson for the extension was an inability to contact me . G Page 3 Except for one period of approximately ten days , I am � + available, unfortunately, night and day to anybody with any complaint. I am so available: it is disgusting . Interestingly the person that was supposed to be unavailable (sic) to con- tact me was a laindscnper . . excuse me, an architect, and yesterday when we were discussing this thing with the builder in question he said "The/ reason that the architect could not contact you when I first requetited to discuss this on a personal relationship before we got into any c f this mess was because I jsut found out he died in October. ". And that is interesting, because the reasons that he gave for continuntions were that I could not b. reached . To make a long story short, Saturday . Friday night a lead of slumpstone was delivered to the home some time after 5 o 'clock. Saturday morning any of a number of builders started putting tip a wall . The wall that was applied for was 6-foot wall , the wall that was built . . . excuse me, the wall that was applied for and turned down by this body was a six-foot wall , the wall that was built is Incredibly higher than that . The wall to the west was con- structed - the wall to the east was not constructed . The reason it was not constructed wap because my car was over there at that wall, and frankly it, was not such a good car, so I didn 't care if he laid in the concrete to build it over the wall . He told tied it front of a man who he claimed to be his* lawyer that he had permission from the City to build that wall. And this man who he claimed to be bis lawyer said that to had permission from the City to build his slab. And he said to me and to the other neighbors, "Call the City Council on Monday. " The implication being ' once it is built, acrew you , they are not going to do anything. I am a big man in the City. " � okay. Sunday the wall was Luilt and he came up to me and he was very nice and I said "You are riot-, an honorable man. You W an agreement with the man to the west and you built the wall anyway d(-�_:apite your agreement. " and he said the man to the west did not pmt up hin wall fast enough, and L:je reason the man to the wort die not put up hij wall was because the wall is illegal . The questions that I am really asking ` I comb4. t . pige 4 are really simple and the point is , is what is the point of this committee? What is the point, of zoning regulations? What is the point of denial?. What is the point of anything if they cannot be carried out, number one, and nurlher two , is how the hell could somebody be turned down on an exception, make three appeals , none of them ever be granted, and build a wall and claim that be/ exception to it and was allowed to? I do not know what the point is of the City having any rules and having any committees, spending time, money, energy in meetings, if they cannot be carried out. Now, I have been told by people who are knowledgeable about construction . • and I know nothing about construction, I know no-hin,� about the processes and 4:iis is the first time I have even considered it necessary to defend my rights on anything excc.pt a personal basis - that this home is tilled with zoning violations . 14hat I believe has to be done if thin committee is to have any pur- poce a.nu I think this is a hell of a lot more important than enforcing stories about 30-story office buildings , because why deny 30 story office buildings if they are going to build it anyway and you are going to let teem? It is stupid, and there is no point in having rules and making decisions if you don' t do something about . What should be done is that this house uhould not be allowed to be finished until such time as it is in compliance with the rules of this City as set out by the governing boards and is in compliance ' with the rules - denial • of variances set out by the City. Otherwise one has to aues- tion the reasons for the existence of City government in the City and this committee in general . I am disillusioned, but I am very hopeful . We are having 20 people at our house tonight; my wife will kill me if I do not get home, so I re- quested the ability to speak first. That is the only fear I Chairman have. Thank you. Porters dell, I have some of the same concerns aR you do. I think the last regular meeting we talked about whether we have any control over anything or not. I think it is an appropriate time to discuss them. We hn�re a report relative to this . Hauer: Ones of them is to determine whether the allegations are txue anO what is the . whom 1 gage 5 . Porter ; Thia •C.E. was 1 rn presu ,e readvr r. ti sed for this evening. Is that correct or not correct? ' Bellavia : No, Mr. Chairman, it was not- advertised . We d.i.d call the two adjacent property owners and did announce to them that it ' would ha back up . it was one of tbcose items that just didn ' t get rescheduled . Porter : Is it necewsary to re-adirertise? Bellavia : No. If, is not . Palin: No. No necessity to =eadvertise it. It was continued -to this i date specific . Pow: Alright. Then we do not have any problem taking action on it this evening, do we? Palfn: No. Porter; okay. Do the . . . Saucr: Did we just gst that this evening? Potter: Yeah. I just saw it this evening . Bauer: Additional background on What it is we are talking about here? Porter: I think so . Do you wish to speak on the same subject, sir? Voice in Audience; Yes, I do . Porter: Alright, fine. Why don ' t you give us your name? Bauer: Mr. Chairman, befo -e we lay.nch into something that frankly has t.:aught me unawares could we perhaps get some background � and understand what it is we are talking about here and who the inO victuals are who are involved in this think and what have you? Porter: Alrighto fine. Bauer : Because it may be on the agenda as a result of appearing on out desks this eveni rq, but it certainly wasn ' t on the Agenda to my knowledge. Poor: wall, that is the only reason that I brought it up or allowed this to proceed under oral communications is because . Bauer; Gent some additional background to kind of brine us up to speed,, por t: -Okay, why dour t you indulge us for a few minutes while the staff and then we will let you give your testimony. Sollavia s Yes, Mr. Chari.man and Commissioners , this application came ' before you about three months ago -- three anti a half months ago - as was indicated by the speaker. The property owner on Ragtime had requested to our Beard of Zoning Adjustments for a C.E. to allow a patio wall or a garden wail above 42 inches j MCI, Page 6 n height to 1-;c- constructed within the front yard setbacks , within the 15-foat front yard setba:k . The requiremen'&-s under the R1 regulations require that all structures over 42 inches W be set back e.. mininium of 1.5 feet. . The appli-i-an 'Z want to the r,ZA - t!,e BZA did not fecl that he had a valid request or hardship - that be had a //yalija request, not a hardship .- and the application was denied . At that time he appealed it and it was brought before the commission . The :!Cbmmission did continue it twice, both by, request of the applicant, and the last Con- tinuance was in September 1.6 of this 'year and he stated to the Commission that lie wanted to work the problems out with the adjacent property ownerq . Tt was scheduled for tonight and unfortunately it did not get caught and we did not put it on the regular agenda , biit we did prepare --a handout memo for the Commission . Bauer : Have the walls indeer'_ been built? Bellaviad. One of then-, along the south property line - maybe Mr. Palin can point out which one has been constructed . Bauer #. And is that wall legal? bellavia ; Not it is not . it is illegal. . There was a building permit issued on it; however , the building permits was only for a 42 inch high wall . Bauer: Was that wall legal? Bellavia: No, it is not. oh, the 42 inch high would be, yes . Porter; ooes It specify on the building permit that it is 42 inches high? Bellavia: Yes . It does, and it is 6 feet in height. Bauer : Who is the applicant? Bellavia : The applicant, I believe , is Mr . Webb Morrow. Bauer: And are we within our rights to either confirm or deny the request this evening or ? Bellavia: Yes . You can. Porter: Let me ask a question before this goes on . There is a letter here supposedly signed by the gentleman that says he is with- drawing his application for variance and is going to build the wall on the north property corner to a maximum of 42 inches rather them 6 feet? 1 yiJ,+j, 1 VV .�Mllgt. • MM `r pacga!l 7 4 BSI'lavia: Yes . Yesterday he came in in the early morning and requested r. to withdraw the application . Porter; Then what are we denying? Kenefick: Marc . . . _Bellavia: The application would •- the Planning Commission would have to concur with the withdrawal . You do not have to grant the with- drawal . Kenefick; May I ask a question? Porter: Sure . Kenefick: Mir . Riff , did you say that the fence ,on the south no wait a miiiute , which is the one.? The north property line is the one he has written us a letter on today. Did you say that that one was in fact already ove..- 42 inches at this particular• time? Dr. Riff: I do not know north from south, east from west . I am on the south side? I am on the north side. The north side wall was only •- it was not constructed only because of the presence of my car. Also, despite the fact that he had a latter from my lawyer stating that the wall was illegal because it was on my property line ithout my permission, he still was going to build it in Saturday and only the presence of my car kept it from being built. As it stands now, he has built a 47 inch wall in the front and plans on going to b feet back towards the harbor . One interesting thing is that this -• the appeal was based, on hardship. This is a 9 , 000 square foot horse for two people; it ?s hard to find hardship involved in building that on ane of the largest lots in Huntington Harbour . So the wall on the south: has been totally construe�ed, the wall on the north is just a little pilaster has been built and shat his intentions are beyond that I do not know. Kenefick : Thank you. Schumacher: I would like to know W I think this man pointed out some- thing that has been bothering me for i long time , and that is there have been numerous cases that we all have been aware of and other people have brjught to us of violaticn€s to codes and ordinances and the whole thing and nothing ever happens on them. And I think this attitude of " I will build it and ghat can ibny do to me?" I know the Coastal commission answered that to a developer that went over the maximum height they were supposed 1 .d r • p to ego and said "Take i+-. off . " Now, does the L"ity have any rights where they just blatantly go agLgi,nst codes and ordin- ances te� go in and say do it. right? Bee llavia : Our building division has issued a "stop work'* order on the project . Schumacher: When waa that issued? P'alin & Betllavia : Monday . Sca c hers Monday . After he got the fence up• 13011avi.a: Most of it was constructed over the weekend. S�huma : Okay. So the stop work order is an' the interior of they house? Beellaviai i ' No . They .were still working on the finishing . The wall has not been completely finished. The major portion of the con- struction has been completed, but it is not in a finished state. Schumacher: So once . . now you have got a stop work order on it and he has gone ahead and built it without permission anyway. What is going to stop him? If somebody goes in and finishes it whAt are you going to der? Pp,Xiri; WeAl, there are a number of courses available to us. Now there are administrative re rnedies which any person can seek out and follow. He has one of those here before you this evt.:ning. it depends upon your action and any subsequent appeal , if that is the courses of action. He has to exhaust full admin.irtrative � remedies. When that has failed and he has no additional recouzse, then we can request prosecution , removal , uncovering so that proper inspections can be made and the wall then would have to I, be constructed pursuant to plans on file, permits issues , and � comply with- those plans . Schumacher: And if he does not, then we :sue hirn? Yes. Essentially. He would be fined, I waoule; -.Ssume . I would have to defer to the atturney ' s office on that. Charles Any one of a number of things can happen. There is no question ma p u*Ys' that the City can enforce the destruction of that wall . How- Att a ever, that takes time. At ininimutn I would guess 3 months besfores the entire action was completed and the wall was down. You can take him to a.-riminal task for being in violation of our ordinances. Mont of them are mi sdameanor s, so you are Page! 9 , talking about a maximum of a $500 fine . It would be unlikely �+ that he would spend any time in jail unless •- it could be 6 months in jail as a misdemeanor . That would be unlikely unless after repeated legal Lctions he failed to remcve the .iatII That has been our experience. So there is no question that the City can enforce the destruction of the wall , but it is a tine-consumminq task/.' one that we have addresser) before ibecause of the nature of the way that we have to pursue pro- secutions . We have addressed the idea of cita.tiun over formal complaint filing - roth.ing has ever happened , but that is just another issue. it is it time-consuming task but it can be done, yes . Porter: What is the probability that the City Attorney ' s office is going to prosecute on a wall violation when there are several other outstanding issues relative to zoning and what have you, you know, that she seems to be unwilling to prosecute? You tell 1 me , You work there . 1 Attorney: I am not sure: that I understand the question's Porter: I understand the question . There is a lot of pending stuff you know that does not seem to be making it, you know, cases that I would consider of rnc?re import that a wall , but the fact remains that: the wall is very important '.a the people who lure ..car it. My question is what is the probability of that ease basing prosecuted when you look at some of the other things chat; aren ' t getting it? I guess that is what it really boils down to. Attorney: That 'is pretty much a generality, Chairman , I cannot address that. I can - I would be willing to cite you examples of situations where we have required people ,- one very recent case a mar, had to move an actual building beceuse of it beit.g too close to the yard setback . . It took us a number of ntonths befo.!e that happened, but in fact the building has been moved. And through my process - that was one prosecution that I hared- led - through that process there was significant political intervention, not from this body, but because the man knew several people in the City . These were walls taht we;:; peat up in our way. So you have to understand, it is a time consuming task, many timers there are roadblocks in the way. I do not know that the City turns do•,m - the City Attorney's office - axfty prosecution that comes up. The ores that come across my yy Numb ' 1 '7"y yy:1 I e;. PAg/g 10 desk olmost invariably are filed , but it is a process that: we go through , one of which includes pre-c..riminal filing inter- view. Some people show up, some don ' t . Porter ; ,A,) right . Grace? Wi•nchel : I just warted to clarify with dim from what you said you are indicating then I thaught to us that we probably need to take act? on on the appeal despite the fart that the applicant has withdrawn it . if we were to fake a firm action that we up- held the BZA for example that would be the beset indication that we could give that we do neat approve ,,of the fact that he went ahead and did something that was non-conforming . Would that be an action: that would he the best basis for getting this wall removed? Y, Palin: Yes . I think the ' action should- be based upon the merits of the case and not necessarily that he has or has not constructed the wall . f Winchell : Through those f indirigs given to us by the BZAi and then deal with the ether lAter? palin: Yes . Wi.nchell : Thank you . Bannister: Jinn, is a contractor re glUrerd to carry any t•.ypee of City lic- ensing, . business licenses o. anything of that sort in the City? Palins Yes. Bannister: Couldn' t some action be taheen to withdraw those licenses until he complies? Palm: des. i..l.l Y Y.Yr1r tl..l� Dr. R-Iff: Excuse meet'. May I ask you a very quick question? Porter: No. There is another gentleman and we want to give him a chance. �FI.M..i r�wrra We will get to the heart of this . dies ick: First thine I want to know is do we - SAvoy, do we have a letter from this gentleman like this one saying that he is going to cc-..struvt a wall to 42 inches on the south side t vo? From the earlier one that was withdrawn? The first - I am assuming it it the first - one that we had that was for the south wall? Bell: Whether we had a letter or not? Saying that he was going to? Keanef ck: 'Yes. This type of thing that we have here. Ill fa,. I do not know. I can research the file. I have it right here,, it 'will take a few minutes. . .�: Se neficko Check and sees. I am rather curious. I think in a court of law Page 11 a • judge would find it very int.eres+-.ing teat we have a letter from a gentlernan telling us he is going to do this when in fact he has no intention cf doing it. �SecondIy , isn ' t there a way taliat we can keep people c..-it: of a house that does not meet code simply by telling them th►�y cannot move A? Della: I would have to defer toAhe attorney ' s office . A-ttarne : I wanted to address one other point , but: I will go to yours right away. The City At_torney ' s office is faced with an after--the-fact wype of situation once somebody moves in. Keck : I do not think he has - that is it they have not moved! in. That was my point. They are not i/, and before I could put water in my swimming pool I had to have a man come and check off the sheet . i Attorney: We can tell them not to move , in. However. , until somebody haves I in we really don ' t have a reason to seek Lny type of redress . It seems somEwhat premature to seek an injunction against 1 somebody moving in prior- to their movir,g in. Kenefick : No. No, that is not what I meant. Do you not have to have certain functions before you are allowed :o move into a house? Do you not have to know that the wiring is safe, that the floors are in, that the roof is on? Porgy It is called a .final inspection. Kene„Fick: That is what I am getting at. Okay. If in fact this house does not meet all the criteria that the City sets up then is there, not a method for saying that you may not ;n fact move into this house' Now it used to be that Edison would not put a meter in on a house where there was no pe -mit, no final inspection. Now I know there qre ways to do this . I am just saying, where there is a will there is a way. Palin; Yes . In fact U-so Department of Development Services through the certificate of occupancy process and final inspection releases daily nunerous structures , and edison always checks with us and it has to be a final inspection prior to any hookup. sauer: Was there a final inspection on this one? p.alms 8augrt Well, then, don 't grant it. lKe Fick: Than we go. That is, you know, the house doesn ' t coo . Pag* 12 +� Sail e---: It doers not conform to what_ th,r� law says :;.t rims to conform with. FraalA. wel i ,' your know, I think there is a little more than that involved . Are you going to op n the hearing and take testimony and then close? Porter: I guess we might as well proceed because we have at least one ether person who wants to addreas the Convnission. j Attorney,; I just wanted to addressban issue that Mr . Aannister brought up with rec ard to the City ' s ability to reject business licenser, for failure to comply with codes . We: tried that with regard to the banner towing in the sky ads; if you remember some years Ago. Because our business license ordinance is in the nature of a revenue-producing ordinance it does not enjoy t1a same startu as control type of ordinance . an other words , probably we woulia have trouble revoking an ordinance - or revoking a licen,. ,. w under those circumstances. Bannisttr : Is the licensing then fo.: a taw truck operator different than � the licensing for a contractor doing business in the City? At:.orneY : Yes. 13ec:a►use. the tow owrdinance has specific guidelines set up within at, whereas the con:..actor is simply the subject of obt inirng a huziness license to do business within the City. it is strictly revenue-producing . You come in and pay your money and you get your license . You do not have to meet any standards. G reerr You mean that this -- in other words, that has been going now - does anybody know what st;lte of completion it is in now? i In September it was possibly 50 or 60 percent - has any of your staff, anybody been out there to inspect this? Pam? 'tes+ We had an inspector but not necessarily for the structure - yesterday . We had one, but on the wall. I do not know exactly how close to completion the - structure is, the dwellii,g. I have heard that lie is trying to get occupancy for the holidays. I do not know that for a fact, however, beca, e I have hot been out nor did I send John Vogelsang out for the structure, Sassed are the photographs that we took yesterday$ it would indi- cate thi-t it is very Close to occupancy . gortorz Let me ask you a question. Who issues the C of 0? You? The departmont doss, yes. The structural and final it off. There would be a request made for a C of 0 t Edison would Phone Ut h• would hove to issue and phone the release over before i electrical Could be honked up, _ j • Pages 13 crier-. He hos to have the C of O -- in other words , has to have final inspection . in oth,..r. wr,Y•ds , the City has control of. his ' water mete.. . or Is the water. turned on now? palin: I do not know really abuut the. water , Greer : The gas company - in other wordu , he has to have rpproval from the City before he can have o gas ii;o rer and he has to have an Edison meter. .� Pam: The electrical usually is the last hookup. Porter: Savoy, did somebody have a comment out there? bel,lavia: I just wantad to answer Commissioner; Kenefick ' s question. Trare is no previous letter in the file indicating that he was only going to build a 42 inch wall alcng either property line Bannister: Jim, doers bis body have the authority , or the control that would allow Las to instruct or direct that no C of a be issued until the Plans - or until the building confo.-: 1si Pam; No. You could request that we consider tha►L. Bannister: I would lake to request that. Porter; Well, let's have the hearing before we get carxied away here . Who does have the authority to direct you not to - Direct you , not request you? Pali n: The City Aiministrator or the Council by vote. Porter: REOPENED THE PUBLIC 11EARINO ON C.E . 83-29 and I believe there was someone else that wanted to address the Commission . If that individual would do so at this time. Give your name and put it on the roster there, please . Xeripeth yaryen t I am the owner of the property at 3782 Ragtime, the property to the south. And just so that I do not go back through all the _items that Mar. Riff has already covered, I would like to call your attention to a memo sent by Mr. Morrow to. this committee. The fact that he had reached an agreement with a neighbor to the south. I wish to tell you at this time that Mr. Morrow has since violated that agreement by building the wall which he had .aG::read not to start construction on until he had actually received approval for his variance . Therefore, I would like to go on record of the fact that I am opposed to any such -gall. As I understand it, the request for variance, one must be abler to shirr hardship. At least, this is what I re" uaiv*d from Mier City Attornoy ' s office back several months ago POCSOnAlly I feel that Mr. Morrow has failed to do so. He has 1 tk Iri. Lakx ♦41 r " „ Paige 14 t, 1 a-j purchAsed one of th,! largest: lots in the harbor, b'jilt one of the largest homes in the area , and. any hardship the he may now have he has brougnt upon himself . He has completely violated as far as I ate; concerned his Public.,, permit which he had that I have talked to Public Works.- on . We have had communica- tion with t1ae Huntington/Beach 7�olic:e Department who seem to be enable to get him to go with th,w park ng ordinance in t'4e area; . And he has made connent to ),ot"h Mr . Riff and me , quote : "We have -- I have friends down at Citv Hall , " and if it would not be improper I would like to .ask if anybody here tonight has had any prior deal;rye with Mr. Morrow or is any way connected ' . to him on a personal, basis? •Porter : I have no knowledge of anyone on the Commission. Xa_ xy_An: Since the discussion we have had tonight, I do not understand why - I understand that Mr . Pa:lisn here is in charge of the inspectors , do Mot understand why they cannot refuse to issue c: C of a, Mr. Morrow has told me personally that he has many friends as far as inspectors are concerned. I talked to Mr. palin today, Mr. eleven on the tape I could not understand the name Mr . Yaryan ine:••,:•i.oned) one of my other neighbors , has stated that the electrical inspector who was out on Ti,uxsday refused to inspect the electrical work that went ` into the pilasters of this wall. Mr. Morrow has since covered them up ani has completed the wall with the exceptic= of %)aint . I feel - I find it card to believe that an electrical inspector � can come out and inspect the work that has already been covered . But Mr.Morrow seems -to have the ability to do these thi.ngu . s� And I would like to find somebody at City Hell who can do some- f thing. Mr. Morrow veels that money buys. everything. And some of us would like to believe that we, be we rich or poor, we still have the same rights and I believe somebudy here tonight could come up with some resolution to stop Mr. Morrow from moving into his home without complying with the ordinances. And I thank you for ,your time. Porters Thank you, Mr . Yaryan. One thing I would like to do is make sure t:ha. Kr . Ri.f f 'c previous -comments are contained as part of th* record of the hearing, even though we had not; opened it at; the time. Anyone else wishing to speak to this issue? M . W M • r r`i 1 r r r M Riff? Where is he? Oh , he had to leave ; okay . I guess there r is n8- one else wishing to address the commis=ion so I will close the hearing on C .E . 80-29 Wes , before you ask your question, let- me go at this issuance of C. of 0 again . Are you telling me that the City Administrator can order you to issue it? Or the Administrator and the City t'ouncil by vote'I Pa►lin: No . I certainly work fo�? the Administrator, so he would have the authority and we 1l work for the c'ooncil., as amajority , so Y Porter: They have to vote? Pal in: Yes ., Individual counc.ilmember cannot order a department head . Porter : I see, Let me go at this from another direction , Then the only tither way you, might possibly issue it or not issue it would be oti the basis of a court order. Alm I correct? Palin= No. I certainly would investigate to make damn sure that all the is were dotted and the t: ' s are crossed before wo. issue out there on occupancy. If everything is true that has been alleged here this ravening, then there seems to be sufficient grounds to withhold a final in granting occupancy. If, however , the dwelling itself is i,i total compl.:ia.n�..e with everything and there is a separate permit as required on walls, then you are going to have a 3ifficult time holding up occupancy on one permit based upon a violation on the second permit. but we can car•ta.inly try. Porter: Getting to that, I guess . Bannister: Flow may permits have been issued? Vorter: Apparently more than one. Baruiister: I wanted to make a motion actually in the sama line as what you are talking about. I would like to make the motion that this body rer ues t that the Planning Department not issue a C of 0 unti all of the structure conforms to all of the plans as submitted and approved . Voice: Second. Porter. ; I tell you what. I am going to declare that motion out of order because I believe we should take action on the C.E. first. I agree with waht you are saying but I think we oughts to y p,: the cart before the horse - I mean the horse before C'se ' J. Page 16 � cart!, I think the motion that would be appropriate would be to deny C. E . 80-29 or sustain , j believe it is sustain the Board of Zcning Adaustmenits? Bellavia : Yes. Portetr : So we should be sustaining the BZA and denying 80-29 with the three findirigs as outlined on the staff memo of December if 16 , 1980 . I Hauer : So move . Kanef ick t Second , Winchelh: My only question is do we need to deal with the fact that the applicant requested to withdraw it? Do we want it made ab- solutely clear that we are taking this action despite that request? Or do we need that? Porter: Staff have any comment? palin: Yes . I think the fact probably should be stated that the wall has been constructed, they construction of said wall would es certainly a variance. The applicant has not followed r require. cer n y pp , through with that; therefore , the Commission chose not to accept ` the request for withdrawal but act on the prior application pending. Winchell : Mould you ac cepi all of treat? Porter; Mould the maker nd the second approve Li.crlusion of those points? Yes? 3y. Any further discussion on. the motion? Call for the qu ;tion. Bellaviat All ayes . Mote n carries . , oxtert Chair will not entertain the motion relative to the builaing _.� permit. Bannister: My iiutior is that this body. request that the Planning Depart- ment not issue a C of O until such a time as the structures ccm - ply to all of the plans submitted ani approved by the City . 'I '. Kenefick: All structures? Okay. I second that. Porter: Mr. Bauer seconded it, but you agree with it? Me_ nefi,a t: Right. ;. Porten is there any discussion? I gt�ewse� o�,ly think that is necessary k, to clarify the motion is that this is relative to all struc- tu r6s so I presum that means the wall or the house or whstamx. It there is net further discussion I will call for the question. ia t All ayes potion carries, r` : CA* 80-29 has beers deniod by the Commission and may be appsalesd ' , ' to tho City Council within 10 Sys. rap— r 16 w. CITY OF HU"TINGTO" BEACH •`' `' INTt R-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MIN 1IMi ee►N SI M ee To City From c'_tt.v At;t;��r"nc�;► vf.:J.t,y C "Ie r,k Sul�jcc` Iiegtde!st For Prosecut:inn p<•ete I,'e�l,�rttr.�r y .3 , 1981. Dat;e of Violation 1?-.1';;- 80 Ijocation •- i801 RafTt:J.rrtc Circle liurtting,t.on Ecalch , Coal. . Name -• Webb Morrow ; Right, to Appeal. L(D C:it✓y C0utic11 No Drose:cution will be flied :its t.h'is, matter vint.il the appltcant has been afforded due process by allolxl7T the appeal to this Conditional exception to proceted to t'he City CoUtIC11. QS r'equ_tred by Our city j ordinances . 11MC 59880 provides fk-)r ran appeal to the City Council to any decision of the Planning Comrniss son within ton ( 10 ) dny 7 of such decision . The- VPCOrd indicates-, that within t(.,n days of the decision complained -f' , 12116180 , t l,e applicant; tnade a request; Por a "recons Ideration" by the Plabining Commission decision to deny his anplication . tie was, advised � to make this request; by 11r . Pal -in , Director of Development Services . He was also advised to appeal to t lne;; City Council. . The decision of the Planniinf*, Cntnmis sion 41- s to deny a coniitional exception (variance) request; to encroacl-. uporl the 11-1 setback . The encroachment is of ?.rt exi.stinfr wall which excreds '-1/2 f'e~et ill hc-IF-ht, In an area fifteen feet, from the: "tilt imate" rif;ht-n f--wav line . ITRehea.rings or rec:onsiderat Ions 11 on zon.inf; administrative matce?rs are not: allowed unless the ordinance see provides . ( See Lindell Co . v . Board of Permit 11p.peals ( L91l 3 ) 23 Cal . 2d 30; , :31.6 1 b APac . 2 and McaonalV C �y,st;ems of Tall.fornia_ v. Board of Permit Appeals ( 1975) 11 awl .APP . 3d 525 119 dal . Rntr - 26. This is because the Planninf; Commission loses its jurisdiction after, making its initial determination . Our, ordinances do not allow for recons,ide:rrat,ions� . The recoursscr is al-I appeal to the City Council . The appeal to the: City Council in de novo ( sta-vt s fresh) and therefore the record or both }1'A and the r1anning Commission is irrelevant ( Lacrutrta v. Cif Caur,cil ( 1970 ) 9 Cal . App . 3(3 890 88 Cral . Rnty . 105 . ) rt• is imperative that at ^uch hF:arIng the City Council grant the applicant a fair and impartial hearing. I7ue nrocess is violated if any member of the hearing hoard decides the mattor in advance of the hearinp,, Sladovich V . County of Fresno ( 1958 ) 150 Cal . App. ?.d 230 , 421 Pac . 2d 301-T3T;-T78 ear e3t:herwlse ev dences bias or pre,judic;ea, against the application of applicant . r � � t Y .1 y Memo to City Adr7J1-r1st: 1'-<<t0P F? CIIUv At:t;oriioy �F3E7;C' 2 Suk,,je(,t . Re:yzcc!::f:; f cat P v o.,r..c.uL :I.on : L);1t,(2 . IP/.t)? tI,-t, V Webb Morrow F;.iii, play and 'due t�t'c,cOZ:; of 1. ,rr t-hL,:0; r1r . 1.^In1' ,cw be ��fCoriled an appeal to the City Coutiell ,.'i.nce t}te er'rov which w,,.is irnduced into the proceedinf; came, Pro;ii o city of f'I.c.tt".il ( t))(- recon i ci- eration) . The fact; he rvay h.�.�tc been ,�dv1.;;ecl t c� both �'znt:e. } anti pis}( for a reconsideration at; the ;atrir� time does ;lot cuz'c L}ir. er'r'oi' . 'Flrie c i tv is legally bound to 'ollow 1_f-;; own ord:i.riancc o and vul_es to the 1;�tter although others, may not; be required to do so . The City Clerk is required by city ordiinancc H}jUC §9815 . 11 . 3 to receive this apneal and to ;-yet the matter for henr:i_rtr; by the c;ounc�i.i . .she has no discretion to riot accept it: , or to not: set; - t f'ov ijeaving . The language of the ord dance 'Is, clear , to wit : "HdOC 59815 . 4 . 3 - All appeals to the City rauncil shall be filed with the City Clerk . Upon receipt of saicci appeal, the City ;,let'k shall stet the matter t'or- public hearing before the City Council at the ear-liest-, possible j regular 31. t,y Council meeting-- ( empN,S is� "171d rd As you all. know the work stall. 1s mandator- In the usual case and means that; , In the case of the Clerk, the city off'1ce:-, has no discretion to not follow the ordinance. ��_ r� J(1 c L f C.►�� ;AIL HUTTON City Attorney OH : WSlt : bb cc : Mayor Bailey e,y Members of City Council irr . 1 f 1 1 RE .Ser, FOR Cl k Y COUNCIL ACTM $ubmtttod by games W. inn papartrnent _ Develorment Services Dow Proqww February 6, 19 81 Backup Mowlel Attached x Yes [] No t APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMTSSICN ' S I)ENIAL OF CnNDIT:MNAL EXCEPTION NO. 8 0-19 City Adrtoinistrator's Coinuf to Approve as reconmNnded. a'tament oY Inue, Rewmmendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: ice. §TATEMENT 01' I,§SSIE,: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal. to -the Planning Commission' s denial of Conditional Exception No. 80--29, a request � to permit a six (6) ft. high wall to encroach 31811 into the required front yard se*back. R,ECOMMENDAZ' O: The Planning CoLunission recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission ' s denial of Conditional Exception No. 80-29 &MYSIS: Wept) Morrow P.O. Box 2236 Huntington Beach, Ca . 92647 ' APPLICAET: Webb Marrow , P.O. Box 2236 Huntington Beach, Cs. 92647 t&QUION: East end of Ragtime Circle (3801 Ragtime Cir. ) I&EQMEST: To permit a six ft. (61 ) high Wall to encroach 3181, into the required .front yard setback. pe we ., 41 1. YET' f Page TWO p,U, M^0M SION ACTIQIV ON NOTION BY SAUER AND SECOND BY XENEFICK, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80 -29 (APPZAL) WAS DEN:LF.D WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS By THE FOLLOWYM VOTE: 1�ZDlDI1TtG� 1. The applicant has failed (o prove sufficient hardsh ;p as mandated by the ordinance Code to Justify •� � . granting s conditional exception. 2. Granting of a conditional oxcept,i.on i ?uld constitute a grant of special privilage not con!- isteni,. with other properties under similar circumstances and Under t-he same zon-ing classification . AYES: Hauer, K� :nc9f ir}:, W:t nchal l., Porte)., , Ga e�_ r ; Schumacher NOES% Nand ABSENTz None ABSTAIN-. Nose Conditional Exception No . 80•_19 is a rc!queaL by tlia applic:ant t.(, permit a six (6) I': . h1.c}; hlock wall t.r encroach 3 : 8" into t.'ha required front yarn setYj,�Ick. At t,',1%7 July 16, 1`)80 Bca.-d of Zoning meeting, a mc>t--io, was made by Lipps and ,,,econd by 1,-.illy Ito deny Cor di. ti.ona l Exc�:pt No. 80- 29 they f'o.'.1otefnq the: following vn+_e; A special privilegc: would be r4ranted by a l.n,oval, in addit" ou t,i wet;tiukj ra precede- j-i t other propert i.,�,c; would be denied , and the 0-Ti ly t i"dslty pr-eserted io r:eL imposc. t oy a r.ch.itectrural design . The applicant sub&._,quent.J.y a;,pealc((i the rjecision of -% he Board ot: Zoning Mjustments and Conditional Exception No. 80-29 was scheduled for the A►ugu.3t 19, 1980 �.>lannJ.ng Cainmis:;ion meeting. On August 15, 1 )80, the applicant requt steel a continuance to the September 16 , 1980 Planning Commission meeting . The request was granted by -the Planning Commission and the public hearing was set fax September 16, 1980 . On Sept-ember 4, 1980, the Department of Development Services received another r+�queyst for a coati nuence of said application. In his letter, t *4 applicant requested a 90-day continuance to dhe December 16, 1980 Planning Cammission meeting. At the December 16, 1980 Planninq Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted to deny -;:he appea ►. of th-e applicant, and also voted not to accept ttte appileant ' s reciucst for wi.thdrr-awal of the conditional exception request, in lig) t: of the f_,�ct: t h! .t a wall had been con- otructed in the field prior to the of that. request . 51 e a �L Za IAL: Mw: . ��+t±� i�cant has failed to prove sufficient hardship as mandat.ed by the ordinance code to ,justify granting a ..' ' carAitAonal exception. 2. Granting of a conditional exception would constitt•,te a !rant of special privilege not consistent with other w pst�Terties under similar circumstances and under the $406 saning classification. 5, ''tile r Reverser the Planning Commission ' s action and approve Conditional f. Exception No. 80--29 based can the following findings : 1,. The shape of the subject property deprives the applicant of property rights enjoyed by others it similar Zoning districts. 2. The approval of Conditional Exception No. 80-29 would allow the applicant parity with those who have similar circumstances including Mee, shape, topography, location or surroundings . J2JZXOM2JW. -M.- . -JHEgMTJ I . Staff Report dated August 19, 1980 2. Letter from Applicant dated Aug, 15, 1980 requesting continuance � to Sept. 16r 3.980 Planning Convnission meting. 3 . Letter :.rom Applicant requesting 90-»day continuance dater. r September 4, 1980 . 4. Letter from Applicant requesting withdrawal of applica•:.ion dated December 15, 1980 Respectfully submitted, &moo W. Palin, Director rtrtoont of Developms-%t Services i IIt J�y �r• PRO& � 1 S ff nuntington beach dovelopment servicas dopertment TA -1EPORT w TO: Planning Comnission FROM$ Development Services DATSs August 19, 1980 ;�t,RLI.Q x Webb Morrow bA'PE AggEPTEQt P.O. Box 2236 Huntington Beach, ca., 92647 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE AppEL MT: Leine ZONE': R�1 (Low Density B,EQ, 'T: �c permit :six (6) f t . high Residentia). i wall to encroach ; ' 811 Into { required front yard setback. GENERA FLAN: Low Density LLOgANq.2: Subject property is located Residential on the east end of Ragtime Circle (3801 Ragtime C:;.rcle) EXISTING USE: Single Family Residence L Q,,.,SMU AP MT ON. Sustain the Board wf Z0hift" Adjustments' denial of Conditional Uception No. 80 -29, a request by the applicant to encroach approxi- wately 3 ft. 8 in. into the .required front yard setback. 2.9 BD= bt MI)II99. ADJU§WEND T t7N At the July 16j 1980 Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting, a motion was matte by Lipps and second by Kelly to deny Conditional Exc option No. 80 -29 with the following reasons, by the following 'vote: A special �r priviloge would be granted b a iu addition to setting a Y approval, precodent other properties in the vicinity would be denied, and the tmly hardship presented is selfimposed by architectural design. AYES: Tindall, Kelly, Lipps t NOES .- None 'AASLNT= Nohd AM& Conditional Exception No. 80-29 Page Two � OZEI��:RAL 1NlRMATZ�?N s Conditional Exception No. 80-.29 is a request by the applicant to construct two 6 ft. high walls within the required front yard setback. The wall located on the north side of the subject property encroaches approximately 3 ft. l in. into the required front yard sotback. Vic mall located on the southwest side of the property encroacher approximately 3 ft. 3 in. into the required front yard setback* "TAL Z.TATU B: Condi . ,'.onal Exception No. 80-29 categorically exempt under Section 15105, Class 5 of the Calito::nia Envirnnmental 0-iality Act of 1970. 5.0 SUIM i UJ2.IJ1g LAND USE, ZCNTNNC AND GE�V,EItU PLAN CEStGNATIoN. The surrounding properties are developed, zoned and designated on the General Flan as Low Density Residential. The Planning Commission may approve a Conditional Exception p,:cvidinq relief from the strict application of the ordinance code provided the following have been established : a. That the granting of a Conditional Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and cinder an identical zone classification. b. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject I property, including Lc,ize, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive { the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in I the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. i c. That the granting o`l a Conditional Exception is necessary to preserve 1 the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. do TMt the granting of a . .nditional Exception will not be m-iterl.ally detrimental to tta public welfare or injurious to property in the $aide zone clessificationn. A e+ That the granting of a Conditional Exception will not adversely affect the Master Plan of thn City of Huntington Beach. 7+0 Ar+iALYSIst ;erect on__..1103. 1 irpot XUA. of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code • states that: "'the minimum front yard shall be 15 feet. " The app.li•- cart is proposing to encroach approximately 3 ft . 8 in. into the requl rdd front yard setback with a 6 ft . high wall and 3 ft. 1 in. with an additional 6 f t . high wall * F • Coeditional Exception No. 80-29 Fagl# Three: TM applicant Ms stated ttgt the entire architectural concept was baud on a front entry courtyard and security. Staff concurs that the haVdahip is self-imposed and that alternative courtyard designs could pCovide security for the applicant, as well as meet the requirements Set forth by the Ordinance Code 5' 7.0 Th* staff reCowwnds that the Planning Commission sustain Lbe Board of Zoning Mjustments denial of Conditional Exception No. 80,-29 based on the following findings : 1. The applicant has failed to prove sufficient hardship as mandates: by the Ordinance Cade to justify granting of the Conditional 1xcespti on. 2. Granting of the Conditional Exception would constitute a grant of special privilege not consistent with otter properties un0,_%r similar circumstance; and under the same zone classification. i l r. ENTg: 1 . Area Map 2 . Site Plan 3. Letter of Appel 4. Board of Zoning Adjustments ' Minutes dated July 16, 1980 + re i I 4 1. iY Mr 1 ' Fe o. Box 2236 Huntington Roach CA 92647 714 840-3289 r'V; Auguat 150 1980 y, Planning Commission Cit of Huntington Besoh P. s Box 711 ., Huntington Heaoh , CA 92648 Conooming your notloe of hearing on August 19 for Conditional Exception No. 80-29: I would like to request a oontinu.ance to the September 1.6 meeting as we are noi; ready yet. An agreement have been rouohed with the :_3i.ghbor to the eouth at a meeting with Mr. Bourboigon. The arch i teat i s attempting tc determine the natures of the complaint by the ne_ghbor to the north. ; The nature of any ether objections by anyone eloat if any , Is attempting -to be deter=ed in an effort 'to resolve 'the matter. Thank you t•er your consideration. F'ooar Webb Morrow 1 . H�1NTiNt+ '1 KAOI .� PLANNING Dt"t AUG 15 SO .hoCA y JY�i�.��'J_ Il.l.,. i. _.y_ ,,...,,. _.. „.,, .,♦ e. .s. .•..... r Z 1"y A 9 k Y db BEACH PLANN110 DEPT. 4, SEA' 4 WO AP. 0. ^off CA 9i4g P.O. Sox 2236 Huntington Beach , GA 92647 ?' 714 840-3289 August 30 , 1980 Planni-r 1 1+oN iss ion City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 711 Huntington Peach, CA 92648 Regarding hea sing scheduled for September 16 meeting for Conditional Exception No. 80-39 , 1 would like to request as 90-day continuance . The ieasson for this is that the architect has not been able F to react; the neighbor to the north , Riff , as Riff has been out of town for the past several week; and is still gone . . g previously stated , I feel it is better to attempt to � re4olve any objections or complaints anyone might have in advance of the hearing . Construction is proceeding on the interior of the house only. If the nattier should be resolved sooner , I will get in touch with you . However , a 90--day continuance will eliminate having to schedule and reschedule the hearing . Respectfully , "'-V r-4 Webb Morrow 1' 1 1 i J 1 ' 1 I F ly . r r f '1 0 i� r p 10,4 4lVNj,V,a fttgCI C CPT, ; DEC 15 4w jftw' 0. ► r ti y Publish 215181 �lpa„r k I t� i NOTICE OF PUBLIC MWiNG APPEAL. TO PLANNING C"ISSIGN GENIAL I1f CE #so.29 NOTICE IS WAIT 61WER that a public hearing wi 1 I be held by the City Council of V* Cfty of 140tiEton kwh. in the Council Chambmr of the Civic Center. ' f, *00m" Wch, at the hour of ,,..�:�.,�. P.M. , or as soon thereafter as poastble an �.I I ..�... . the �. .�., "y of for the purpose of considering are oppeal to the Planning Comission 's denial of CoWitional Exception No. 80-29 oo Detemb►er 16, 1980. Conditional Exception No. AO-Z9 is a wquest to permit a six (b) font high wall to encroach approximately 3 ft. h im into the required front yard setback. The subject property is lacatod at the east and of Ragtime+ Circle, Huntington Beach, California. A hypo! description is on file in tr,a Department of Development Services office, All 1IwUrest" ponom are invited to attend said hearing and express their bpirtioan for or agaiatht said appal ftrOw istemtiatn my be obtaintd from the Office of the City Clerk, 2W Main Ste, Nwtiro"m $each, California. 92648 - (7 C4) 535-57W IDAl'Ej) .. !` .! C V Y OF HUNT I NGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Ventworth City Clerk " r _ 1 Ilz Hutr ur-Pacific LTD No 36 ci 080 -29 Appeal 3025 Olympic BIW Coif July 290 1980 j JH) Santa MwAAx, Calif 90406 ��►�89 178•-�81-3i �.?8N6i�1-5i jow it Onm 71taM in L Gbm winidad Is)and I�csaec�wr�ears SOON$ wive 16222 LM,2 Ail =18tian mmw,wgtm PANX60 Calif 1AtMingtaft ftwb l Calif CM/0 mutour.- do um 9" 92"9 3025 Olygxo 81Vt 1' -P ft 178-M-38 80ntA MOUCA, California t I MUD NO I-Ift, IL M19a b 90406 SM ON I ms, r � 17028 Sot h HUMIM Dive *A"lize � Bae t Hail. It sr ca u f 92"0 91745 1T0 1�2�, 179- .-3'9 173-681-56 MmUft 41 MWmdV JWry R Tarpo John A Lan i 3W awmW Drive 3701 Aagtm Circle 3762 Ra 9tim Cixcle � 9 , C&I 4 LkmtUqtm Beach, Calif &mtchr CAL f I 99 92649 92649 179-4U-32 178--Ul-40 178- 1-57 ' C 0 WuFPft rum is 8 Riff RX]er CDLe U. UslAmb 8t; f 202 3791 Ift9tim CIxcIA 3772 AngtArm ;Urcl,e SOL— MPA M'I-Mbml ftsd4 *13.f Mgt 8eect, Calif Brach, Calif tam 92"9 92649 1 8-.U-+33 178-01-42 178-682-10 Ltd L Call Humeth L Yat`flm Odcar L AzmA Omompe Uriw 3782 m7t i m Cisclee 16.11 sundanow Latta 11►x1w W , 8m *j. Cali b"Ch, Calif EMtLl"w "'"d calif 92 5 9:a6.49 92649 1T8~e4i1�26 178 �.-CIS 178--682-U i A ►tr3 N sari Gem" R St aft 1 2 M4 a LOW Dania D Whit* 1630.t Lam f tMINAOR . caw 3752 mgt m Ci=I& aw4h,. Calif � �9 t ingttaHmCh# Wif 92649 92649 1► -6 �35 1?+t1-681-i6 178-"2-12 ' $ mar WU1LAw it Hell 'IIm ArtxtxtL ,i Eat ALL L&M 16322 t L LAM 1,6201 9►a t Incas madh Calif 92619nOt k Calif H m 8�h, C&Uf 92W178-681-4"7 178i6 -13 G risC Xerrol h A Itw L N St Gsogya low 16.�32 9urgc]ar Large 16291 9wdancer la Ott, of amtirxgtxn amscho C,a<uf Amtingt un beach, Calif 92 ! 92649 92649 { r , /V� i{r 7 1r•' y 1l�dk, l I CK #W29 ~ aay 29 198l1 WH) 0 i6t al o Cali .1 + r said 1 lot I arzh* Calum I � 1"i8~A!1-i7 �1 5 WON C19. M-M-03 MW bit bum" IM MUM& CIZCle 8 #k Out 179-M-71 !� C Skeltm tom, C1lf POCK. am 840 � HoMar Nr Modw I U356 Ift role fix* WOUN 362 au VPO t y yy ohm 40 jqysow •r�Vr OL i l I 1 •rr. t�r,+��,},�����Y� � M•�M ,,1 r,;hRiti .•y� �4,jy� �'.i • r .i •d ti IM r 2,Mati„ . n yj• 46 ^\ '1 Pub 1 i s h NOTICE DF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING CONNISSIOw DENIAL :j OF CC too-29 . NOTICE IS HUST 41VEM that a public hearing wi l I be held by the City Council of tM Cily of Hatington &mch, in the Council ChaMer of the Civic Center, MAtfNgton Bchi at the hour of P.M. , or as sown thereafter as possibi• 00 11141daIr the --Izt t day of fltrua Y , 19�. for the purpose of considering an appeal to the Planning Comission' s denial of Conditional Exception No. 80-29 on Deceaher 16. 1980. Cnnditional Exce,ptlon Ma. W-29 is a request to p►erwit a six (6) foot high wall to ei.r.roach approximately 3 ft. 6 in. into the required fret yard setback. The subject property is located at tho east end of Ragti,w Circle, Huntington Beach, California. I� legal description is can file in the Department of Development Services office. All 114tomted person are invited to attend said hearing and express their � opiAins for or against said appeal rwrtmw ii fo natter way bt obtained from the Office of +he City Clerk, 2000 !lain Sttftt, liver V"ton 8"ch, Ca l i f orn i a. 92648 - (714) 536-5221 WED ,.Eebrw-ry M C I TT OF HUNT I NGTOR BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk tv �G woo a ' Published in H. B. independent News August 7, 1980 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUfiLIC VEMUNO �ITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80--29 •• APPEAL HERE Nt' ICB I9 BY G1VN that a public hearing will be held by the "Ctmtsv of the City of Huntington Beech, cAt ornial for the purpose of considering an appeal tot.lie fiw4r4 _ vest denial of Conditional Exception No. 80- 29 on qlw%y-16, 198C, . Conditional Exc_-ption No. VO-29 i'i a request to _pear a six (G) foo c high wall 'co encxcach approximately 3 ft. 8 in . into the required front yard sct-back . The subject I property is locatad at the east end of ;Ragtime Circle, .Huntington Beach, Calif. A legal description Is orl file in the: Department of Development Services office . Said hearing will be held at the hour. of :?,M. , on 3. Ow« , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Center , 2000 Main Street,. Huntington Vea.ch , Cali.fornta , All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and erpress Their opinions for or against the proposed �...._ Conditionp 1 Exception No. EW -29 Further information may be obtaiged from the City Planning Depa►rtwo it, T DATED this _ clay of -( -P't" VON ON t'anr� nr-�. _ a Mkt �'r:r,r�� .ir. , .. ..... f, .r. . _ .w.►.v..—.... ... ..W. ... ,. . r. _ . . r.�.�... _. . ... . yr1• cffy L ACTON i+w ' x - . �ieeaa ir_ �,alin. t�irs l or wl�rtt L1wOlOpment Servioer/rilarning x trt,�ti�ry 21 r 19..0 89*up►IMswbl Attodwi [3 va No ., rrct. f Cky AdrrMirlNOWN"I l offlnW48 i Approve as Recommended / Suawom of Iwo, 1°lewmm ndN6D n, Analysis, Funding Source, AiternatNe Actions: TrsasmitttJ for your consideration is an appeal to the Planning Comm iss.i.on ' s I' 4 UX of Conditional Exception No. F O-9 and Tentativo Parcel Map No. 8 p-5 p"Il , a k est to allow a fifty (50) foot'-wide lot, in the Townlot area to be st ivid6d into two (2) parcels, each having twenty-five (25) feet of frontage. ,Minimum frontage required by the Townlot Specific Plan is thirty (30) feet. VKWUMiIONw p staff ec sends denial Consistent with th.. Planning Commission' s action, the ff r omR of Conditional Exception No. 80 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80�.. ANALYSIS t r Appellants Jack & Shirely Rogers ' cr, 1.107 acacia avenue Huntington Beach, CA. 92848 � Applicant : Gary Brown Southwest corner of llth Street and Acacia Avenue Location: j Request ., To create two ( 2 ) 25 footwide lots in lieu of the required � thirty (30) foot lot width L� � M�iO iAi r { / � I 10 •h .r•�°rtiwoo P��VlI+•!J�;lr.w" 'y f CZ M00 11 'i'M X. 80-582 loll r� CiMBim Action on Jsouary 6, 1981. AM E+1OflN VV GRZZRl C/1NhXTIONKL vC TOa 1!O A 234 MP NO. 80-882 MIRE DENIEb P'OR, THE FOLLOWM JA8ON8 9V +Uiir�Mims ' V=pow4 division of properties+ is inconsistent with general plane for AYZ8q Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher t�029: hannister, Kenifick A"S"s Dauer ABIW h4: Mane L DI8CUSSIOM1 The subject site is. located within an area which is designated .low density on the General Plan Class than 7 units per gross acre) . However, Townlot M3 . cific Plan saninq allows a maximum of 9 units per acre, which is consistnet with t m sodium density designation on the General Plan. Based on the inconsistency between the present General plan designation on the Land Use., Elamftt and the allowable density under the existing zoning on this property, that Planning t_omaisaion recommends denial of the project. The P.lanninq Commission further directed staff to pursuc a General Plan Amendment resolving inconsistencies between the General Plan designation and allowable densitias in the Townlot area . ENVIROMENTAL STATUS: � The proposed project is categorically exempt. � FUMING SOURCE Not applicable i ALTERNATM COURSE OF ACTION: Approve the appeal � SUPPORTING INPORMATION: 1. Area Map 2. Letter from Appellant 3. January 6 , 1981 Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes Respectfully suxxaitted, s N. Palin, Director Development Services JNp/JRB,/etc ,•,�, y / ,4 , , !, I i f,• I I f , �I, �• or 00, 00 • aI ! 4/' r #- dFl ! r , / ! / I ! / / OF 40 r ,f 1 14 r /1 / ti, •♦ ��. 1 � 1 f •• ! *• +,�� ram.•. , 1 1 11 1 Cal � � y 1 1 �' 1 1 � 11 � 1 1 .�•� �awl�y w+F r rl r 1 1 11 11 1 1 r��. aw• syy 1 11 1) � �.� ter.• 1 1 1 • 1 II III 1 1 1 , 1 1 • • r fJ •Vi A' , y1i l�• i 40. fr''+f / �,. n f Af ,/, j• >,t: a• ul 1 ,,,Li 'r ri'r1 ��Y' �L •r rr ! ,, 1 r W' � r �14r Y -r' 1{Ar Y; f r 6� `, y�'�e 1' AJ`t' •+ , 1. y,}{ r y 'ry�y��,'py�� i''I, �����, I' dr"�•`Y�_•7r. '��1�'. � �'�'rY{Y �1.�1 ¢' "�",Fp / '1 ! -lit r Ir January 8, 1981 f `I' .' City Clerk City of Huntington Beach o Ca . .W Dear Sir : s Y would like to appeal the decision rendered by the Plannin ' Commission on Jan . 6 $ 19811 in reference to the Cond tidnal Exception #80-9 "in conjunction With the Tentative parcel Map No . 80-682 , a request ' to pilroit the creation of two 25 ft. lots in lieu of the 30 ft . lot width required by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Acacia Avenue and 11th Street fn the Townlot Specif1c plan Area #1 -A. " The Treason I am appealing this decision is that I feel , in keeping with the parody of the area , the majorit of the parcels are already subdivided into 25 ft . lots . r Your attention to this matter will be greatly '',�" appreciated . J Thank you , z� aarri W.` roan GWs+ ph ;,:rKw ' • s�,w N- untlt ton beach develaprn4 services diepartment f�f EPORIL- Planning Corhmiasion w 04veloat services 016huary B, 1981 _ 9 80- 582 r� A&U19=8 Jack 4 Shirley Rogere PMEE _A, CEFMP. 1107 Acacia 12f 24/80 Huntington Beach, Ca. To permit a subdivision of 2/23/81 a 50 fie lot into two '25 ft. lots in lieu of the required Nz Townlot Q .�E Specific Plats 30 ft. Area A JWWUL02 Southwest corner of llth st . GEJ L pills Medium . • and Acacia Ave, Density Residential s *13 acres EXI&TIN VIM: Vacant o . - EST&D ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissions approve Conditional Exception No. 80-09 •and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-582 based on the findings and conditions i,n Sections 7. 0 . 2 J Q QZNKB& XNZQRMA'ION • Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-582 in conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 80-09 is a request to allow a 50 ft . wide lest in the Townlot Area to be subdivided into two ,parcels each having 25 ft . of frontage. The minimum frontage required by the Townlot Specific Plan is 30 ft. -1-0 .2.9 -USUES: Major issues of concern regarding Conditional Exception No . 80--09 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-582 are as follows: gib' i R tiY.�,� /�^�1� s)• 1 ";'.,. '� .. r r w•' r w r ( 114* 00 T ( ` r u i4 r ,,`` 1• N 1.rr itional, fceeption Flo. 80-09/Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-582 Will the proposed division of land increase the existing density? �Nr" XX gran%isg of Conditional Exception N0, 80-09, constitute-granting { "'A 'special privilege? ILI0" � `1`AL STA'�it P; Conditional Exception No. 80-09 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-582 ore categorically exempt in accordance with Section 3.5115 of the St4to SIR Guidelines, ;r QRNQUrIMI LMd .. JWJN1L_,_AN gENEPAL PLAN D9§JgNATJ.QNs The oubiect s1t6 is 1c4a ec5at the northwest corner of llth Stravet and pia . Ave. and is zoned Townlot Specific Plan - A. The properi is ppegelttl.y developed with an older single family residential dwelling and is designated on the General plan as Medium Denaily Residential. Ali of the surrounding properties are also zoned Townlot Specific Plan, Section A and are designated on the General plan as Medium Density Residential. Properties surrounding the site are developed with older :dingle family dwellings. The subject site was originally subdivided into 251x 117 ' lots similar � f to the rest of the Townlot Area . On August 27, 1941, the entire block f bounded by Acacia Avenue on the north, 12th Street on the west, Pecan Avenue on the south, and llth Street on the east was re-recorded as part of Tract 1094 and 50 ft. wide Iota were created . Y Under the Townlot Specific Plan ordinance, the subject Site will 'ield a two unit cOm leex f the site is divided into two 25 ' wide r parcels still only two units would be permitted according to code, there - 1 fore, the granting of Conditional Excgption No. 80-09 will not increase I the existing permitted density in the area . The subject parcel is located in a block of older single family 'dwellings which would indicate that the surrounding properties may scion be recycled to their maximum potential. Two unit complexes are the most common type development within the Townlot Specific plan Area. According to the Townlot specific plan Development Standards, two units could be guilt on the subject site , however, the existing configuration of the site and the parcelssurround:ng the site within an abutting four block area precludes the' possibility of constructing two single family detached dwellings which could be sold to separate buyers. This condition is contrary to the intent of the Townlot Specific plan, therefore, the staff is recommending that the Commission if concurring with the f^llowing recommendation, initiate an amendment � to the Townlot Specific Plan to eliminate this: conflict by- allowing existing 50 ft. wide parcels within this four block area to be divided into two 25 ft. wide parcels for development . The ability to divide the existing 50 ft . wide lots w.itbin this four block area arT�T' rail`.,1'.-•;} •, r , r IA li J r y t*%ftt$oaal RXception Nos, 00-09/Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-502 bt4 25 It. late will provide property owners greater flexibility in 40V*JOVJvq , th1s property. Tho two 25 f t. lots are consistent with the orpove and lhtsht oe the. Townlot Area and will not Increases the 1rOi:,%Y. of Haroh 7s, 1978, the Planning commission approved a t site request creating two 25 ft. lots from a previously existing $d ft.' lot on property located on the east aide of 12th Streaet$ 25 f t. south of Pecan Avenue . This property has since fleece developed with two single family residences. The staff recommends that the Planning commission approve Conditional Exception No. 80-09 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-592 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions . 1.. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find that the proposed subdivision along with its design improvements is consistent with the general and specific places in the area and that t e. The two . lot division of land and the development of two single family dwellings is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Townlot Specific Plan. b. The subdivision of this parcel into two 25 ' lots- is creating parity with what exists in the general area . . U&P YQA. 80 582 le This request will not be . detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community as the development proposed upon the ' two parcels is proposed at the same intensity as that of surrounding asses. 1 2. The General Man has seats forth provisions for this type of land ' use as `+ell as setting forth objectives for implementation of � this type of use. 3 . The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design and Improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifi- cations on file with the city as wall. as in compliance with the Stare Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision ordinance. , . ___QQNDTT.. ON§ OF APPRCV L - TENT&TIVE PARCEL_.MAP Np. 80- 582 i 1. The Tentative parcel 14ap received by the Department of Development Services and dated November 25, 1980, shall be the approved Layout. y i r r T 1, I lT f 1 h '`1 ` - , ' • �/ ! �'r 1. 81. f "'' "ti'ft No. GO_09/Tent4tive Parcel Map No. 00-682 W' A pareol, map ahall be filed with and approved by the' Dspartmant -4M mmwded with the, Orange County aaoordar. 10#ravownts sha•1l be dedicated and constructed is accordance 164 i nth City standards& Mater, suipply shall he t?rough the City of Huntington Beach' s. water y I Sewage and drainage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with• City standards. '' . 6. A1.1 utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcels are dovoloped Parcel Amp No. 80-.582 rJ c A- y r. ri 'i it • I' • 1 S i t ' �""fit, . b,• ,, r 1 yy ,, 1 "i"Uteso HOBO Plrnninv Commission � A she described as rezoning through exception. f , . Richard Cask and Gary Brown, representing the applicants in 't this and the following application, addressed the Cori Lesion • Pti, t to ask for parity with the surrounding area. r� ` 4. % A l IO►N WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APFFIM CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-•7 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-579 SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY STAFF: NOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Banister, Kenefick , Winchell NOES: Porter, Greer, Schumacher ABSENT: Bauer ANSTAI N s None s' Further discussion took p1.aee, with Chairman Porter suggest- ing that a more general solution should be reached becauski ' in his Opinion the conditioAal exception approach is inappro- priate. After review, the staff was • directed to pursue a k general plan amendment to bring the ' properties in this foul- , bla.Yk area into consistency between the ' zoning and the General Plain designations . 00 MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY CREER CONDITIONAL EX- CEPTION NO. 80-7 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80 -579 WERE t DXNI$D FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: The proposed division of property is inconsistent with Gen- oral Plans for the area . AYES: Winchell, Po::ter. , Greer , Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Kenefick ' ABSENT: Hauer ABSTAIN: None �• C2bQjTLQNU.U�EPTjQN.W8 .. ASAntc Jaclk and Shirloy RoSeLs To permit a subdivision of a 50-foot lot into two 25-foot lots ` in lieu of the code-required 30 foot width on property located .• on the southwest corner of Eleventh Street and Acacia Avenue. The public heating was opened. Dick Nall , engineer, expressed the opinion that not allowing �* the lot split in this instance and the previous one would r ; pana►li.zo the property owners and would result in rental hous- ing in the: area as opposed to owner-occupied dwellings . hit i y. i ►� -5- 1-6-81 P. C. 1,4 'Atimateso N P B. Manning Commission, Wert Qsty or m addressed the commission to urge approval of this request. . 'hdl were no other persons to speak for or against the proposol p ;; sA the public hearing was closed. - Comission discussion e:nsueds Legal counsel Jim Georges informed the Couseisrsion that only the tentative parcel map must be found in r ' conformance with the General Plan - the conditional exceptlon can be granted on a finding of hardship. The possibility of amending the 04nera l Plan was reviewed. A WTION WAS MADE BY XENEFICK AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO APPROVE COM'pITIONAL EXC.0TI0N NO. 80-09 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. • 80-•582 . Wl" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF. MOTION FAILED ;.{ BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ►.,' AYES: Bannister, Kenefick S RO : Wineherll , Porter,' Greer", Schumacher ABSENT z Sauer , AASTAlN s Nona ` ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY GREER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 00-09 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-582 WERE DENIED FOR THE POLUWYNG REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTES .. 1 tIE�ISQ,tS FORA�YIWP i.DENIAL s � i.. 1� ■Wr " ' It The proposed division of property is inconsistent with General . Plans for the area. 2. No hardship has been demonstrated. r` AYES: Winc:hell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher NOES :. Bannister, Kene f ick ASSENT& Bauer ABSTAINt None CO MOTXOW SY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY GREER THE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PURSUE A WNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT To BRING THE FOUR-BLOCK AREA IN WHICH THESE PROPERTIES RILE LOCATED INTO CONSISTENCY BETWEEN ZONING W AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING MOTE: E' AYF.Ss Bannister, Xenefick , Winchell, Porter; Greer , Schumacher NOES : None AOSENT: Bauer ABSTAIN: None DISCUS$10N ITEMS : ........... _r �..�.L.,.. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 80--29 (Request- for Reconsideration) Applicant: Webb borrow Francis Mitchell, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission to discuss the accuracy of the information which had been presented �� ■' Y , ��y� 5 �=�Cr ''�a'q.'!I,R� ,,I ,'� ,"•'` �� , , ��r��"s� 4" �,' 1 ►�w,y;,'?�' '�,,« f S y ti i OT11K W WAIC MMINN AR"Mo 10 1111 W.1414 call1 10015 •I M& Wat" 681 Nola is 1"m .� *t a Pbl lc hearing will be hold by the City Council of iM to Vw 'CMM11 Chafer of the Civic Center mats " .a •hw el ,., P.11. , or as soon thomfter as UPS bw ay of 'of ftmmo as 1 to the NMIV4 luck Planning Comission's 441 ' of 1 beepttot No. W9 in conjunction wfth Tontstive Parcel Nap ,r Not t Wit, to pwMt tim orottion of 26 ft. lots in l iem of the 30 !t. ' 'dot "Ido vqqdrqW IV *a Noti" Beach Qrdiname Code. The oWN*t property in ISO* at wm of Aacia Avwm and 11 th Strut 1n do Temlot '•a A Upt doWption is to .I' 1+s is 0 4partont Of 0"010PMt WOO. � • All latiero te1 Persom am lowfted to attend said hearing and express their opinion for or agelast said a a1 �1• •.A����.�■.4.�IY111 I •Yid" Y Further Info etetion m11+ be obtained frm the Office of the City Clark, 2000 Main Str*-tt, .#Mtt r4lOn $mscr, California. 9 - (714) 535-5227 OATED -- 1116/61 CITY OF RM t NGTON BEACH By: Alicia NI. Wentworth City Clem R / n , '+Vi'P � :"1:f' kK I�er�i j+, y�v. , �"hr' 1"Vw 1, .wr' ,•'• L; ,, .., r�( ' Mir 1 is r� F• I , ,• 01 VOW- 1 blish......,,�-,�M..MI.........,� 3 law IC ilFMINt TO 'lid KA161.0 C011t1UION'S r' MMIO iK 1'ih/'TPM WSW 40TUX is 0"P.41VIN .0st a p6lic harlao will be hold by the City Caaci1 1+ .ems f 'C PAd l CNmftr of the Civic Cantu, 0 "10 Moo Of :. P.i+l. s or as too Vwmatter as 6 1 � loll . q. FWWp.r...1,Fl.m �rAr:n irlra.r.� .�.. ftr go Opom.ef qmfdrial an appal to be Noti ngton Mach Pli►Anir h i ssion's d0141 Ot QVAd It44MI :Exam ption t. W9 in mduaction with Tentatt we Parcel ftp h %I, mior •s rat isP&Mt'Vo creation of two 26 fto lots in lism of #t 30 ft. )oa vid* 1 1 IV tM iivntlrel latch ordinam Code. The subject pr rty 1s leaned im fto sombWat tome, at Aaach Avorm and 11th Street in the Toolot �ii*li� l�alile i1�A A legal doeMp►tlar Is an file in the Dapertmt of Mmlop ant Office. y' t All in ted pmoa are invited to attond said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal , Further inforation M&Y be obtained free the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Strut, PAtirgton breach, California. 92648 - (714) $36-5227 DAM 1116161 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk All , y saw rr�a � 1 Number of $xc+erpt• t. -publish once LINU WrIC$ or 19mc amino . ►► I MOTION NO. so-to/ r.,. �:�� Ao*&( a014 to XXWW 4r= that a publia hearing will be hold 3, # '+ l ift Comission of the City of Huntington leach, t M p r se of considering COnditiontl $xception 10 ���.l�r a ry ►a with TentatiTio Parcel Map no. 80-5a2, �► t .fir s t ter or"tLon of two 25 ft. late in lies of the 10, Isk. 'U* 'W14tb required by the Huntington Ruch tlydinanco t ,property ii located at the southwewt 'corner lot *We AVV*W - 11th Street in the Townlot speecifis plan f Liana 01-A. A l"al deseription is on file in the DepartaMt • +. of 00"ILOPWgti 242vices office. r Bald hearino will be held at they hour of 7 ; 00 p .lm . , on �.jams .,,iV' AIR in in the Council Chambers Building of the � civic C"ter, Z 0 Nain $treat, Huntington Beach, California. All interested pera bne are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Conditional. AC_9V_Uon , &!04,�n..,.F.n►E iv a c . 80- S81 . ' pnrthor -information may be obtained from the City planning Department. T+e]► phone No. (114) e16-5271 0ATIRD this , .I,5 t h day Of CITY PLANNING COMMISSION �y James W. Palin qq '����91 ll'!!��«� �.�.� ,7a 1�R;1�^H � .+_II Z a /' 7F ♦ _y� �c • uYR,1L r fir. I'w � >1' !'��r j4,y��4 y� hay r+�ty��iY7�1 r( / �I r kr K i �Y'�}: �F•�,��P}�', r•1 t,p '�Q�?nWl�ti �� n� � ` �K� ua � b�,y1 Jd�J� � 1 1 � 1 Irl�� cyr � 1, � r, 'I' r� .� �•�, ,� � • l t �(c +: r d 7 a,�,i,rr y,.,, d�r r i,., j �•„r., � 1 ImwLr: TO CC L 1XICR Wft TO t ��. :71 16, miZi , r 41 i �1 + of ta�tsl status (M) r ROW to Deportoonx - �xtotUlit goy` "timal twknmstift- * t! , pUme r troaWt sawt wwdlng to be required in the legal. •1 f6i"yr ,yob �1y.. 1�,y1`:.d �' A i+,,. r`„ .f, , ^ , 1 � *' , r i `� f � or op ':r "`er'• ra•y ram. ap •' ram.• pip M+' mmwr .. 9 LMR GALb IMMIT PtN CN`1/ —PREM YINMLY �r CJ1rli A CITY OF NUNTlNGTQN GEAOi , MTf110VON"ACM,CAWPOPMIA OPM d, city TMA*Mn WARREN M. MALL Al i 'h " 11'M'�`7r,1 yr,r 1,. a'.!• N �� ��� �� �fr iv oo �,d,{�F' .. .� •. '� ��11�/rY• YI u�•ni n•�l++r•••.n�A rw.�, n�.�r �+. • •' ! r S r d. '3 r , � r , �1 1 r ' TOTAL 8 626SI Cal , II • r!4 w�Irr wywr. I� i, 1 Ll }iqp a. rot •, : r 'fir+;'�� '; •, r � h 3' , ''�r WA IF January 8, 11141 . 99''40 of 14aat i n1to "stash, Ca . Oahf' Sir; 'A ' rrow1.0 like to appeal the decision wondered by thr';Pl4kwaih itsien on Jan. 60 19*1 9 in reference t+6 the C6AMo11slxcoptlarr 080_9 "1n corrwnktian 01.6 too t, ative Parcel Map no , $0-5Cflp • re most hh. permit Co erection of two 26 ft . lots in I?** of to 30 ��t. r101t W10t• regvirerd by tho Nuvitington beach M�a6A o 06 sob act propdrty is located st her to4thwai t, sormor of lcatlg Avenue and 11th Street In the lovaydt Specific Plan Area fl-A. 0 7� ,r I The 'eseadn I as appealing this decision is that i faal * In keeping with the parody of the arosv the eajori t of ' the psrewl s are already tubd j v 1 ed !nto ft fit* f Ott , VoOr attention to this matter will be greatly approciatedo Thank ,Pau , a ry W. Bro 0 SMb:pw . ,i } r w ,! adr)AW 2M-Old-•qb Awl E WULIUM e Cali 101 Maus L mmm LL13 . MMUNOM, swochr C421� a �, 1 4 tinth 9ta t Abaktinme Nom** caw 9Ukb t mid vAdve r cla 9 su Uft *oft Low �-4l# ? ZM-OLD-l7 LU 4 A a" ImuYAI= I w 110 ! . t . 2M Apt 4 . 1 0 OILUC 1 110119% CAI DWAV Cali 4 24-M4-w10 soup x obw UAW mom � f IM2 so lov lr 9�R*lAgk* OftChar OWX 92649 i Sri-�14� now uta X gc ���-014`-14 �Wanda *A so 41 730CagtW 9varxaR ' ! + lw* taoih obodh, Callf 9L647r S 'Im FiF I Now vr 1 jam ftww WHO 910 uth street 9A0 Us Uth Otum Yl et= , cot • r refto T Lofteft owl a "Mew law lu 1,♦ ' ' lr Jwdmjjj4 .t! t jaism if Lill" s i +w SKI! ociv PROM AWSOM I:t ' to 1 -1 . lily fi 6 fill► x Bpi Oki" k C�llff . piaf 1 &1i1016-19 MIA It Im Most 20'ifs ► pLl ' �' It ice► " 31� 3AZ-� 1 �-14,E-�13 A Ttic+�c rim" sm s l Sttr A 10 Ot buMt !� Y b+ ,, } '}�� �'' 31 1f" ,''`,•1 F!�y'"' NT J Aoi Ike 'AW rr +1'r i v•, u�' 'L r i ' •1' +r, ��,�`..�fP �i�.l �.�tih;��•• 'i .tab.' r r ', , Y 1 it '�,,•1„�,1r`,1,..i1,� i 4 1 Mr. +1�. Emid ' III:• ` • NIA riJ"MARION IiIOTIpI OP MAILIC 141MING " ^vx"TO TNIPLAWAM 5 OI DAMNAf. 111MeQAL TO trOP of IMAM 06111 /yw PLM�nNa coMMlala�aIN1Ara r ° NQ►! M N WIRY O V614 am a p 6ft harm will be held by Os OWOowMM of oho Crt1r M f+IttMMlhlan Mrwlr,Irt ilta NOTICE IS NSfIR4Y DIVlN tlwt a MMbIM haorltt/MAN be bald . +� f�rrr4 b CMww of ell ads Ortttrr.IIrrMMtrlort"".ft the co by ne l M K% o of e M l I N W,trt Kroh.M tlta t%MIMMM 1110101 1601W Of 7120 PAN.M M s+o.w rttwaMMr a P=M e gN Wide v hour of MO 06M.. as won thareofter MMa pe " DMkv the Aar day of Filw *W.1lS1 for the pstrpow of 0 msmelnw the Nlsd day of Pabrrary,1981 for the PAW=of MWdWnl aw•Pp�tr thro Natnilt etr Sorholr 1�IsrrrrhN C?OIIIoOirslsia's on ppped to the lily*kgoon Seaeh Flmw tssf Coetrttiteisrn'a dwAW of*w4"g Ml NttaaI — No.We M om wdtkm wMh dome!et Conditlottel Exoepthyn No,110�M oonjw:olbn whit rwamwe PWW Nbp No.MMWM a ra wwt in P. - !I the Twt We PwvW MW No.S(J IW,is regwst to permk tiro W11100 of two!S ft.IM In IN of the n ftl,bt wid re, W*ot*n of two M ft.bo M MM of the 30 ft.bt wkhtt M ol"by the Hwabo"•arch OrdiNiwaa Cede.The ea6law ppgod by the Hadktlow 111"Ordhtottee Dodo.The NNW 111M M't>r Ir I00AW At the orw h wet ewrvw of Amok Avow pwpwy Is koeted st the south~oorsw of Amer Avenue . 1146 fftrart M 09 1rot4bt 1111posift P%n Ana Ne. 1•A. owl 11th*teat In the Twrnbt I11pselfle Man Are No.1-A. id A leW OMioo. b as,file 1%tf+a Dopertm"of Ottell V"M A k-ed dowipfioa is an fib In the Orpertmant of CweioprmWON I 9� All hrlatraelool pwoone we hwMm to a twtd raid heartwb w i A AN 1 %eraabd pwwne are invited w attend sell hearing and " raas that opini.rto for yr ds*a sew goo"• roP+rm their apinbna for or agolttat ar►id�ppensl. aa...,� ��_. pwrlhe►Infsfrmatka start►be ortabW front the OFF"of the A~hrfWrnation my be obtained frssm the Office of the 4 Cky Clwk,am NW"O&M,hu"o/ten Maah,CA N2S1d ` l71M 6?Y7 City CWk,2M Mein breet,HuntlWan Bash.CA 92NO ; (71 O LIM7 ` Dotads I/If i CITY 1W HUIM'INGTON IWLACH Daasis 1 Cftv By:ALICIA M.INEN17MOftTlf CITTYY O OF HUNTINGTON BLEACH w AL � By:ALICIA M.WENTMIRY14 lark City Clark �.a I• Pub. tJTYJNt Pub.WMI Hum.EWA Ind. fktnrt.8aaeh Ind. A I WMIClt ON kALIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL. TOM 11 PLANNINA CO MAIMON'S DINIAL APpt:AL TO THE PLANNING COIY1Mi$SION'�i DENIAL � OF CC A�vsl"*M Sa6rl2 OF CE 804)BtTPr4 90-M • NOTICE 19 H019V GIVEN dwt a public howhe will be hs+�id by the CHy Cewwil of do City of NttntinrtoA Mesh, NICE IS HERLIIY GIVEN Oat a public heart!!!will Ira I»id In she Cow"i dmwoor w*A Civic Cwrtw,"Un"nown by the ChY tlounril of the My of HwttltBton tooth, Son*N dw hart~of 741 pm..or a oan tlMasftw as In the Council Cl w4w of the Civic Canoes,Hantir4w poeslbla on MMrloy the 2nd des of Fobrvwy,11111 fm the B"t,et the hqw of 7 s 8D p.m.,or so aaon"wafto as pc PwP�of ewtrldatNq an attpwM!a tls�a ffs�endnleen 8eetdt �esiblo on Maud* the 2nd day of Febrwry,1061 for tfu Iwrpow of goneldwi m an upped to the Huntington Meech I'lerOWN 6btNtltiedorr'e JW"er O IA1111florral txeaptbn No. ; ►honing Comakdon's denl l of CondhbnM itttteFtiea No. 1)"In wi- ratlao urltlt Tw t d%%furred Map No.IIO-fM.a 4*0 in ao*mtbn with'r~iw Prowl Map No.NNW,■ rew"uo prrarlt the armlaw of two 26 fe.Borer M 11-a of the r"yw to psrrah the watim of to' A ft.fat in Rev of the 30 N.lot W"nq*6 by the Hunti e""MMA Ordh■rrw Oeds.The""M Ritp"Is lo=W M the Muthwea wr"w X!ft.lot wM3th ragalnd by the MuminWan Mash(ivdNwMq 11 iwet of Asvwttrr and 11th�6e M*A Tosrntsrt Sp eaifia ft*.The a A*d property Is kw*sd at the south�tniet adrw paio A flan Am w es of Aoeds Avenue and tb*"at in the TwmW 6pseltie Plop Arent No. 1-A. r, A Yt on ffie m tM Oaprtn t of 0evoloPmei A 4"d dmriptiAn Is at f1%in the Depertuvwwt of 09"Wptwwa WWAM Oft*, AM ingrt+s#Md pwsvtle arse hlrrtarA to rkwA read heve h and All krtarreted pareorts are hnrlbd toattend aaNl hesrind and "In ess their °r est nvo thug*opinlone fw s,tr loom slew appeal. Fwtbw irshrwW ttt nsar be Mirf kM front ft Of%*of the Ft r&A r lo*wmtbn my be alitbinad from tho Offhw of the cW Cork 3000 Main!trout.NrMlevio liow#h t;,A Y2MB My 1'.b*,209 Mrin Street,ldtt Morton Naech,CA 92Me 171 (7141 t7 ptsted: 1111 CiTV OF HYh1"L•lNGTON BEACH ��: 1 CITY 1i OF HUNTiNGTON liBAGFt By.ALICIA 111A.WWWI MONTH By:ALICIA M.WINrlWORTH taty Clwk CkV Clerk Ptrb.1/xt1s1 Pub. 1MMI ffunt.end!Ind. Hurt.!leech Ind. t� ' IN 1'Nlt lot r, k% Supmor Court OFTHR ATA"OF CALIFORNIA 1n and tar the(flaunty ul o►eap CITY W NLW IMM WACHe CITY CLERK 1 • R. Pub 1is Haarim W09 State 7 1 re county of orewepa 1'w Rita J. Richter t , . Thu I lute end at A dam hwin mentioned was a citizen of the United ftows,am flee ap of twooty-ae yam,and ►het I ear rmt o pmty la,nor intwwtod in the above entitled matter. that l ano the ptincipal drrk of the printer or the Hunti aton Beach Indeplandent Revlew a newspaper or Sewrel circulaVo n,pubik*d in fife City of Wintolettan Beach County of Orange rant' which norpaper k publiahed for the dfiierniaafin d Tonal newa and intelligence an general charac- ter, and wb" on spapar at all time heriAh rnwUnned had mod MM has a bona fide wbaeri km Not of paying wbocribare, and which newspaper how bear erntabl+abad, printed and pub- llalred ac a"Wor iatarvah in the acid County of CWLW for n pitied artteadbv o ee year; tbat the no", of wbkh the k; tt AWW is a pPintoarl vopy. has born published In the regular and entire how. of wid asompapdr,and not in any supplement them►.reef the folkwirng dates,to wit: Ja wa ry 229 1981 l mrUfy (or dwk M) under petralty of perjury that the forego. hK Is true and trr'rece. DOVA at...... .... .. ...... 6a rd to 8ro v! ..... .. ... Californ' in 22!!d 111'' " /19. a . . . -�-.'..,... 7-Sig-Weture 10MNo W.Sim � .yam Y. a 4• lar 4; /� � nCi�.�.iw ��` '" � Y� � '� r' w•�,�Lr � ^+n� �Iwl`. N' nP', 11,,. � * Af � � � '1��, OF ,1'y!�°. .'.��+iF �ti;`�- � 1;7�1��+l y' �',('K�SQ'1� ,JC,7A�,-+ x , ' r�wA i,4�� ,' �, � �.-�l� , �Y�4�• ,*y �i °� ��y�y1����.�,��,����,1,JI�a�,{n��r",� � s,,uyy.y,'1�,,,�(;��yr�.�,�•�/ fie. i.w ,,,1 - I��� �I�.'�� +RaA.�l�lr,f`�' •1r'+���1, ���{I:Y"''FV'�•� !ti��y� �� �r�� w it t•Y.w'I.u,�u.��•�'A.Iw •, . R� arry CW HLXYTVY07=4 MACH y 200 FAIN STRIET CAUroltN1A OPFICI OF THE CITY CLERK 010 dI �,. febyJ; 11 Y Mr. 1,Mrs. Jock Woers 1107 Amia Avenue Hooti ngtoo Moth. CA 9,54$ The City mil of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting w held err , ftbrvary 2, 1 1 granted your appeal and approved Conditional Ex it D-9 and Teatative Parcel Map SO-SM. Please contact the Develepmot Services office for further information - 5�-E��1. Al ittd A. Wentwrth Cf ty CTerh t�rr�rww:„�a.�rr r• r 11 -Fi r"fir 1"i 'i ° ►, r ,y � t+ `+nl rF-' o � 1PN •, •„�yv Sul: 6. - i r IN TNR Suporkw Court I CW THR r lq`'t'AT9 f)K CAMIN)ItNiA In and five the('aunt�for Urpnp �+ ++ eaa.a : OA CM W "W"W VACM *CITY CLINK I Pub! is Marifd CE 80-M StaS4��i Calif 1 . County of Orarpa )""' I ItAt Je Oughtot That I a^and et all tiasso b"n mangkined wad a eititen a! the (jolted Mafia.rover the aea or twenty-ons -croft.and that i am not a party W a*boomtod in the show tntitled matter, that I eta dw 106WW Ow t of the printer of the Meal! Otm Meach Irdepi> 4ent Review a mospaprr at oweai cimb tia4,ptMkbod in the City of "lliat ilrl Reach I Cowty of and which mm paper is publWted for the em disinatlmt�wos&W ioldHi rnoa ut a scrawl charac• ter, asrd erbkt -F at an t1oft herein mmtkwad had and! a bane we eub■eriptimi IN4 of paying aabecTtWra, mWi it wap p.r has been astaW Aod. peipbrd &W pub. &W at ttoder N*wvah in the acid CNwq at Ora p far a are'YW, tbet the aodim, at wltkh the , A� & a re bli I! espy,tee bean pubUWW in the nqubu cad entire►x.*dasdd s I omlar,and m in any a rMoomt tli~.an"foilewlne datae,to wit: fit bnoon 199 19ft 1 mntw ffw dwilam) andar penalty of perjury that the Iona- ing M love and emrse [yatnd at.... . udio.Bra .. ........ .. OVA Mn.:ure ray f"40 W;-01,M. f 1 14 ` f� �F Iva �.. FF '1 i�' *.�'4�' '`� �, �., �i !'+' •7r I., t ', ...41 ! l. I,' , I 'i �.,y y, � CITY ' 'ib,�r+��w�'Ir�-FYI i�dWl� I�YI .Y ..i.�w�.�..--�.n�-•-r-..� .-.�x. ...+.F��.a.a-� ...�=..�..-w.. _ _ y'r i ' OOUMML '" .Palfa Development Services Y n' t ad Mazary a0. , �� o MPwW Attaoiis131rM nn No �..J APVWW Or VLAWZW COMIHSICN 1 8. ACTICN aN TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 50-560 AND ITICKNL ZXGEPTION NO. 80+-08 Carr JtidrBir�Mtrrt+ar's COMM* Approves as Reconm eAded. • k; co lrw, ROWNWr��rtic , Analysik Funding Sourer, AkwmtW Aatkm: -► ::.....1 MINIMS Tram mi,tted for the Council a consideration is an appeal of the ! Planning- Caernission's action on Tentative Parcel Map No. 00-550 and Conditional Exception No. 80-08, a request to subdivide a 115 ft. parcel into two parcels, one having a substandard (55 ft . versus 60 ft. ) frontage. The planning Cammisaion and planning staff recommend that the City Council ouBtain the Planning Commission's action approving parcel PP 9 a pa ► map and conditioml exception allowing two parcels each having 57.5 � feet of frontage. ,S AN ►n=; } lURgllants, Richard P. Kelter 1909 Delaware St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 l Willi_cant s Same ' Locatives North siAe of Glencoe Avenue, approximately 370 ft. nest of Beach Boulevard. f To permit the subdivision of a 115 ft. frontage parcel into two parcels, one: having 60 f t . of frontage and the other having 55 ft. of 'Frontage. i J ps a1Ja d y`iT�if _•.+.,.. a »': r ' i� r r 7 1 III Y} r ' n' L •r r I ... , 010 k 1 ' 1• T.p ' ',i � i +M k . It'�'r"/ IJ c+.T*xwr�'':4� i1M'ir 'YI'+F. 1 '• , ' 'r J r7' J ry i TV 1201s :90 Xtr'fION NY WINk:M9M AM SECOND BY SAUU, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 00.rO6 MN APftoM WITH To FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE VOLUUM VoTte Nd ift '. MrAf ick, Winchell, Porter, Bauer Bahua char ` 21112-M1 1. Granting of they conditional exception +s„s-Wdif iga will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of residents of the neigMorinq proportion or injurious to improvements of property in the vicinity. 2* Orenting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the funeral Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Grontfng of this conditional exception does not constitute a spacial privilege from other properties in the vicinity, 4. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject topography, location, or surroundings; the strict application of tt►ee► toning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vl cinity under identical zoning classifications . 1. A revii" site plan, shall be submitted to Department of Development Ser;Aase reflecting two 57.5 ft. parcels which will become the approved layout. Y 2. All trees existing on site at the present time with a trunk size � ,oaf six inches or larger, shall be retained if possible. If trees Must be removed, each true removed shall be replaced by two 24 inch box trees on site which shall be approved by the Superintendent of Park#, Trues, and Landscaping. ON NOTION 9X WINMLL AND SECOND BY BAUER, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. Bd-SBO WAS "PROM WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY TM FOLLOWING VOTE: AYF,SM Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Wincheell, Bauer IDES: Greer ABSENTM Schumacher i ABSiTAIN s None •R Y•' 1, i ,TI:w. .'r.,,dl %, h is �r.77_ •.I it I' ( ;• 3h.',., r• �r :a • 1, yl paw Three � M pr e1d subdivision of this .35 arse. lot into two parcels (4 �eed b� rhea co=ismion) for tine purpose of devo fir' wait ap� rhts is is csriYiane with the piers L_:,3 shape property necessary for this type of oionstruction. 2. %lw General plan *Ms set forth provisions for this typo of laced use an well as setting forth objectives for the imple- mentation of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for thin intensity of land FY use at the time the land use designation for medium density re oidentia►l was placed on this site. 4. . Tire: sietei depth, frontage, street width, and other design and ' improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposer to be emoptructed in compliance with standard plans and specifi- cations on file with the City as well as in compliance with the Mate Pap Act: and supplemental City Subdivision ordinance. S Off' "P.BQ AL t 1. A revised parcel map shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services reflecting two 57.5 ft. parcels which will become the approved layout . 26 A parcel neap shall be filed with, and approved by, the Department of Public Works and recorded with the grange County Recorder. Glencoe Avenue shall be dedicated to the Ci.tyls standards at the time said parcels are developed. 4. A ropy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. e Conditional Xxception No. 80-08 and Tentative parcel Map No. 80-580 were filed by the applicant and requested the subdivision of a 115 ft. wide parcel be div,idbd into two parcels, one having a frontage of 60 f t. mobile the other mould have a frontage of 55 ft. The: minimum frontage for newly created parcels under the R-2 provision is 60 ft. minimum. Therefore, the applicant was requesting that one parcel be created heaving a 5 ft. deficiency of the required, 60 ft. frontage. The applicant indicated if the Planning Commission approved his tentative parcel map and conditional exception as submitted, he would develop the two parcels with individual apartment buildings on each parcel. The parcel having the 55 ft. frontage would be developed with a ,tri-plex, while: the parcel having the 6C ft. frontage would be developed with a four-pleat, thus, developing a total of 7 units an the two parcels* Upon staff analysim, it was determined that if a total of 7 units were davaloped on this 115 ft. wide parcel* it would is f. 1 k 4:. your" •r *Xodad the General (elan for this area by .5 units o The Medium Density "noral plan designation on this property will allow for 15 units per Cr ws or 6*5 unit,a on the entireparcel prier to subdividing , t*o .two parcels as requested. if the subject property is �rlio into two parcels, each ' havi nq equal frontage of 57.5 f t. , the toull *44 of untbs on the two parcels would be 6 units. The staff fee16 tit a total of 6 units is more in keeping with the General plan ' designation that to allow the development of a four-plex and a tri- SIOX. '1'NW*fore, the staff recommended to the planning Commission Y that the CanWasion approve the tentative parcel map and conditional axceeption with a nWitication to allow two 57 .5 ft. parcel frontages Va�raw O and 55 ft. frontage parcels. In the attacbed Planning Commission staff reports, dated February 3, 1981 and ireenuary 20, 1981, the Council Mill find a history of the divisions r` of land in thLa general area. It is pointed out in this staff report t1at theme have been several parcels divided into 55 and 60 ft. frontages, however, the majority of parcels recorded with parcel maps for this area have been the two parcels, each having 57. 5 ft. of frontage. The applicanten letter of appeal indicates that by allowing the 55 and 60 ft. split, the subject property will yield one additional unit, thus j providing additional housing and maximizing the land use. He also indi- cated that it is more economical to build 7 units versus 6 units and therefore can provid nore affordable rents for the subject property. The applicant' s letter of appeal has been attached for the Council ' s review. The staff recommended that the subject parcel be divided into two $7.5 ft. frontages parcels based on the fact that most of the past . ,mil lots splits were recorded as 57. 5 ft. lots and that the applicant's ropost,, one 55 and one 60 ft. parcel failed to demonstrate a hardship ana would result in a special privilege by allowing the applicant to exceed the general plan designation in the area of Medium Density Residential, The Planning Commission concurred with this recommendation and recoamends that the City Council sustain the Commiasion' a action. R TVFR�NMEML S'Y'A'i B 1 Pursuant to Section 15115 of thu California Environmental Quality Guidelines, this two lot subdivision is categorically exempt and requires no other environmental assessment at this t hie. Jt,U N - 54URCS: Not applicable. The Council may consider overruling the planning Commission ' s approval. send allowing the applicant to subdivide the subject parcel into t•io parcels, one: graving 55 ft. of frontage, while the other having 60 ft. of frontage. This would allow for a total development of the subject propo rty of 7 apartment units. 1. `,. } •�,.`1''_'/,, 't� �TY�/vxf,r��,'ZTtA ! x$i •'.;,�1,��' .'.r�'. ���, ,,` �• ' r i 1Ar� �r�. r ' 7 Al k� Y r ' '�sJr�,i T+r + �� ��� � '�•.,} ^ e I Ct� fr :�r 7,'•� rh,v�./!�*.�P'• '`�y' � y •, � •'� • 1 1 '.•,,,!+,'1' ,'`'' •n1vyt!•iR,,r�;i'i}iM •'+ ;,�C'��'9'1 +�� r '•' ^'4'Ei`•''`��.'•�'�'�u' ^.I,� ''�� Apmo '1 v ' I I Al �/� .r /!�� �y `'3 y�r /`�- 'y■ /•�'�r�. �i .1r 4� 'r wY l 'recei Vod and Oatted Februai + - Lon staff x a dated 7anuarr 20, 1991, qnd t' b dully ubm' of OWelopo nt Services I 1 I i F t I 1 l i i r_ C:.i1CF pmr rd 113 cz 13 I i C2 3 C2 �` 4� + .Y C2 r�l R3 -� I� r—•_ � • t � M � el 1' \ 3r RJ C 'I R 3 Rl _ CF- R3 '-_�; �r ! RE r RI R2 j r4 rI�_ - •� j j __—i �i � I R/t� ^ •" � t � J � i I ,�+ .ram- - • ± RE S RI i ;ZRI JR' �= Rl }•i� R{ ` RI •s J/' �/� � � f G� I Rl 1. Ito Ps ILJ It I /,. �•... a. t a. CIE 80 03 I J fir - �NrtiN'�G'�O• �F�[N . NUNTMGTQN BEACH PLANNING DIVISION #: r MMO& J4 I . Kefter Int". INTERIORS AND EYTEniORS 1909 DELAWARE AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92648 n (714) 536.01 22 cr�'U ft ku>,rrl,�aroa To Members of' City Council CoUncili pro a 4M,cA41p, I am ssubmi sting for yourconsideration a p a . which >,13 submitted to the Planning Commission for splitting a 115' x 1350 lot into two lots of 55' x 195' and 60' x 135' for alwtment development. The logic for this split in that it permits an additional apartment to be built on the property thus providing addition- al housing and maximizing land triage . The Planning Commission on its first deliberation voted against the proposed split on the argument that it violated parity with other lots in the area. However on the second hearing this ar- gument was clsa rly refuted ss tr�Je it was definitely. shown that in the immediate area almost half of the lots (m43%) were split 5.5' x 135' and f G' x 135' and developed into housing. Hav- ing put the subject of parity to rest , no plausible reason exists why this lot should not be split for maximum utilization. In fact , overwhelming evidence exists in support of this type of split , I would like to enumerate a few of them s i . Land in Huntington Beach is becoming very scarce And the cost of acquisition is rising to astronomi- cal figures . Therefore, i:k. is mandatory that the available land be utilized to its highest and best use and its maximum potential. . 2 . The apartment vacancy factor in Huntington Beach is less than 3% * This means. that many people are out there without adequate shelter. These people ars: presantly living in crowded conditions and living with ogler family members or with friends . They are unable to establish their own identity and this is causing many family and social problems * 3. To restrict the Iota to 57*' x 135' each would mean � that only ssix (6) rather than seven (7) apartments can be construrt:ed i thereby, raising the cost of construction which m8anss hi(;her rents on an alrea-• prohibitive rate -- seemingly nev r to recoverNdyye cost of construction! 4 . Because of an inadequate return on investment, Build- er and Investor have shied away from apartments in the past, hence it is the rr,�,s,PonsIbIlItZ of all con- cerned - - the Buildere s Realtors $ Investors and Gov- ernmental Authax itiess , to work together to ice adequate housir4g available within the means of the avemge wage earner and solve this critical social need. •.rr •x C a � . The city of Huntington Beach will benefit froca a tax standpoint from the additional housing which is provided . 6 # Under Article 916 (A-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIA1, one unit per each 2 , 000 square feet of land area ) if the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code splitting this lot into 60 ' x 135' (8100 sq . ft . and 55' 2 135' (7425 sq. ft . ) . over qualifies in total square footage for a 4-plex (100 s . ft. extra) ar►d a 3-plex (1.425 sq , ft . extrxl. This results in approx- imately 23% extra square footage required Under Arti- cle 916 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . This result is almost of the totalprorerty itself l In Conclusions We have shown overwhelming arguments in the foregoing to rrt60 sup- tentative Parcel Map 80-580 which splits this lot into ' X 135• and 55' x 135' . thus eliminating Conditional Ex- ception. 80-08. We must e o t v in our thinking and , ,v o t ve of those who are making of orts to solve the crit Gal- housing needs which exits today as opposed to those who are native in their thinking and are content with the status quo regardleos j of how dismal it may seem . We now ask the City Council -to give a favorable decision to our request so that we may proceed with the property develop- mont and help the solution of a critical social problem in short housing which our citizens in this fair city of Hunting- t6n, Beach are facing today. Respea uliy s i,tted, Rib- ar P. Kelter r I k z, ountington beach development serwicer, department STAf f EPR � TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: February 3, 1981 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO, 80.-8/ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-580 ,At. the January 20, 1981 meeting, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Exception No . 80--8 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80--580 1n order to allow the staff adequate time to provide some additional information . These applications are a request to subdivide a 115 ft. parcel into two • parcels, one having 55 ft , of frontage and the other ravines 60 ft. of froneago. The staff had recommended that the Conditional Exception and Parcel Map had been approved with an alteration to the Parcel Map which would subdivide the 115 ft . parcel into two 57 .5 ft. parcels. Attached are two maps, one depicting the existing land use in the � area and the second depicting the lot configuration. The Assessor ' s Parcel Map i.ndicates that there were originally 40 parcels in this general area having the 115 f t . frontage. 12 of the total parcel have been subdivided into two 'Lots, one having 55 ft. of frontage and the ether having 6C ft . of frontage . Of these 12 parcels that have been divided , the Assessor ' s Parcel identifies 3 which have been done via a recorded Parcel Map. It should be noted that others in the same configuration could have been approved with a Parcel Map, however, it is not indicated on the Assessor ' s Map. This map also indicates that an additional 12 of the original parcel.: have been subdivided into two parcels , each having 57-1/2 ft . of. frontage. The other map identifies the existing land use in this yoneral area which gives both the approximate age of existing structures and the Number of units on each of the parcels . The staff is recommending the same recommendation presented to the Commission under Section 6 . 0 of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 20, 1981 . This recommendation is to approve the Conditional Exception and Tentative Parcel M3P with a revisijn that would provide two parcels each having 57 . 5 ft . of frontage. Findings arAd conditions are included in the attached staff report. a.gc C TTs: 1 . Assessc*: ' s Parcel Map 2+ Zxistinq Land Use Map 3. Planning Commission Staff. Report dated fan. 20, 1:81 A-F M-238 T R,4 CT i JP K ,ilo-r� • i rAR I I ewer 16 0 - _� � ..:-X �� ss' _ ,a" ,,.a- L is• - ass' GL ENCCE AVENU .t tc • ®r ' 'l(9� � � 14 ' 2 i3 i 'f4 j �q? la � Dr ( P AO. ur.so i ` 64" Ar" sxs' :ems'x ! r i f ss_i .e' As• ! to as.n• ,= t: t t 3 �' t�f { :f li 1 el I xf �' �'�! ?A C\if iJt ( P Ar 4d•#d P& r aY PAf -•x { rw�►.r ' MAx r psiw a f t I i ON 10 P sr.: -- .� • .'=,' ter' Sd 'fO" ! S�!• t� s• fi• Jt �.it J-1 Ns- I _ AL HAMORA A VeWIE Ir for- Fr we 4 Fir r .pro. p4PAW . Eva -------------- I L or ' ffE�� +� Q v 17 . ASSE'SSOWS 8. & ASS ' t PARM AK4MWW Do" MARCH 196'2 TRACT like qZZ A M V-49 SHOWN yU GIRDS cow PAR A"P P Ar as-to,36-30, I10-Z7 . i -- � sss s f t ! i0yli o at no-I1 I Sn I .. GL E�VroE AVENUE , 1 �:..' :1�4 j 16 r`� I % `I4 t y' r 1 ff' s ` zs' S +-f•t l s7 S f S�J ��s'I «e' sue' ! Li0�lJ CID ems.-'`-Ji�i :t r�I ter is I rr I r• �'CM rat J .v se-se PV I50-5 om :.'6-i0 i .Af s- r !• Af1►. P.IR.! �AM i i A m 306 .��-- I- • .• wv sitr- si «- s:' sv., smear s.s� rrs: �n fS .iA• A L UA MORA A VENME NO I W 1 1 r�g ti �@ �"� i PoorLQT Aft-01 02,4 + lr.- Jla i . • Ai!' t?t' if` ds't 7jf' i Is 4ps ww+' EAVE ffEJ4 r 17 , c c �� Z •�R11I` -` 1 ' ASSESSORS BLOCK 9 `' PARCEIC N1 MOERS FOoX , r MARCH 1962 TRACT NO M2 M M 19-49 SHOWN W CIRCLES covov `. J014RC£1 A"P P M. 44-4.T, 4d-4C PARCEL MAP o Aw /f -10.88-.30. 1/0-27 boom; ~ yam- .I -� ra.�n.r�`�i.����•�► N ....,..... STRUCTORES 10 YEARS OR NUMBER OF UNITS • 0R PARCEL � OLDER STRUCTURES 5-10 YEARS 142:4.0 STRUCTURES NEW TO 5 YEARS f a•s• •• � � (tly t r �� � •rrl.• S_..ft• .a.� }} �.� f�f� ' ! �f it i ; 1 ,� ++:: �::.. _1 ..=rr �1 tl=ii it I�t ... �r tlr t 2 iif: •llr�, !I ,� ft �1!'j 4r• .� �+' i •, .::.�:��• -.••` 1� v a S44CATOW AVENUE del. raf• ••.• j I 1 1i� 'i l l�'••.• '•••.• •.••-•.. •.• .••..•...•••.c••s►.....•1.....i..••••:..•_.r••.•: .• .....• •• Y l�•rn. .... ......::...:....._...... ............. .•f............ .. ...: -........J : .•.••` iii �� Y��i#(�' ..............r................• ...`.......•i.•..•..•••..r•.•.. HE - .i••..•a• d r i -3 -�:....�:_. .::..::-- =• .. :... ........... .F. :.:.:.. f .............. a.a. ••F.a...i..•... . .�=��`.• .V• . .J :•a■:i 7 ►!!J 1�!� l�! �. ... •::::-.j.�.:.�.\r,: :�..•: ........ :i`- :.::......: . ,at I� •• i t l •!U Nv-•JCW-0—L.rri......•3` ! .• _�., r . /�yy�� 1 .r 1` f � .���. cxs�}:w.. li_.�........i .•31I5 '� (LI rif !l.FO' •X 1 f....: .•1.•7iw�1" , r .•... •.•• ••e•i.i i.'F_1•pe.:J,�' �•• •.•.... ..• `- .S. _�. ,� fit IE ,..,•�� iEi�:'''��s::::�::•ro1....... C:.....Y... ; • .� • 1 _ ��1 .1� �1 �.w.L r��•.'i/.;• om..• •. •. �. a•. /if IJ-15 21 1 4 13 t '1- �� 1 `�•� 1 'MT 2 4 IF 5 3 " 1 :'::� ::r• r` •� ....... itilfi r L JR. n _ r'• l�tr.. •.sr:F.r..:�•..-� .:.:.1...:....•..e •..••�••_.,• .•..• •...•,^ ,1:. + �� i tt 1 tlti}11 �.,. .•.:i.••..�r.s• ....iLE w. ::... .. ..... .. ...... „. Fit, ff li.!r' �'• .saw t t+R ,• .. E �,l �.:. :.. .... Al.MAAf49RA 14 VENUE t i r ' .............'l�t_l�1;:'�';i`i;� •a.••se•a.• � � 1. ..1: . ..: - :�• --.•...•:�il ,1':�1 - ifil) ►f •1�•.,� •� .5 Il- ..v' � � = 3 1 1 1 ; • ;. Z 1 . 4 .1 �. 4 I;=' 2 ',sj 6 }� 1 3 3 `F 3 . tt �. v . .Y. ::....�:�..�,iY.. 'il�jliit ! 3 .f i' ;���� �3 • � f3 f:�,r r�.` ©. - OAF .. .• ..•. i•,Y.... ....•r.•..•�..••aa.• • ! 1{t. ti. I TJ )I of ,� / .•......:•..♦ IH 2 . •i• • • . ..• .• It' f. •i:l iS 'i•" ``il!` j J1 �i �:.: ,in�• -�.rJ ? ee. F -fT.>N••a- • as a•��..�•._ ��_I�-5...�d••�q_`S'f1_EiHgr NEIL ':tr;.l.j�.•::•.J!- sue' / l.r��. -�P•��Ci�/ t AVENUE _ `' i �• 1 .YOr - AsS£SSORS BLOCK B A55Er50R'5 MAP l�ilRCFL Mr41�BER5 BQQ/f in2 PACE 10 �� > MARCH 19" TRACT NQ $2? M A! 19- 49 SyGwr4 CGr�ti•�r Q� OR.a,1�CE ✓ � AW'M AMP P At44-43. 48-49 r FXISTING LAND tj.;F �►'' 401% x . Huntington beach developm., services depertme�nr 51A f f TO: Planning Commission, FROM: Development Services DATE: January 20, 1981 QUI)ITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 60-$ TENTA',rivE PARCEL MAP_ NO. _80-•580 i AW LICANTi Dick Kelter , 1909 Delaware CArI ACCEPTED: ` Huntington Beach, Ca . December 15 , 198u 92649 MANDA`I( RY PROCESSING DATE_; BE.QUE T : To permit the creation of one 55 ' .tat and one 601 Lot Marchb 1981 ' in lieu of the 601 lot mtn ' ZONE : R-2 (Medium Density mum requirement . Residential ) 1, ATIQN: Subject property is located on the north side of Glencoe G�N�,RAL, PLAN: Medium Avenue, approximately 370 ft . Density Residential west of Beach Blvd . EXISTING USE: Single-Family C GE: 21 , 5 'acr`s �:eGidenti�.l i 1-, 0 St1GGES AD ACTION: The stafr Is recommending that. thq Cciamission approve Conditional Exception No . 80--08 with a modification to allow tiro 57 . 5 frontage foot parcels in 11_eu of the requested one 55 ' and one 60 ' parcels and approve Tentative Parcel Map .10--580 also requesting the applicant to revise the parcel map to reflect the two 57 . 5 f t . wide parcel r . 7•� - -Q&NEli. INFg MATION : Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-580 in conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 80-08 is a request to allow a 115 ft. parcel of land to be sub. divided Into two separate parcels, one having 60 ft. of frontage and the )the r having 55 ft . of frontage in lieu of the 60 ft. frontage as require] by that Hunt lAigtan Beach Ordinance Code. 3,:0 gNVJfflR%: b STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15115 of the California Environmental Quality Giiidit,-. lines, tale two lot subdivision is categorically exempt and requires no other environmental assessment at this time. AdEkI I s .1 Y CH 80-•8 j'TPM 80-580 Page i'wo t.. 4 . 0 PRLSEW17% LAND USE, ZONING, AND GENERAL }CLAN _ DESIGNATION : 'rho subject property is located on the north side of Glencoe Avenue, approximately 335 ft . crest of Beach Boulevard . This property is presently developed with an older. single Eamily dwelling . The property is zoned H-2, Medium Density }residential, and is designated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan as Medium Density Resi- dential . All of the abutting properties are bath zoned and designated on the Lard Use Element as Medium Density Residential . The general area is in t.ansit:ion from older single family dwellings to newer multi--family i residential units . P11 the properties surrounding thc,. subje..t site are 'i typical of this t%ansition and are developed with both older single families and the newer multi-family dwellings . I 5 . 0 ANALYSIS: I CondItional Exception No. 80-08 has been filed to allow a reduction in lot W dth of one of the proposed parcels from CO ft . per the requirement of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code to 55 ft . 'Tentative Parcel yap No. 80-580 will create one parcel 60 f t . by 135 f t , which equals 8 , 100 sq . ft. and another parcel of 55 ft , by 135 ft. which equals 7 , 425 sq. ft . u Under Article . 16 (R-•2 Medium Density ensa.ty Residential , one unit per each AOIN 2, 000 sq. ft . of land area ) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code these two proposed lots will. yield a total of seven units . Four units on the 8, 100 sq. f t . parcel, and three units cn the 7, 425 sq. ft. paL cel . If the subject property is not divided into twc parcels, a total of six units would be all, that would be permitted on the property. In anal,Pzing the original request, the staff has determined that parity with what is existing in the general vicinity is two 57 . 5 ft . lots. Several of the 60 ft . and 55 ft. combinations exist; however , a majority of these were approved prior to the requirement of a parcel map and there- fore, were established by the assessor and did not comply with the zoning requirements. A special privilege would exist if one 60 ft . and one 55 ft. lot would be allowed . It should be noted, however, that the City Council in 1977 did approve coe split creating the one 55 ft. and one 60 ft. wide lots from the original 115 ft. wide parcel . .__RXC ND�, ON: In view of the above information, the staff is recommendirt.- that the Planning Commission approve Conditional. Exception No. 80-580 with a modification that the two parcels created have equal frontage of 57 . 5 ft. per parcel and the staff further recommends that the Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-580 with the same requirements that Parcel Map he revised to reflect the two 57 . 5 ft . wide lots . The staff is offer* findings and suggested conditions of approval for the subject applications. r CE b0-8/TPM 80-580 � 'Page 3 FINDINGS _ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAI) NO. 80-580 1 . The proposed subdivision of this . 33 acre lot into two parcels for the purpose of developing two 3-unit apartments is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of con- struction . a . The General flan has set forth provisions for this; type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for medium density residential was placed on this site. 4 . The size, depth , frontage, street width , and other design and im- provement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision ordinance , COVDITIQNS OF APPROVAL -- TENTATIVE PARCEL VIAP NO. 80-580 1 . A revised parcel map shall be submitted to the Department of Develop- ment Services reflecting two 57 . 5 foot parcels , which will become ' the approved layout . e,2 . A parcel map shall be filed with, and approved by , the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3 . Glencoe Avenue shall be dedicated to City standards at the time 'said parcels are developed . 4 . A Copy of the recorder', parcel map shrill be filed with the Planning Department. FINDINGS -- CONDITIONAL EXCEP'j.ION NO . 80'-08 1 . Granting of the condition- al exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of residents of neighboring properties or injurious to improvement of property in the vicinity. 2 . Granting of this conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . 3 . Granting of this conditional exception does not constitute a grant of special privilege from otht.r properties in the vicinity. C, because cif special circumstances applicable to the subject topography, location, or surroundings , the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges en- joyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. ..04 0 O"WO CE ,80-8/TPM 80- 580 Page 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -- CONDITIONAL EXCI::PTION NO. 80-08 1 . A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Develop- ment Services reflecting two 57 . 5 foot parcels , which will become the approved layout. 2 . All trees existing on the site at the present time, with a trunk size of six ( 6 ) inches or larger, shall be retained if possible . If trees must be removed, each tree removed shall be replaced by two (2) 24-inch box trees on site which shall be approved by the Superintend- ent of Park, Trees , and Landscaping . WP:SMS x d f Attachments: I . Area Map + 2 . Notice of. Exemption I 1•� � l a.. ddQ N01110E OF lEX,I~:1wp'Y ON TO File PROJECT, APPLICATION,JR MNIT NO: Tentative i arcE:l Map No - 80-580 M0jE.CT13TWDESC4 PZ` ON/LCCAII0Ni To permit the division of lard from 1 lot into Z Lots located on the north side of Glencoe Avenue approx . ' PROJECT SPONSOR: 370 feet west of Beach Blvd. I Dick Kelter ' C] C.tatxkd c=ORP&W D Oman d see. Set.1"70 Cka Elicy 9""00" Activity not DdIuW ar project &a 15+ I (b) A 4e) act. 13087 (b) 4 Sre. 150?5 IU P"Oet(pdvete)is S WW p n at another pMjeot for WMA an 11R ha+P%..L Ay►bom p"WA4.the origm pmjeet and UR won eopffl+ed, etrd dwo wdra no wrbobmW elww" propo ed a tha'prep" to he-vlw MW metal Ittilietr aeit emidwi l Itt toe.uftoal CIR, 15"7) 4rgptril UR Nwabor: lhtte Aprpruvrd: i heamot to the c kUPOILM FJn+S0l+11dRHTAL OUA JTY ACT OF 1970 arrd prorieiorrr of the IiaJ1r1'fl ION MACH 020MARM COM which provide that an activity In ezmpt from envL-unn nW vvAmthm wham it can be dens06W WA WVWXty dWt the acdrity will not here ■M*IA&Mt effret an the earba�st, the aetivitp reterwraei We&i,thentfaro gated EJr;1 MMON STATUS with the foao+r*eut+ea at al IMf o: i O If"W tend 2100 of flow Cset" Ilef�ttest Irtrt James R. Barnes, Associate Planner Publish For �L..1.9 4_ 19N1 NOTICE OF P'ALIC MEMING All APPEAL. TO 111 MOMS COl01I SS ION'S KNIAL OF CE Woe AND TFN WSW WTICE IS 1MOY GIVEN tMt a public Maring wi1I, be held by the Cio Cecil of the City of M otingtm Bache in the Couaei l Chkwwr of the Civic Cater, Nuntingtm Imicho at thr lour of , :30 , N.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on .. ,�.: ..� ... . the bw_., . day of , March . 1g at. for tM palm of casi*rirq an appal of Planning C i�ssion's denial of i cmitienal Exception W06 eat 7ontat" Parcel Mrp No. W-MG. A regmt to allow tha division of a 115 ft. piocei of land into 1-60 ft. parcel and 1-55 ft. parcel . TM Hrp►M"It" Nwch 0rdinrftre "oda rewires a minima of Go ft. of fronuge per parcel. TM subject pr+oW,ty is located an the north side of Mom Av , rpp roxioately 440 ft. west of 6ftCh 5oulevard. A legal d scription is oe file in the Departaarnt of Development Services Office, All interested porsons ar* invit+id to attend said hearing and express Moir srpiAiaur far or a"Imt said am.) . Furthor irnfomM en my be obtained from oe the Office of the C i to Clerk, 2t1bt1 Pk i n 5tr"t o WAtiMMM Csech e California. 92648 - (714) 536-522E DATA p rwrry�, .c.1'!1 w..wr.�. CITY OF NUNTIRCTON $EACH By: Alicia M. Menterth City Clerk R Ptblish Februarry 9j 98i _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AN APPEAL. )'0 THE Pt CNN I NIG C"I SS I ON'S DENTAL OF CE W-08 AND TPN 80-580 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GJYFNI that a public hearing will be held by the CiV Council of the City of Mmtirogton Beach, In the Council Chanter of the Civic Center* Huntingtm Beach, at the hour of _.2LN P .M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on .�: li d the 2nd day of March 19 1. for the parpoee of ronsideriaq an appeal of the Planning Comission's denial of Conditional Exception W08 and Tentative Parcel Map No. SO-SM. A request to Allow the division of a 113 ft. parcel of land into 1-60 ft. parcel and 1-55 ft,, parcel . the Vuntingtum leach Ordinance Cade requires a winimwn of 60 ft. of frontage per parcel . The subject property is located on the north side of Glencoe knivas approx;int*11y 40 ft. west of Beach Boulevard. A legal description is on file in the Department ors Development Services Office. All interested persons are invited to attenO said hearing and express their opinions for or against said rl �wYri�wllgrrl�- Further information ow be obtained from the Office of the City Clank, 2000 Main Strdet, 1:mmtinfton Beach. California. 92648 - (714) 536- 5227 DATEDFFeb,n= 171 1"1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Al-10o M. Wentworth City Clerk � . . r ,,,,4, 1• a r h•.? • n .. . _..__..--._ .r� y�r+y.MV 'f W Mh 4 A AL.f AW W"Evb Published in N . D . 'AdapeWett News January 8 , 1961 RIt���e�x�iANaxx LZ"L NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING CONDITIONAL. RXC.EPTION 30-•08/TENTATWE PARCEL MAP 80-580 , "CrrICE I MDY Glilt:M that a pubi::.c n�±:tr.jng will he bald by the City IQ of, the City, .Qt hunt.i o Beacht • California, for the purpose of rvnsider.iny � Coi� ce J.on 1u:ipre 7 ... -.h..�...... No. 90�-00 and Tentative Parcel. Map No . . 8(7--58� , to allow the division of a 11.5 ft . parcel of land into 1-60 ft. and 1-55 parcel . C& The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires a minimum of 60 ft$ of r; frontage pot parcel . They subject property is located on the north ,side of G1onc*e Avenue, approximately 440 f t . west of Beach ,Soulevaxd . A 1*9al description is on file in the Department of Development Services office. f Said hearing will be held at the holar.• of 7 : 00 � P .M . , on r January 2p , 19R1 its the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Canter , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach , California . All interested parsons are invited to attend said hearing and express Ueir opinions for or against the proposed _ CE 4 s0-08 and TPM 80-5ee further information may be obtained from the City planning Department. Telephone No. (714 ) 536-5271 DATXD this _ 8th_ day of January, 981 . CITY PLANNING COMMISSION James W. Palin By Secretary _ ,....� ....�. r 1 f Judy y, ,' P&SAW •14MMS 4 POW WAAM UNIM TNT ATTACH LOCAL WTiCI FOR THK 1. Mr Art,i1 *lam GOMLsrias Ali � Otuor AA ti" of 19wKromarstal ftatua YES Defar to �.�...� Flaming Departumt Extomica for additfa wl isfaamkiea. a It please trsaWlt Owt vwdA%* to b* raquirod is the l.pl. 0; r 141�1tt2-51 JW;n C taiclwirt: all #60-Qb 142-091--34 215di 1 ki�wtst Sti` t �c 17, 1930 (M) lVLrbara J Maixtir.r*Aa iawatlnybm tfrcdl, Calif ' lot'".i. Let-ate jMG 15$81 t 5tr%nt Ms*.irgt m ftac hf ;;alit 9264 142-"2-u 142--092--13 AT1Arm R WAS" Paw rt >.Tti7 n Casey C P buf udm Feria w Iw 7652 Mrc t• street 8%1 Vavre circia 7311. E� Stcm t L km*Au tlOOc ia, CE34f i4umt-im)ton v�uNwIl, C.41ii Arudmix, Calf 92"7 A 92"6 92007 14 1--091-35 i42--092-02 142--092-14 r%sjwick i Wilbas't m AmitJi 142--091.-M 7062 Nid=m3-d, Str"t 02,U 19th Strwt Jew r iow et al wntiowt an ftsuh, Calif WWmtmirAwx, Calif P.O. Ru 294 92647 sh 92183 Huv*ixgt m Macho o Ca l i� 142--092-03 142-092-15 92648 8M Ro&ift 0 Ride I-k%M,�tAOn p Ine 142--091-37 r tAWtingtM t&ACh. QLIif P.O. Hm $20783 19A W Oak Am" 92646 rt" Amex F"Llattn, Calif 141-092-04 Misad, Fl,ra ida 92633 tkm Y !dill 33JA2 142«111-04 7860 ltscMa Id btrawt 00M View sdml Viatric;: ►Aa*tigt m B"c ho Cali%, 17021 t`twdi Mvd. 92647 lmtinjbm Ssadh, CmUf 52647 ,7~ F Reed 142-091-10 's.0. bm 294 Dmalopumt Corp. t tuntix�,acn desch, Calif, rooftWar I= #263 9440 P.O. am 783 Sian Di��o, Calif 92112 t 41-J92--07 t-uc S bduv j b.W-- 142-09.1-30 budwol till mmmal x cuui.ta 'txt 12872 VhIW 'nw Stet. 18701 San Sufino Drive bUkAb 11 I rim, Calif 92715 c.4vu, ram, Calif J 1�45 1.42-091-33 .... .`.....+. ...._....�......�....____«. _ Marian E Ater Gk"Ld P 8f" 17931 bmah Blvd Suits rat dwtiaibm bee.:h, Calif 92647 1►�b1--G91-�i Luvid R Halve 142-091-27 9332 Y mil* Semmi IrtvMrtusantA of %W, CallP au than Cm ff. Ltd y2M _ 4l�tYi t Cap X*7 Tat Deft. 924.35 s. ,, W 20058 i • Dick Ke lter 142-1.02-26 1909 Delaware Street wwxiell Price Jr. t(unting on heaachs Calif Lwanber 111 , 190U (Jl{) 9505 54th Stsvnt, 92648 fiiv*rside, 061,if 92509 aeswey & Mary Woo 142-102,-1.0 142-102-27 7 911 Glencoe Avenue 0a16 William Dorris L Krttk iX tfuntingr&nn Beach, Calif 7642 Gle mlos Avwvn 4053 Utrwi.n Avers.as 9�!6 4 7 92647fWach t Calif 9 pve" ]. I GAif xaa�-ioi-a 142-1O2-.Ll 142-102-31 JJaw■ea N ftea.►r fir,% H 1a)rAft rery R DOWSM 7841 Glanwe Av11wtILlti 7652 Gleo=a Avwua 10640 warner AV"xfs MAt a 201 NnkirgtC n qwwh,call Ikint. ,W= 92647 Si2647 >3�.h, Calif �Main Va.11ay, t�lif 142--101-06 142-202-13 142-1r0r2-42 tlelem Perak �T"t- R Hat Fred nest 7951 Ghwoon Avwm f5 $842 Word ori.va 7891 Al a Ava ue himat ingt n beach, CaIU Wunt.ingt m Beach j, Calif Ikmtietrtm , 'Alif 52647 92647 92647 142--101--07 142-102-14 142- 102-43 1 Jura L Ya%xV Doris a Wters P"-Alyd C IA 11 7871 Gleame AmKvn 7902 Glwxxo &v+erwae 1871 Alga Avww, fivaa 4vUt m bronchi Calif HunkBoom, Calif Iftt ngton Owch, CWUf 92647 92647 026167 142--101-08 14 2-102-—5 1 4 w-102-45 StgAm A Monye" Derek U Trick+att Omeld xerW Hibbard r.u. uox um 1672 New Ifaat haxe Drive Wbeart L ftpitydnt Ibmtsin valleay, CKLif costa taara, C.alit 16761 Suck" Cire;2a% 92708 92626 Fomtaa►in V&Uey, C aLif 9270 142-101-09 142-102--16 142-102-46 J4ms A 7hafimn G P DjUdirsj gntarpriee a I= cling-, C 3102 Wth F.l sim Drive ivie 17232 Marina Vim! Plsoe 18315 Nt Krist na Strf*t i Los hlmitxe, Calif Htrtixwt m Beach, Calif Famt in Va]2WO Calif 9072U 92649 9X08 • 1.42 -101.-14 142-102-19 142-102-47 Auarxlall W bachard at &I "'mm K Howard L Abel Uatd L)w I a: Dev. Im. 6932 CNwc 1 Cim. ,Ie 640 VL& Udo N= 1+6371 beach Blvd &Ats 240 Beach, Calif *"X)rt CAW Hu tr a Beach,, Cali 02647 9 la 92663 142-102--09 142-102-19 142-102-50 Sotem Ochs Title Ins. & ?3vat 0o TR Jarman Dls .c9rxaNs�i 1571 AWwM an lid Awnry N about 21521 mat SUVA Dim"d Aatc, Cali 1d601 "Miami St 79 WntisWtm Beadhr Calif 91765 tfri3bces fiwk ht Wif 92646 92W fib 1 , r JTr F tomf POE ait't�',1�1�a�M1VA14'Ni� � r• -1 '•.. A A A"lIIItiE; V , , EOM ' PAM • AMOI'IM11 11�k�1Y���' ��. y'' j `` i � I • AMOUNT � A%o*u*IT . f'•� f _ �w .ArrA.Y�r.r+a TOM No. 191408 UP" DIPART1MT -01Y BEACH CITY OFHUNTIN 2000 MAIN STREET ':AIIF014MIA 97 OFFICE OF V* MTY CL9RK C Ma rc h 3 , 1-981 Aichao P. Kelter 1W9 ik1awarre Street Huntington Breach, California 9264e The City Council of the City of Huntington 8eoch at its regular sleeting I held Nmday , March 3, 1961 approyed your appeal to the Planninij Com- mission's denial of Conditional Exceptional 80-08 an# TPM 80-6W. 'lease contact the Development Services Department for fu►thcr inform- ation. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CE:js i sw . 1 ti �1+►. r� � i u Superior Court i � �,� goo�� ti'1'A'I'N:(1F'f'Ai.IN'11hM1A. 111 .110 !11t I lw i'40411111'n) 1lid1wo. CITY OF HLOITINgTO 1 NAC,jir CITY CUMA Public Herring SO-n7 Since Idl'alirnrnia I l '�aMily n1 f ITKIW 1" Rit4 J. Richter hal i am and at all tinvncl herhir mmtkmoid woos a ritiltttr of y • Ihr I looked 141n4e0.nret thr ape IIr tlrrnty-fww vows,snrl that I ,at MN a Party sit, wcN Intettmrd in the rbnvr taulled n1+etw: t hat 1 to tha Prir.A* l c4fk of the printrr III a" Npntimton loath Indchermdent Review n 1lrw"mpow ri~llorarrai rirrulati/1n,puMiWW In the City 11r MI NMnt"ton Bloch • I' amn' a iWow and wkk* ne*M,-per is puhlished for the ,lhrininalhln Id If" n"a and intalhowfift ura pneral rherw- y Irl, 01nd which naw, r at all Onesa heteiii wAnNonood had tlr�� url -till kw, s lwww(ado auhM.riptkin tin 11f prlvil*elllacribel+l, :11N1 which rwwgmptr has hmn s4ohl"ed, printad snd club- li-S cl at regular inwvsb in tin imW (kmoay nr Cnanp r11r s IIr;1+K1 racrrding tint vaar; that the nc►(it, c1f which the 1lnnered ?a a prilitad crlpy, haw boo pxtblwhsd in the rvigular Anil entirr im M 1q Laid newlWover,anti nA H any scupptrrllant It"-frol.Ion the rl4owire dallw,4n wit: 1 III Jorwaxry 22t 1"I 11.1-rUly llrr d"iwlel 14Mkr prltalty 11f pstiuty That the f tt#rl• Ili i141 111r arid vtWfrrt. I►wirel at .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . Clei rwq,ta, car r1jM 1/V' f. Superior Court OY THk STATX OF CALIFORNIA In drnl for the 1'nfinty tit Oravgv ►1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH9 CITY is ZRK Pub I ic: Hearing aO-dT ijj litatf(of CnFfornia 1 C(minly of Orate a )s'"- Ls Flit* J. Richter r That t arri and at all timea herein mentioned waif r citiren +or the united 'Sinus,over the age if twe&ity•one yearn,and that I am not a Party to, nor intcr"ted ir% the ahove entiticr: mattrr; that 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the kntinttpn Nub Independent Review a newspaper of general circulation,publiah!d in the City of Hurt irk itoin DeP A Ciwnty of Orange and which newspaper ih puhlished fnr the diatrninntion of local news and inteRigence of a general charnc• ter, artd which newapaixt at all times herein mentioned hall and still has a brine tide sultscription list of I)dying itubscribem, and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub• fished at regular intervals in the said County rf Orange for a poriod exi::edittg one, year; that the notice, of which the atinesed is a printer copy, Meta heen published in the re slat and entire issue of said :newspaper, and not in any supplement thereof,can the fallowing dates,to►wit: January •22. 1991- i t*rtify for declare) under penalty r•1f perjury that the furego- j I ng ion true and correct, bathed at. . .. .. .. .. .... .. . Ca -don -or-eve...... ...... d " ,..vary s.. 61 Form Go-113ft �i�rNstt�r LA } C -'q Mrd .. _ ..-..�..-. ._..._ .. ... _. REST" F CITY COUNCIL ACTIYN Subm tted by Tames W. Palin, Director Department bevP102"I't Ski es j]Planning Date ►wrnpa-rd January 22 , IG E1 Ssckup dilate-ial Attached a yes [3 No CONDITIONAL EXCFPTZrl)N NO . 80-71 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO . 50-579 � City Administrator's Commoner Approve as Reccmmendr.1 StetArmm of Issue, Reaammer, lation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Action:: STATEMENT OF T SUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal to the ?lanning Commission 's denial of Conditional Exception No. 80-7 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 00-579, a request .:o r flow a fifty (50) foot wide lot, in the Townlot area to be subdivided into two (2 ) parcels , each having twenty--five ( 25) feet of frontage. Minimum frontage required by the Townlot Flayc:ific Plan is thirty ( 30) feet. RECOMMENDATION: Consistent with the Planning Commission ' s action, the staff recommends denial. of Conditional Exception No, 50-7 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-57C ANALYSIS : Appellant: Dorothy Higginbotham, Richard A. Cook 9092 McBride Raver Street Fountain Valley, CA. 92706 Applicant: Dorothy Higginbotham 5109 West Edinger Avenue Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Location: Nort:he-�st corner of 12th Street and Pecan Avenue Request-t To create two (2) 25 foot wide lots in lieu of the required thirty ( 30) foot lot width ; 41J h r F t a.. . RCA - CE NO. 8C-,7 TPM NO . 00-579 Jant-,sry 22 . 1961 Paqe 2 Planning rotrimi.sRion Actior. or. 1601W11Y ON MOTION BY SCHUMr'CHER AND SECOND BY GRE�'R, CONDITIONAL EXCEP 1ON NO . 10-7 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8 0-579 WERE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING, VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: I This proposed division of properties is inr..onsiserit with general plans for the area . AYES: Winchell , Porter, Greer , Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Keni.fick ASSENT s Bauer ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION: The subject site is located within an area which, is designated low density on the General Plan (less than 7 units per gross acre) . Tiuwever, Townlot Specific; Plan zoning allows a maximum of 9 units per acre, which is consistent with the medium density designation can the General Plan . Based on the � inconsistency between the present General Plan designation on the Land Use Element and the allowable density under the existing zoning can this propazty, the planning COMMission recc►nmended denial of the project . The Planning Commission further directed staff to pursue a General Plan Amendment resolving inconsistencies between the General plan designation and allowable densities in the Townlot area . ENVIROVL 4ENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable ALT$RNATrVE COURSE OF ACTION: Approve t:re appeal SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1 3 Letter from ,}�..A llant I'Ta►uuzi C, •'1981 Planning Cummisg ion Staff Report and Mihu.`ee R poctfull t , Pw in, Director u�. t elapaaent Services I 1 1 ♦� , Jo 0 E-W�� b ' 1 � 1 � ,♦ ` I' f r,, lo o LA 00 IA J /, le -1p 10 00 451 / al •I ui ►•i•. ol Nof ' •' }dry l f " , fee J A � Nr w i 00,/ ol 414 eoll�?der- 4 6�. " r' D4*.oco, w� w w /o • �J y,- tomb , MY . . .iun#ingtran beach davelapmarit services department STAf f PORT j•�.rRtir�/Y�r. "AI�I�Ii�r To: Planning! COmmission FROM: Development Services DATE: January 6, 1981 .1UQ&AL EXCEP1X10N NO. ESQ- 07ZTENTATIVE PA9CEL MAP No. 80-5 7 q iA PLI-O Dorothy Higginbotham DhTE,AC:CEP,�,,TEDD: 5109 W. Edinger Ave . 12/24/80 Santt Ana, Calif . 92706 MANDA?ORY PROCESS= DATES ` REQUE§Ti To permit the creation of two 2/23/81 25 ft . wide: loLa in lieu af. the required 30 ft . wide bats ZQIyEs Townlot Specific Plan as required by Cone. Area One "A" LOCATI V: Subject property is located GENKRA& PLAN: rirteditim on the northeast corner of - Density 12t;: Street and Pecan Ave . Residential AUK: .13 Acres EXISTINg USEs Vacant 1 . 0 §MESTEI) ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: approve Conditional Exception No. 80-07 and Tentative Parcel Map No . 80-579 based on the findings and conditions in Section 7 . 0. .+0 9 NEU& INFOR�+IATIQN: � Tentative parcel Map No. 80-579 in conjunction with Conditional. Exception No. 80-07 is a request to allow a 50 ft. wide lot in the Townlot Area to be subdivided into two parcels each having 23 £t . of frontage. The minimum frontage required by the Townlot Specific Plan is 30 ft . i �L k --.-Sukg RY QF 119UES Major issues of concern regarding Conditional Exception tio . 80-07 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-579 are as follows: Aft 1 •f �1�� rrr 19 �I AP k Condi.ticnal Exception No. 80-07/Tentative Parcel Mal) No . 80--579 Page Two 1 . Will, the proposed division of land increase the existinci density? 2 . Will granting of Conditional Exception No . 80-r07 constitute granting a special privilege? 0 EC�RQNMEN Y,C�►,L.;iI-A-TUS; Conditional Exception No , 80--07 and Tentative Parcel Nap Nn . 80..579 are cat`goric.all, exencX�t in �:c�r:orcianc:e with ;;ect:irn 151,15 of �i1c State EIR Guidelines. SURRQUND� Iry JAND '1SE:,_. ZQL11N( AND GENER.ttL PI AN DESIGNATION : : The subject site to 1.0catexiat the southeast corner of _.2th Street and Pecan Ave . and is zonel Townlot Specific Plan A. The property is presently developed with an older singles family residential dwelling and is designated on the Oenera.l Flan cs Medium Density Residential . All of the surrounding properties are also zoned Townlot Specific Plan, Section A and are designated on the General Plan as Medium Density Residential . Properties surrounding the site are developed with older single family d=,fellinc-7s. 9 620 ANALYST: The subject site was originally subdivided into 251x 117 ' lots similar to the rest of the Townlof- Area . On August 27 , 1941, the entire block bounded by Acacia Aven-je on the north, 12th Street on the west.. Pecan Avenue on the st:uth, and 11th Street ^M '.he cart was re-recorded as part of T-:::ct 1094 and 50 ft. wide, lots were creatad . Under the Townlot Specific Flan 0:,-dinarce, the subject site will yield a two unit complex . If the site is divided into two 25 ' wide parcels still only two units would be permitted according to code, there- fore, the granting of Conditional Exception No . 80-07 will not increase the existing permitted density in the area . The subject parcel is located in a block of older single family dwellings which would incli.cate that the surrounding properties may soon be recycled to their maximum potential . Two unit complexes are the most common type development within the Townlot Specific Plan Area. According to the Townlot Specific Plan Development Standards, two units could be built on the subject site, however, tho. existing configuration of the site and the parcels surrounding the site within an abutting four block area precludes the possibility of constructing two sin;lei family detached dwellings which could be sold to separate buyers. This condition is contrary to the intent of the Townlot Specific Plan, therefore, the staff is recommending that the Commission if concurr '.ng with the following recormnerdation, initiate an amendment to the Townlot Specific Plan to eliminate this conflict by allowing exleting 50 ft. wide parcels within this .four Block area to be divided into two 25 f t , wide parcels for development . The ability to diwido the existing 50 ft. wide lots within this four bloc;o area tr. Conditional, Exception No. 60- .)'/Tentative parcel Map No. 80.-579 Page Three into 25 ft. bats w.il..l, provide property owner's greater flexibility in developing this property. The Uex) :5 ft: . lots are consistent with the purpoLij and intent of the Townlot.: Arr o and will not Increase the 4ersity., On March 7, 1978 , the Pl.ani,ing Commission approved a similar request st: creating twu 25 f t . Jots from a previously existing 50 ft. lot on property located on t:.ho cast side of 12th Street, 25 ft. south of Pecctn Avenue. This proper. Ly has sir..ce been develope3 with two single family residei:ce,s . The staff recommends that the Planning cjoj mi.:-.sian approve Condi :ional Exception No. 80-07 and Tentative Parcce]. Map No . ,�'0--579 based oa the following findings and sub.;pct to the following Fi,NDIL4QS —C NDITTONAI,. EXCEP 1.'-�0ti No. 80.407 1 ,• The Planning, cw'orrmi ssi.c.n c•,t' tji� Cii- }r rf 11oi1t1nqtoIl Beach clues hereby find that thc, r roposed siibd:iv_ir,ion alorict with itr:: design irnprovcr;,onts is consistent. with the cc(Anert.il and ;_;pecific plans in the aree? and teat: a . The twc: lot ct .visi.,)n of land and th•�, -levelopment of two single f�amil} r_4eIl`.Izgs is consistent ',rith the. ptu-pose rind int.erit of the Towr.l cat ."peci f I c Plan , b. The 01 this r)ar. ce.l into two , 251 logs is crec. jog parity vd.th t,-hat e,_Lstr; ;.ti the general Nb,INGS TENTATIVE !:,ARCI`T MIP NO, 13.0--57 � 1 . This reques.: will not )e to the public hec?_;.:t•i, safety, and welfare „f th,.2 f'owntuni't y �i s t7ie dC'.ve lop,.o -'.fit proposed upon the two rar els i.,s proposer..! at the satiie i ntensit:. as that of surrottr,ling uses. 2. The General Plein ha:, set: for1:11 ,previsions for this type ef- land use as well as sett -Ing forth objectives for impleme:nta'Lirar, of this type of use . 3 . The sipe, depth, frontage, strret width, and other design, and N ' improv►,,lent features ot< the proposed subdivision are proposed .'' to be constru.cte6 in compliance with standard plans and specifi- cations on file with the City as well. at in compliance with the Mate Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision ;ordinance. ITILONS _0E APPR,�VAZ, - TENTA:'IVE PARCEL MAP _NOS 79 I. The Tentative Parcel Map received by the Department o! Development r; „ Services and dated November. 25, 19801 shall ► e, the approved layout: . A:. R " t Conditional V'xcaptionNo. 80-.07/Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-579 Fagg Pour A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder . 3* Street improveme is shall be dedicated and constructed in accordance with City standards. 46 Matter supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s water sretem. s. Songe and drainage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Ulty standards . 6. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcels are developed . JRB:gc &=!QMjkjT.2: 1 . Area Map � 2 . Tentative Parcel. Map No . 80-579 w �'. minutes# H.B. Planning Co%misaion January 6, 19U1 T Page 4 Brief discussion enmued . ON NOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 4: 80-19 WAS APPROM ]POIt RECOMMENUATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS O BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: IFINDINGS t j . one proposed zone change is consistent with surrounding land uses because they are gener6lly commercial . fit. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan, which is general commercial. combined with multi-story suffix . AYES : Bannister. , Kenefick, Wi.ncheyll , Forger. , freer, Schumacher NOES : None ABSENT : Bauer ABSTAIN : None QSQ111QUAL EXCEPTION NO . flo-7/TE+NTATIV7 PARCEL MAP NO. 80- 5579 A-Pplicant., De-rothY hi.gginbot' To permit the creation of two 25 foot wide lots in lieu of the code- required 30 foot wide .lot4 on property located on they northeast corner of 12t.h Street and Pecan Avenue . Savoy Be llavia outlined the history of the subject parcels, rioting that: applicant is requesting th•3.t the property be allowed. to go hack to its original. 25-foot Configuration. He also added that the lot split will not increase the allowed density of construction . The public hearing was opened. Leo Merritt, property owner in they area , inquired if every 50-foot lot owner will be required to go through this process in- order to subdivide his lot. He also questioned the legality of the advertia - ing process for the action which played these properties in the Tomlot district. Savoy Hellavia eyxplairied that each individual lot would be required to files separate:ly under existing regulations and that the advertising had been legally done through twc♦ half- page newspaper ads in 1977 at the time the Townlot District desig ration was imposed . TNo public heiarinq was closed. p Cottstaission discussion included they comparative desirability of duplexes set side -by--side3 on a 50-foot lot as opposed to single- favoily resides,:es constructed on two 25-foot lots and the question of fairness to property owners whose property constitutes a four bint-k enclave in an area developed on small lets . Commissioner Schumacher noted that although a precedent had been set in the area the Commission should not compound it by repeating a process which -4_ 1-6-81 1 P .C. I, ' r L a. S Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 61 1981 Page 5 she described as rezoning through exception . Richard Cook and Cary brown, representing the applicants in this and the following application, addressee the Coraierion to ask for parity with the surrounding area . A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO hPPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-1 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-579 SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY STAFF. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Bannister , Kenefick , Winchell NOES: Porter , Oreer, Schumacher ABSENT: '.'auer ABSTAIN: None Further discussion took place, with Chairman Porter suggest- ing that a wi-,-e general solution should be reached because in his opinion the conditional exception approach is inappr')- I priate . After review, the staff was ' directed to pursue a general plan amendment to bring the properties in this four- black area into consistency between the zoning and the General Plan designations . ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY GREER CONDITIONAL EX- CEPTION NO. 80-7 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-579 WERE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING READ'ON, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: The proposed division of property is inconsistent with Gen- oral Plans for the area . AYES : Winchell , Porter. , Greer , Schumacher NOES : Bannister, Kene,fick p: ABSENT: Buyer ' ABSTAIN: None w. ' CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 80-09,/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-552 „! Applir ants Jack and Shirley B2gr .i To permit a subdivision of. a W -foot lot into two 25 -foot lots in liau of the code- required 30 foot width on property located W. on the southwest corner of Eleventh Street and Acacia Avenue. 2%e public hearing was opened. '�' Dick dull , engineer, expressed the opinion that not allowing ,,,. the lot split in this instance and the previous one: would #" penal izo the property owners and would result in rental hous- AA l.tng in the area as opposed to owner-occupied dwellings. P.C. ;r d ..;... rev. . .. � ti? R t{ 1 f Publ i sh 1122181 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AI'i M 1'O 1K PiJ1+ill I NN COMI SS I DN'S DENIAL. of CE e0-07/TM 84-579 P TICE IS NWM GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of W C/o of NMt1 k4c%v in the Council Chaber of the Civic Contort M KI • at tine hewn of P.M. . Cr as soon thiereofter as peSaibld on the 2nd day of February for the pwVoae of eaRsidering an appeal to the Huntington Beach Planning Co=ission's denial of Qwrditional Exception No. 80- 01 in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Mop Na. W679, a tvqueest to permit the creation of two 25 ft. wide lots in lieu of Ow required 3O ft. lot width required by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Coder. T'ht subject property is located at the northeast corner of l2th Street and Pecan Avenue in the Tdffilot Specific Plan Area 01-A. A legal description is on file in the Departwnt of [Wvelopment Services Office. J E.. . All Jxte erited per&M are invited to attend said twring and express their �. opinion for W a"Inat said awr�rr..w�nu�n mw-wn�.�ww�nw��rwwr-rra.�r �r.ar+ I, I '• Fvrtlre o la tion my be obta 1 eyed from the Off i co of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Ma*i alto Reach, Ca 1 i forme. 92648 - (714) 536-6227 bATLD _ � � /�1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I By: Alicia N. Wentworth '�,.. City Clerk hIR.22 Ir �• rr i i �I.I�R,ri r 1 • 1 ONO {` P&M i sh l 22 81 NOTrIVE q MIC HEAMING AMWAL. TO TWo PLANNING COiISSION'S KNIAL r SGi0IrTPH 00~579 NOTICE IS JUM GIM that a public huring will be held by the City Council of 00 C11W 61 *mtimat 1arhs in the Council ChuAber of the Civic Cehter, Nwti r 4". at 00 how of PA . or as soon thereafter as passible eA the 2nd day of Fabruery 19_81 for th6 pe► IM of CMIdering an appwal to the Huntingtoo Beach Piarming Comission's denial of Canditionri Exception No. 90-07 in conjunction with Untative Parcel Map No. 676. a request to pemi t the craati on of two 26 ft. wide lots in lieu of the ra I red 30 f t. lot width requ f red by the Huntington Bch Ordinance Code. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of 12th Stmet and Pecan Avenue in tM Tiwlot Specific Plan Area fl-A. A legal description is on file in the Departeant of Developmnt Services Office. ' f All ie sMd pwim are invi ts*d to attend said hearing and express their opinion taw or against said ...1 .__.�..,..f�:' .__�._.... ..-.....1.�..�.... �1 . .1...• FnrtfMr 40fawreeti on arty be obtained from the Office of the C i is Clark, 2WO Main Street. tMr►M"Otom Mach. California. 92668 - (714) 536-6227 CITY OF MU10'INGTON SINCM 9y: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk yi Ir �, _, _,.,,; 7 . 1 yi�i, .F � 1 '•M'YI� T, MfIfS TIP CUM TO SCRUMLE MIC HKARIMO dLkApa N A V"X= MWj TU A?TACWD LBO" WMICS Volt THI Alf of lip(. •r rra rttrahrd AP'• will follow No AA'r InAlt ie t«4 bar: plaadioj Comiasion P1srdmAag Depretarot !fit i.tiaD _, # App"I Otbar AAeptloa of Revirp mer tal status (2) y1cip I�0 War to %r � , P1�oniuN drpartmmt "t4mvice for Witirt►1 iofatitrMtl". JJi f 1t ,,fi r plaeso tit ! undiag to be ro4vira is the 1001. '. 77 Published in H indepandent News December 25 , - �li�lt'xicabc��ac x � a�cl�.eDcx LSO" NOTICE NOTICS OIP PUBLIC HEARING ONilNMOW6 SXCNPTION NO. Q 0-7 �► NOICS 12 SS�t W QIVXX that a public hearing will be held the City Planning Ca isliion of the City of Huntington Beach, Wife=tsr for the purpose of consideri.nq Conditional Exception ` 90-1 in ,conjunction with Tentative Parcel [dap No. 00-579 . �1. to pizait the creation of two 25 f t. wide lots in lieu of the required 30 ft. lot width required by the Huntington Beach • r Ordinawo Code. The subject property is located at the northeast scorner of 12th 'Htreet and Pecan Aveltue is the Townlot Specific Plan Area #X-A. A legal description is on file in the Department � of Davelop nt 8ervic$s office. Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 � P .M . , on January b , 1980 in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Canter# 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach , California. All interested persona are invited to attend said hearing and eXpress their opinions for or against the proposed Conditional Exception 0-- 60-7 and 1.1entat ve Parcel„Ma,No. 80-579 yurtbgr information may be obtained from the City Planning . C►�yteirit. �� t Telephone No. (714) 536 5Z71 DATRD this .7 t day of ec mber, 198Q CITY PLANNING CO MISSION James W. Palin ' By S e c t eAi.Y_ . .,...,,._._ n . r W17- do p 24--017-03 N- CM iW-7 0M ftw" 8tfs Anse Caut Doomber 4, 198%1 XJd) 520 13th Stxmt y2 Hmaxvt= 92648 24-016-10 24-017-* addet•M novas U07 409aia kwWwo WG$2 Qwww LWW tip 1040he C" 92�tm 8tacho C laif 24-0 2 2+-019•-11 24-017-" tat tA* 0 DOCAP Wbw K Albort. AnthoW v 5u lift Stawtr 275A ftoty Ct 5914 I6'th Avwus tauftiitann Dondh, dr,lif Bub City Cat llvodd3M, N.X. W646 92381 11204 2+-Ub%-M 24-018-13 LW N ritt Robert, J �. *x* Z4-017-- 517 Ut h St m*t 514 � lath sumat+ C�ratd W Nicholas 92i46 92648 (XVsta MWa, Ca.1if 92627 j 24-O�t�,e-'05 x{-�tilE�-'14 2�1'�p17-p8 �t t: w � , wa�. r�s 515 lith Stre t 526 12th Stet t mdaytxm Domah, CLUf H►mU"jtm Beach, 517 12th Sit 92648 92648 dmtbWm bewho C 92648 0-4j"-% 24- 018--15 09 Jdvi C 11'mk IdIdxied J mirth 2 Albert ert A A Fits W1 11th stwoot 524 12th Stra t P.O. D= 229 "Soho C1614 H1ntinjbin Bosch, Calif S , Cal if 92648 92648 90743 24-OL"7 24-010-16 24-017-10 Linda ,7 Iw2 A Smith CwaW W Nichol= 50 11th 6 $20 12th 5tre t 2482 96 briftr u Etta 217 - . 926" Sang► Ana, Chif 92707 r-Or 34-017-01 24-017-12 s N C w*W 2 JCv warris Igo a Y IM LAM adve i217 AMAS AVUWd 516 lib Stsvopt, uhv a fit, CLIU Minim "whip C A' " Muntingu n , Cal i.f l�04 9248 92648 �Oil1h 1 24-017-02 24-017-14 NO GLUAtin Ad 2N12 an 6t~i ti St #211 424 ,� 6th Street umawt Arm, Monubftilo, 92707 90640 r ,y i 1� 24-101-01 Cc #Wl 16 1 12 Ct a1rM 61 1960 (JU) 16922 h New P ne Oriw ! p n°'cdda Heiylhtd, Calft i 91745 24-U�7 1� 24-02,)--05 24- 02 him c 60900d Thedda hmnM 412 12th Stsest 915 l'Lovrida -,treat WVbW o CAlif $ � f e OL'�•l� 2+40-06 24-101-03 ftj!gAjd A Nuaft AO.Us J 030" 5t~cuy F U" so lodt Strout 526 S CUM] sit 92805 -617�19 24-03 24-101-04 I amts L Butm Orarms s Lulu ► i 623 nth s 526 S ►]. Stueet ORMAr4"m . Cif ng-w. Beack Calif Anw3wa. Chit . 62 tu" KKA. 1 2 -017-20 24-023-'10 24-101-05 LWR A FA*w rct L T Smith Jte Ti i 92 wiwr 2w R. Blvd 51N Ilth► Stroot 92647 bm 92661 92b46 24--101--06 Dow" 1) Golitsm Udbud T Our 321 LVA strmt M �t`laW Ci:c� 516 Ilthh Sty t it m 6r�+li, Calif l r, Ca li t � • SX'u 92"s 92648 2 -02 2+-023-18 24-40146 mot, a 11MMolds RidWwd J Ilia irom C tfLi 3"72 ftUm CLWU 1.61" Smah Atvid 1260 Irdme C Ott, &Jt= Ate, (%I d I&MUnAwl sommil Coli.f 417 ft St me- ! 0264T , Caw 9 �4�22-oi a�-1,a1�'Q9 f ZWl - A 2 M WAft t Rd 1t. Cwl# Li Hkzzinzbm- doh, Calif l2i 9 2 4=-,1,2 34-101-10 M1�M�iR� wit J Li ICx M List k►I�1 � ���C Owft moat Cu i Arch", Cal A 92904 r i� • + ' %a MOM AMU OW7 v im ( } I v 1�1a�•�/• �+���rF��-PI ,L.1 1 I � J'�y1 \^�;,,•1� i •.�.� � ... � L , '"M�����7'V°ti�y��J�1"�ti���•l,�.Jlr�a-�u.1tb�%1 . ,1•� •.v!'a, II,Ci^!•�� 11 NOTICE Of rtI81.IC HEAf+•iNtl NOTICE OF PUBLIC. IING `N APPEAL'TO TM9 PLAMIKG CttlIt1M11fiii ION'8 DENIAL APPEAL TO THE PLANNING 00MIYti8B1eSN'S DENIAL 1.. OF CE$W/TM11110-M Oft CK 111" R'PM 80-672 NOTICE is"Easily OIVIfii shiest a ptiblls hats V4 will be NOTICE it NI RKSY GIVEN ttot a pubile hMsarhy will be hod by the City Council of to"City of Hwttittgion Beech,heed bytheMYtArerneil of the CRY of Hstndrrgron Bergh, I, In the Oeasss f Chwabor of des Civto Center,44untMplon in the Counsil Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntkipton Bitettlt.dt des 10W of 7t30 pan.,at a1 eotln thereafter se llsah,at the four of 7t30 p.m.,or a coon thereafter a ' fi4trbk 4M frianfty the 30 dry of Pebroory,1901 fa the peaWbie on llfotwlay the 2nd day of Pebruary.1961 for the 1 ltteOOM of eoetsitwristd an aplosoi to the Huntington ilago purliow of eonsiclerirp an appeal to the Huntingm Besoh lwttn *l/C'ie►rnn**We donlol of Condhional 6xesi tton Planning Commirrian's dani l of Conditional ILxseption NO.frpr07 In eoe*e 01m ti M T~Ive ihwed Map Ma. No.80-07 in conjunction with Tantatiw harool Map No. ,,' 80�78,a re�wt'Ir1 fsereMt the onsetlen cO two 25 h.wills Wj79.a roqum to permit the creation of two 25 h.wide I114t In flow of the nquirsd 30+t.let wWth required by tfre lots in list'of the required 30 ft. iot widtl+t e luksd by the HtrttbWon Lead►Ordinance Code,I ere ettbiett property is Huntington Beech Ordinenoe Code.The 904*0 properly Is ,i iocatrd at the northost oorner of 13eh Street end Pocen loosted at the northeest owner of 1lth Street sod Peon Avenuts In the Townlot IlV40le i%n Arcs No.1•A. Avenue in the Townlot Specific Plan Area No. I-A. rA A bpi deeeriptbn le dry file in the Department of Development A Igol description h on IIla in the DepertrMrit Of OwaloprnaM � A •'; tilrrvl t,es Ones, Services Off ico. AN intarialod peetane are irwiter!to attend Meld hsarir►y and All Interested parsons are invited to etterrd wed It+sarirtq cresol Mpress their opinions for or against aid appeal. mp►ess their opinions for ov against aid appeo'. I. Further irHonttstlon may be oWnlned aeons the office of the Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk.ON Msin Strove,Huntinirton Beady,CA 9268 City Clerk,2000 Mrtln Stew,HuntinMton Desch,CA!t2648 y: (7141 If i,7 (71 d) 530-6327 I (Oeted: 1116/81 t)at ed: 1/18411 t4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH CiTY OF HUNTING'{ON BEACH (?It': ALICIA M.INENTWURTH ey: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clam; City Clerk { Pub. 1/22/91 Pub. 1/22181 ; Hunt. peach Intl. Hunt.Bosch ind. ti NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 140TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNIN3 COMMISSION'S OEMAL APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CE 80471TPM 60.679 OF CE.80-07/TPM 80-579 r' NOTICE 18 HEftERY GIVEN Out a punfic hAarlrry will be NariCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will he hold by the City Coucteil of the City of Huntington Beech, held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in On Council Owen ar of the Civic Center. Ht-tirrgton in the Council Mamber of the Civic Cromer, Huntington sonch,at the hour of 7:30 p.m..or as st,on thereafter at Beach,at the hour of%'I p.m.,or as soon thweet-Pr as pose ibie on hbndsV the Ind day of February,1901 for the possible on Morxiey the 2nd day of PsWissrv, 1901 for the of�onskaerbr!to spyveal to the Huntington ngbon Beach ptiM'poae of ooruitisrirtp an rp{peel to the Huntington Beech , Mwdsirq Commkolen's denial of Conditionel Exception No. Planning Commission's denial of Condlilonal>lxcWlon No. 047 in conjunction with Terdative Parcel Map No.80.579, 80•Q7 in conjunction with Tottttive Parcel Map No.90479, a request ft psnish the craetion of two 25 ft.wkfs lots in a request to permit the erastion of twe 25 ft.wide fate in Now of the required 30 ft.lot%nosh required by the lima of the required 30 ft.lot wkhh required by the Htrtttington Bosch t3rdiresnoe Mode.The niblect property Huntington Beech Ordironoe Code.The subject property Is bated at this northeast corner of 12th 9trwt and Peon is bated at the northeast scent of 12th. ,*t and Peoon Ampso In the Towtilst Specific Plan Artie No. i-A. Avenue In the Townlot Specific Plan Area r-A. ,r A legal dreariptton Is on fiN in the 0e*1111ttie1tt of deeebpWWM A ftel description is on file In the Depart. ir►t of Dovelopmeat ft Vbw Office. saliva Office. ' AN bit*MI d peraosys errs swiped to e*testd Mid Morino creed All Inure eoM pstsone am,,)vhW to attend acid having and ,. t;xpft M their epk►Mens*W or wt acid eplieal. wpress their opinions for on etpaa.tt aid appeal. Fewtkw hit denuoriion rosy be etlwelrted from the ORR*of ft Further inforntetkm way be obtakied from the Offkrt of the t Chy Clerk.21M RbMt krost,ilendrigwa Beech,CA fi1'Mfl , " n Claret,20001111tin Street,Huntirtgtrrri Bench,G►9261>i � �1 47141831114M (71 d15394M1 Dated: iJ1NBt Owed: 1/1�181 CITY OF HUNTINGTON If11ACH CITY OF MUMTiNQTON BEACH Py:ALICIA M.104E110TWORTH 8y:ALICIA M.WENTWORTN CkV Ciwk City Cwk M. 1/22Its1 Pub.1/22MI Nowt.bomb Ind. Hunt.Bosch Ind. 4 r rCIN „ fiMf 1 1 10 " 1 li AA tif 1 1 1, 1, , e i wpm 1f F'Aooh.� ,w•F.;','` ' .� 1", ��,f[l1 1�; '.'+�F I y i , CCC 1 ,r MOW film" r(( `•'� 1 '_-ul.�i.-.__• Lam..._ -- r_._.._�,Ja._._.,�. �•.I 1 i 4 • i zCITY OF HUNTINtPE o i ON BEACH ' SOW MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9260 OFFICE Of THE CITY CLERK R February 30 1981 Dorothy '1W ginboxham/Richard A. Cook 9092 Mc8r de River Street r Fountain Valley, CA 92708 � They City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, February 2, 1981 granted your appeal and approved Conditional Exception #80-07 and Tentative Parcel Map #80-579. Please contact the Development Services office for further inforretion - 536-5271 . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW;CB:js i 1 r•�• w: F. � a } F R (Tdi~ 71*43" ?) •['i.11iY�s .YJ N.:'�:S S1 lil 1 . . '•14'y .,. _,.,�ra .ram 'I'