Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional Exceptions for 1984-1985 - 85-93(denied), 85-63,
-MINk f, �Authwiled to wubin1h Advarh*&W,N or tW,,WWdt!wc1ud pubk notice* by Decree of the Sup*rior Court Of 4Gr11r►p0 County, C61116rnu►, flurrbor A-621A, d4tod 29 50p1qMtH1, 11261. and A-24431. daAtod 11 June, 1969. STATE OF CALIFORNIA � t, County of orange .mew ww4m AewwwwM mwed t 61, M0 NRWO M ! am K r pv,M1 .gym 16 pc6 cakom.OM am a Citizen of the United States and al resident of i the County aforesaid, I am ovw the age of eighteen years, And no' a party to or Interested in the below : entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of ins Orange ,f i Coast DAILY PILOT, with which Is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circuiatlon, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of PUBLIC NEARING ' r of which copy attached hereto is a true and couplets copy, was printed and published in the Costa Me", Newport l9esch, Huntington Bosch, fotmtain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast commuati;Iea and, LaOuns 1 t1.me Eeach ibsues of sold nowspaper for consecutive weeps to wit the Issue(s) of , March 6 b 1g8_— i 1ga 1gaa Igo 1 ....._..� ..,_, 1 gft_.._ i declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Is true and correct. Execul gd on IMa z c h 7 6 at Costa Maas Calltornla. T 1-121 ' �---- C,� .wr � t+•••• 4V '4' 1 Y � .SSSSSY KENNETH A. REYNOLDS, A.f.C.P. 0421 LOL.ANI DRIVE HUNTINGTON SCACH, CA 92644 17141 9624271 C. February 20 , 1986 L Mayor Mandic Huntington Beach city Council c/o City Clank F. O. Box .190 ` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT : Conditional Exception No 85-93 Dear ftycr and Council Members: This letter is being written to appeal the Planning Commission decision under a split vote for denial of CE 85-93. They failed to give fair consideration to our proposed addition or to tho ache and character of the neighborhood. In additione they did not even discuss the fact that a eimiliar request &.or property in our neighborhood was recently approved and has been constructed. Very truly y0111F K . A . Reynolds Encl . : $ 165 appeal fee °�rf r� RQ UE ' FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Daft March 17 , 1986 &Ibm!tted to: Honot able Mayor and City %ouncil by: Charles W. Thompson , City Administrat ` r pied by: James W . Palin, Development Services Subim: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85--93 Conietwnt wide Council Policy? DQ Yie I l Now policy or Exception .... --.- -� Stotmewmt of Ime, R canms nW1=,Analysis, Funding Source, Altwmttive Action, Attachments: STATS14211T OF ISSC7M: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal , filed by the applicant, Ken Reynolds, of the Planning Commission 's action to uphold the Board of Zoning Ad uatment 'a denial of Conditional Exception No , 85-93. Conditional Exception No. 85-93 is a request to permit a single story P.dditiun to a single family residence that enroaches 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard building_ setback . RECOMMENDATION: Planning commission action on February 191 1986 and recommendation : i MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE TO UPHOLD THE DENIAI. OF i CONDITIONAh EXCEPTION No. 85-93 BY THE HOARD OF ZONI13G ADJUSTMENTS WITH SPECIFIC FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AXES: Erskine , Livengood, Rowe , Schumacher , Winchell DUES: porter , MirJahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS� FOR DENIAL : 1 . Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject propertyp there does not appear to he exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, huildi.ngo or premises involved which do not apply generally to property of class of uses in the same district . The parcel is similar in si,e and shape with other parcels in the subdivision and is relatively flat. 2* Etteptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification because it is a typical 60 by 100 foot R1 Boned lot . r� } rev saw► L, i aim i 3 . Since the subject property can be fully develop3d within regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 4 . Crantin4 of conditional Exception Mo . 85-93 would constitute a grant of special privilege inc:onoisteut with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. S . Con ditiora: Exception No . 61-49 was approved by the Planning Commission in 1982 and is rtill effective which permits an addition to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot setback . The planning staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the action of the planning Commission . ANALYS 1 S: APPLICANT/APPELLANT : Ken Reynolds 9421 Leilani Drive Huntington beach , California REQUEST: To pernit a single story office and den addition to a single family residence which encroaches 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard building setback . LOCATION : 9421 Leilani Drive (north side of Leilani , west of gushard Street ) Conditional Exception No . 85--93 is a► third request ( see Hfstory section of attached planning Commission staff report ) by the a pyllcant for a room addition with a 5 foot rear yard setback in lieu of 10 feet in the past four years . The addition , which is 1716w x 24161 ( 428 square feet ) and designated for an office and den , is identical to plans submitted with the two previous variance requests. The proposed room addition will be architecturally compatible with the main hawse including a combination gable and A-frame type roof at a h0ight of 15 feet extending to 5 feet of the rear property line. On January 150 1966 , the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments reviewed and denied Conditional Exception No. 85-93. The Planning Commission on February 19 , 1986 reviewed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the action of the Board of, Zoning tad juetmenc for denial . The main issue of the conditional exception is what special circumetancps applicable to the property, such as size, shape topography, location or surroundings, exist which deprives the property of privilegea enjolred by ether property in the vicinity and ur:der the hl Zoning District , due to the strict application of the Wtirigton Beach Ordinance Code . Staff has evaluated the site and detatMined thAt no unique features related to the land exist that deprive the property owner development ar. ivileges enjoyed by others 4 II r` &CA - 3/17/06 -2- ( 4376d ) All r due to the uniform application of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . The sub ect property in a typ ,_,al , rectangularly shaped 60 ' x 1001 , relatively flat residential lot . It is zoned RL and similar to other lots within the single family residential subdivision in which it is located . Therefore , granting a conditional ed%--eption to allow the requested 5 foot encroachment would constitute-, a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations Ripon other properties in the vicinity and R1 district . If approved , a precedent would be set approving variance requests of 5 foot rear yard setbacks for single- a tort', residential additions on typical residential lots . It should be noted that on January 19, 1902 , the Planning Commission reviewed Conditional Exception No . 8149 , a request by the applicant to permit a room addition ( 428 square feet ) to encroach within 5 feet of the rear property line , a garage addition to be set back 7-1/2 feet in lieu of the required 22 foot front yard setback and a 6 fo-3t high wall to encroach 5 feet: into the re:loired 1.5 foot front yard setback . The Planning Commission approved Conditional Exception No. 81-49 with the following conditions : 1 . The proposed room addition at the rear of the dwelling shall be permitted to encroach only to within eight ( 8 ) feet of the rear property line reducing the addition size to 355 square feet . 2 . The new garage addition will be equipped with an automatic garage door opener . At present , the garage addition has been built, but the room addition has not . Consequently, Conditional Exception No. 81-49 is still eff;r,tive because some work has been completed . options available to the applicant for the expansion of his home l which would comply with the Code and somewhat achieve his objective of providing an office and minor den expansion include: 1 . Construct a smaller. room ,addition that encroaches only 2 feet into the required 10 foot setback consistent with the Planning Commisefon'e appioval in 1982 (Conditional Exception No . 81- 49 ) . 2. Constry et a wider room with a depth of 14 ' 6" as approved by the Planning Commission to achieve a 428 square foot mixe room while main'.•.Aining the 8 foot rear yard setback and 5 foot side yard setback . 3. Construct the addition off the front of the house and relocate the spa and patio area to the rear . Staff reuearched other variance requests in the vicinity of the subject property and found that only one for less than a 10 foot tear yard setback had been approved (by the Board of zoning Adjustments ) . That variance request was for a 5 fnot rear yard setback in lieu of 10 feet for a single story addition to a single family- residence , The unusual circumstance applicable to the property was that the parcel is a reverse corner lot wnich means the parcel 's rear bard abuts the side yard of are adjacent parcel . ICA - 3/17/86 (4376d) v, r 1 i I � EEO V : �r ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : r This project in categorically exempt under Class 1 , Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act . FUNDINO SOURCE: Not appli%!able . ALTEIEaAT IVE ACTION: Reverse the Planning Commission 's decision and approve Conditional Exce tion No. 85�-93 based on the following findings and conditions : p 9 9 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . The establishment and maintenance of the addiiion will not be detrimental to: a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b . Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or i building. 1 . Because of special circumstances applicablq to the subject property, including size , 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 the vicinity and under identical zone classifications . 3 . The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . g . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 85-93 will no; be materially detrimental to the puhlic welfare , or injurious to property in the same zone classifications . 5 . The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the Geacral Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . SUGGESTED CONDITION$ OF APPROVAL 1 . The site plan, floor plans , and elevations received and datod December 23, 1905 shall be the approved layout . Z . The development shall comply with all requirements of the Building, Development Services and Fire Departments . 3 . Thd adrition shall be architecturally Compatible with the existing residence and shall be limited to one story. RCA - 3/17/86 -4- ( +376d ) A �FI'i r IY � I,.•1 t. .., . i 14. ' fir'. s• u ,• , 1 r A'TTACHAENTS: 1 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated Fehruery 13 , 1966 Z. Letter of Appeal 3 . Pla:Aning Commission Mimites dated February 19F 1986 4 . Letter in Opposition to Conditional Exception No . 85-93 JWP : SH • kla i i i i a ' h RCA 3/17/06 da5— (4176d ) 1 i A huntkiaton beech development eervIce8 department STAf f } A E P R T. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE : February 19p 1986 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85 -93 APPLICANT: Ken Reynolds DATE ACCEPTED: 9421 Leilani Drive January 22 , 1985 Huntington Beach, CA MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: RED EST: To permit a single story March 22 , 1986 f office and den addition to a single family ZONE: R1 (Low Density residei.ce which encroaches Residential ) 5 ' Into the required 101 rear yard building setback GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Res ant a LOCATIQNN: 9421 Leilani Drive (North side of Leilani EXISTING USE, Single P mily � west of Bushard Street RealaentTAT AC t : 6,600 agware feet 1 .0 PI�§T2D. ACTION: Uphold the Board of Zoning AdJustment ' s denial of Conditional Exception No. 85-93 based on the findings outlined in this report . 2, 0 G,INBRAL LfflIpRM4TION The applicant is appealing the Buard of Zoning Adjustment ' s denial of Conditional except f on No. 85-93 , a request to permit a single story, 438 square foot :office and den addition which encroaches 5 feet into they required 10 foot rear yard building setback ( section 9103. 3) . 3t d StfRY QUNMNC . LAND _U$S. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject property and surrounding properties are designated on th* aorarl plan Land Use Map as Low Density Residential , sorted Rl , SiAgl,0 :14211y R46140ntial, and improved as single family residences, 4.0 ,r. , `11h BT�ITttIZ t Pursuant too. Sieotion 15301 , Existing Facilities of the California Envirom tal oualltlr "t, this project in categorically exempt. r . 1 y 1 5 .C COASTAL STATUS : Not applicable . 6 .0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS : rph Not applicable . ` 7.0 SPECIFIC PLAN: ;4ot applicablA . 6.0 SURDIVMON COMMITTEE : Not applicable. 9.0 HISTORY : on December 9 , 1981 , the Board of zoning Adjustments denied' Conditional 8Xception No. 81--49 on the subject property. The request was to permit a room addition (428 square feet ) to encroach . within 5 feet of the rear property line, a garage addition to be setback 7-1/2 feet in lieu of th required 22 foot front yard setback and a 6 foot high wall to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback . The application was denied because there were i no unusual circumstances applicable to the property that deprived the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. They denial was appealed to the Planning Commission by the .. . applicant , on January 19 , 1982, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Exception No. 61-49 on the subject property with the following conditions: 1 . The proposed room addition at the rear of the dwelling shall be permitted to encroach only to v:.thin eight (8) feet of the rear property Line reducing the addition size to 355 square Feet . 2. The new garage addition will be equipped with an automatic garage door opener . At t;resont,. the garage addition has been built, but the room addition has not . Consequently# Conditional Exception. No. 81-49 is still effective beCau3e some work has been completed. On August. 29, 1964, the Board of Zoning Adjustments .denied C0001tional Exception No , 84-460 a second request by the applicant ta ;pormit a 428 ,aquare foot addition to a single family dwelling to enoroa Ch S feet into the required 10 fount rear yard setback . Subsequently, the applicant appealed the denial . On . Octob*r 2i 1984 , the planning Commission upheld the Board of Boning 'Ad4ustmentle denial of the variance request and indicated thate aolt4ough the addition is architecturally compatible with the existing residence, private open opaee areas and setback r4q!WoMents should be maintained, Ifieft, it port 2/19/86 ;. (4241d) memo ti during the 10--day appeal period following the planning Commission 's r denial , ~he applicant was out of town and inadvertently failed to file an :appeal to the City Council . Thus , the applicant was required to wait one year prior to ref; ling the same variance request; . 10 . 0 ISSUES .AND ANALYSIS : Conditional Exception No . 85-93 , a third request by the applicant for a zoom addition with a 5 foot rear yard setba,,ck in lieu of 10 feet , waa reviewed and denied by the Beard of zoning Adjustments on January 15, 1986 . The a3dition, which is 1716* x 24160 ( 428 square foot ) and designated for an office and den, is id.�ntical to plans submitted with the two previous variance requests . The proposed room addition will be architecturally Compatible with the main house including a combination rible and A-frame type roof at a height of 15 feet extending to 5 f,Let of the rear property line . As mentioned in the Previous variance request , the main issue of the conditional exception is what special circumstances applicable to the property, such as size, shape , topography, location or surroundings , exist which depr !.ves the property of privileges enjoyed by other, property in the vicinity and under the RI Zoning District , due to the strict application of the Huntington Beach Ordinahet Code. Staff has again evaluated the site and determined that no unique features related to the land exist that deprive the property owner development privileges enjoyed by others due to the uniform application of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . . The subject property is a typical , rectangularly shaped 60 ' x 1001 , relatively flat residential lot . It ie zoned R1 and similar to other lots within the single family residential subdivisich in which it is located. Therefore, granting a conditional exception to allow the requested 5 foot encroachment would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and R1 district . If approved, a precedent would be set reproving variance requests of 5 foot rear yard setbacks for single-story, residential additions on typical. residential lots . it should be noted that the only exception in tine Code to allow a 5 foot rear yard setback is on prop*;rties zoned R1 which abut open land such as a school site , golf course, public utility right-of-way and flood control right-of-way that provides aw minimum l0o feet in clear width (Section 9103 . 4 and 9102 . 4 ) . Thi? property however does not:' abut any of the, . above mentioned open space uses. After reviewing the proposed site plan, thare are options available to the applicant for the expansion of his home which would comply with the Code are tollove: 1 . Construct a smaller room that encroaches only 2 feet into the required la foot setback consistent with the planning Commission 's approval in 1982 ; ! state Report - 2/19/86 _3- ( 4241d ) ' y� i I -u V 2 . Construct a wider room with a depth of 14 ' 6" ua approved by the planning Commission to achieve a 428 square foot size room while maintaining the it font rear yazd setback and 5 foot side � yard setback; ,! 3 . Construct the addition off the front of the house and relocate the spa and patio area to the rear . '. • �f researched other variance requests in the vicinity of the +.;) ject property and found that only ont, for less than a 10 foot r-•ar yard setback had been approved Eby the Board of Zoning Adjustments ) . That variance request was for a 5 foot rear yard setback in lieu of 10 feet for a single stray addition to a single family residence. The unusual circumstance applicahl.e to the pro`)trty was that the parcel is a reverse corner lot which means the parcel ' s rear yard abuts the side yard of an adjacent parcel . 11 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the planning Commission uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment 's denial of Conditional Exception No. 85-93 based on the following findings: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL.: 1 . Because of the size , configuration , shape and lark of unique topographic features of the subject property , there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land , buildings or premises involved which do not apply generally to property of class of uses in the same district . The parcel is similar in size and shape with other parcels in the subdivision and ins relatively flat . 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprike the- subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification because It is a typicaZ 60 by 100 foot R1 zone& lot. 3 . singe the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks , such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial M. property rights. 4 . Gr4nting of Conditional Exception No . 85-93 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 5 . Conditional Exce .tion No. 81-49 was approved byy the Planning Comission its 19�2 and is still effective w:;ich permits an addition to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot setback . Staff Repert -• 2/19/86 -4- ( 4241d ) F G 11 .0 A LTERNAT1 i7E ACTION : Reverse the Board of Zoning Adjustment 's decision and approve Conditional Exception No . 85-93 based on the following findings and condltions � FIND ?OR APPROVAL: 1 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will F not be debt imental to: a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity$ b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2 . Because of special circumstan?s applicable to the subject property, including size, .shape , topography, location or surroundings , the str ct application of the zoning Ordinance is found to' deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the virinitX and under identical tone classifications . 3 . The granting of a conditional excepwion is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.. 4. The granting of Cosldltional Exception No . 85-9; will not be maitarially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classificatciona . S' The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely aff #. the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . J I SUGGESrB Ct7NP;TIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . The.Arite plan , floor plans , and elevations received and dated Dec!efter 23, 1985 shall be the approved layout . 2.. The development shall Comply with all requirements of the Building, Development Services and F; re Departments, 3. The addition shrill be architecturally compatible with the existing residence and shall be limited to one story. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area Hap � site gla� .; Letter o . appeal Board Actiin Board OV24ning Adjustments Minutes . staff Report 2/19/96 ( 4241d) oft S. R1-CZ = IP Joe 7�A+ Ai-CZ / A '•rr z VIA z 00, d4 su`aMe _ ��-.L-„_ I rn } " r I 1 i�NT1 DNA -�v►j'ftro,. �: 3 r� � C��r�1. G C •`� � ���I .� AI � 7 ' 1 I I FrT 4421 LE{LAW DRIVE NIJNT14GTON BEACH, CA *?dui ;�, 511�l) g6a�Ix1� r1 .Ya nua r y 17 , .1986 ! Mr ,, Tom Lao+e!ngond , Chairman Huntington Beach Manning Commission P . 0 . Box 1.90 Hunting Yon Beach, C4 92648 SUBJECT: Conditional Exception No . 85-93 Dear, Chairman Livengood t'hi n iett.er is bring written 'Co a ppeb3 the decision for denial on C985-93 by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The Board did not chive ;air consideration to the proposed building plans ; includinq architecture , building oriei, tation , sunlight and open mpac4. In addition , .age and character of the neighbor- hood plus the tact th•a t si m i i is r requests have been granted were not given equals consideration . Please schedule the appeal for hearing as soon as poAsible. Very trawl; you , K. A v REYNOLDS Encl N $ 16 5 appeal fee IjUNW46TO" OEM V,YEI.0eMEMT OARV OM „ AN it 06 t•` ' CA 92 v. w. 1 BOARD of zoninG ADJUSTMEnTS ,j C1z'Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH- CALIFORNIA ` P. O. Box 190.92"s 10WOMI 1,714) 534-5277 CGNDT,r'10NA.. EXCEPT CAN No. 85-93 Applicant : Kenneth A . nnynolds 9421 Leilani Drive Huntington vo,ach , California 9.1646 Rer;uest : To nermi. t an addition to a sincle family residence which eac:ro-, ches five feet ( 5 ' ) into the required ten foot ( 101 ) rear ,yard setback :.ocation : Subject property is loc:atee at 9421 Leilani Drive ( North side of Leilani Drive approximately 250 feet West of 8usha.:d Street ) Date of Denial : January 15 , 1986 i ,.ear Applicant : Your application was acted upon by the Hunt:.ncton Beach Board of ' on. in.q Adjustments on Tanu ry 15 , 1986 , and your request was Denied , Under the pt-ovision: of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code , Lhe action taken by the sriard of .zoning Adjustments is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you or by an .interested party . Said appeal must be in writing and mast zet forth in detail the action and grounds by wbich the applicant or interested party dei►ns himself aggrieved . Said appeal must be accompatni6d by a filing fee of One Hundred and Sixty-five Dollars ( $165 .00 ) and submitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten ( 10 ) days of' the date of the Board ' s decision . The last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee for th.e anove noted application is January 25 , 19S6 . Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any application becomes null 4nd void one ( 1 ) year after the final appro+tal , unless actual construction has begin . r conditional Exception No . 85-93 ianuat,y 15 , 1986 ,- Page Two f FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1 . Because of the size , configuration , shape and lack (%f unique topagraphfc feat-iron of the subject property, there does not appear to be excesptiUnal or extraordinary L -:_rcumstancpe or w conditions applicable to the land , buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of ! uses in the same district . The lot is rectangular in shape and similar to other lots in the vicinity . I i' � 1 Z . Sxceptional ci. rrumstancee do not apply that deprive the subject F property of r iv i l eges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classiE cations because it is a typical sixty foot by one hundred foot (60 ' x 1.041 ) R1 x�ned lot , Z . Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks , such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 3 . Granting of Conditional Exception No . E5-93 would constitute a special privilege inconaistent with limitations Upon properties in the vicinity. I hereby certify ,.hat conditional Exception No . 85-93 was Deoieie,, by the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Huntington eeaact, , california► , cn January 15 , 1986 , up,,)n the foregoing conditions and citations . Very, trusty yours , t r Glen K. Godfrey, Secretary Board of. Zoninq Adjustments GICG: jh ( 4024d ) Sul , IN A, 1 Min!aLea , H . H. Board of Zoning Adjustments January 15 , 1986 � page 4 CONDIT-ZONAL EXCEPTION NO, 85--93 i Applicant : Kenneth A. Re nolds � A request to pr�! rmir an addition to a single family residence which encroaches fiv feet ( 51 ; into the required ten foot ( 101 ) rear yard setback . Subject property is located at 9421 Leilani Prive ( North side of Leilani Drives approximately two hundred fifty feet ( 250 ' ) West rf Bushard Strree'7. ) . This request is covered by Categarical Exemption , Class 1 , c:alifornia Environmental Quality Act , 1984 . Staff stated this applicant is prc•pos,.ng an addition to the existing " single family residence which will be used as an * in-home" office with a large closet space . The riquired setback is tc:n feet ( 10 ' ) ; however , in 1982 , the applicant requested a similar encroachment into the rear yard setback and also in the front . Thy} planning Commission approved eight feet ( 81 ) in the rear and ten feet ( 10 ' ) its the front . In 1984 , the applicant requested an additional tt)ree foot ( 31 ) encroachment in the rear yard in addition to the two feet ( 21 ) already granted by the Planning Commisslon . This request was denied by this Board because it would be setting a precedent in the area. Staff is recommending denial of this request because of the two foot ( 21 ) encroachment which already exists and the fact the apl: ' icant has a stindard sixty foot by one hundred foot ( 60 ' x 1001 ) lot located in an R-1 Zone . Michael Strange asked if the applicant would exceed the site i coverage ,cor this lot if the addition was approved and Staff replied the opcn space requirements and the site coverage would be within the established limits . Mr . Strange then asked if there was any land-related hardship. Staff again explained the lot was a typical Yot size and there were other alternatives available to the applicant for expansion such as building a second story addition . The Public Hearing was opened and Kenneth A. Reynolds waca present . Mr . Reynolds stated he intended to carry out the present architectural theme of the residence. He stressed the fact there wuuld be no visual intrusion into the neighbor ' s property. Mr .. F.eynolds said the house to his North is twiinty-two feet ( 22 ' ) away and this , coupled with the five foot ( 5 ' ) s% tback being requested, would crea ;:e plenty of space between the units . [fir . Reynolds presented some photographs of the surrounding area and stat�.d his addition would be a great improvement to the area . Ther-i was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the protect so the Public Hearing was closed. '4- 1/15/86 D2A , P r Y ,1 r Minutes , H, B. board of Zoning hdjustments January ) 5 , 1986 ` Page 5 Daryl smith asked Staff 11f notices regarding this proposed addition had gone to the adaacent neighbors and whether there had been any objections . Staff stated the notices had been bent and no f objections had keen filed with the City . sill Patapoff again reiterated the fact the applicant could choose other methods of gaining the desired increase in square footage without extending further into the required 3ett.ack . Rose Cranater pointed out that , if Mr . Reynolds was granted this encroachment , a future owner could also then build a two-story unit in addition to this proposed encroachment . VPON K)TION BY STRANGE AND SECOND BY PATAPOFYF, CONDIT1014AL EXCEPTION NO. 85-93 WAS DENIER i'IT,H THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL : 1 . Because of the size , configuration , shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property , there does not j appear to be exceptional or extrazordbnary circumstances or i conditf ons applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district . The lot is rectangular in shape and similar to other lets in the vicinity . • ;c . Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject I property of privilegee enjoyed by other properties in , he same son,n classifications because it ,tc a typical sixty foot by one hundred foot ( 60 ' x 1001 ) Rl zoned int . 2. since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established eetbacksr such a conditional exception *,s not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 3 . Granting of Conditional Exception No . 85-93 would constitute a aptcfal privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity . AYES: Cronmer , Patapoff, Shaw, Strange Wfis , Smith ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW No. 95-44 Lo..r.,ei 1 l O . ,Hairtt ge.. A request to construct an 11 , 570 ware loot industrial building . SubJect property is located at 17622 Sttsltr Lane ( toot aide of • 1/15/96 BSA ,4, . w ' KENNETH A. REYNOLDS, A.r.C.P. 1421 41PL W DRIVE HUNTINGTON 49AQM, rw\ 926e ��1�1 peI��Z71 February 20 , 1986 'I{ -, Mayor Ma nd.i c Huntington Beach City Cotincil c/o City Clerk P. O. Box 190 Huntington Bench , GA 92648 SUBJECT : Conditional Exception No 85 -93 i Doa r Mayor and Council Members : This letter is being written to appeal the Planning Commission decisiorti under a split vote for denial of CE 85-93. They failed ,�o give fair consideration to our proposed addition or to the agar and character of the neighborhood. in addition, they did not even discuss the fact that a Nimiliar request for property .in our neighborhood was recently approved and has been const;+ucted. Very truly yoCr-- , K. A. Reynolds Sncl . : $ 165 appeal fees • � r • . F HUN` NGTON BEACM L011ZL11 Tank DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 9422 Lanai Circle Huntington Unch, California 92646 FEB 19 1986 (714'1 964--2773 N.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Yebruary 199 1986 Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington keac), E. 0, Box 190 2000 Hain street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject; ApPM OF CONDITIONAI. EXCEPTION NO. 85--93 UN REYNOLDS Gel1t?et�et.: 'Please consider this my forxal request for, d$nial of the appeal for Conditional Exception No. 85-93 submitted by fir. Ken Reynolds, 9421 Leilani Drive wherein Mr. Reynolds Is requesting a permit for an addi- tion to his single family xesidance which will encroach five f:ett into the required ten foot rear yard setback. otrm the property directly north of Mr. Reynolds property (our rear IaLds abut) . The lots in our tract are not deop, approximately 100 fa+et, and our rear yards are dxtremely qmall which is restrictive to proper light , air and ventilation. We can pear Into each others windows as it is. In gay ease, I also have a rathor large telephone pole planted In one cornet of my yard. Newport Weat, a tract of luxury homes built in the early 1960'e , was designed for aeetnetiL as well as practical reasons such as Indi- viduatl privacy, allotting to much room as possible for outdoor living to leach home, all of which were considerations when I purchased the property, I contend that the encroachment into tl r rear yard setback is too gre&t an Infringement on my privacy not to , Mention the lessening of light. &I.r and ventilation to vhicb I hove previously referred. Therefore. I request that you deny Mr. Reynolds ,a permit for an addition to his single family resideuce, Respectfully, Lorelei Turner �'i�• .raw r, Pubi.ish March S, 1986 NOTICE OF PVZLIC EIW ING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL CONDITIONAL NCEPTION NO. G5-31 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that tha! Huntington Brach City Council will hold a public hearing is the Council Chamber at the Huntiagton Beach Civ'+c Center, 2000 Main Street, 4untlogton Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated belaq to receive and consider the statements of all persocu who wish to be heard relative to the appli.zation described below. DATI: Monday, March 171 , 1986 TDM: 7: 30 P.M. APPLICATION MMBEH: ApFR:al to Planning Commission' s denial of Conditional Exception ;"o. 85-93 LOCATION: 9421 Leilani Driie , north side of Leilani Drive , wezit of Biashard Street PROPOSAL: to perrni t an addi :.ion to u single family re-sidence which encroaches five feet (51 ) into the recuired teii foot (10 ' i rear yard setback. EMROtGNTAL SUMS: Categorically E.,-•empt ON PILE: A copy of the proposed Conditional Exception No. 85-93 and a legal description is on file in the Department of Development Sirvices , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach , California 92648 ALL I2dTMES'TEO PERSONS are invited tc attand said hearing and express opialons of submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Ail applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposay are an file with the office of the City Clerk, 2000 M,siv Street, Huntingtou Death, California, for inspection by the publiir. Eftitri:MGMK BEACH CITY COUNCIL Dy: Alici-a N. warm orth City Clark Phone (714) 536-5405 M Men* 3 r I M i1 40VA AL 1; Date : 2/3/86 NOTICE OF Pt1BuIC FEARING APPEAL OF THE DENAIL CP CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 85-93 Pa� TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO A SIRGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE W ICH ENCROACHES FIVE FEET ( 5 ' ) INTO THZ REQUIRED TEN! FOOT ( 10 ' ) REAR YARD SETBACK NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission will hold a public searing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Teach Civic Comer , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persona who wish to to heard relative to the application described below. DATE xIME : t9r 1986 - 7 jk P . M . APPLICATION NU�MBE^: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL, EXCEPTION NO . 85-93 APPLICANT Ken Reynolds LOCATION : 9421 Leilani Drive ( north side of Leilani Drive , West of Hushard Sheet REQUEST : To permit an addition to a single family residence which enr. :-oaches five feet ( 51 ) into the required ten food ( 10 ' j rear yard setback . ERVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically Exempt ON FILE : A copy of the proposed appeal is on file in the Department of Developmleo t Services , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Teach , California 92648 , for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hea-ing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above ., It there are any further questions p3case call Scott Heas, Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . James W. Palin , Secretary Huntir,%,ton Beach Planning Commission (41684-3) NOTICE TO CLEK ,T �S ,RULE PUBLIC HEARING r TO: CITY CLERK' S OFFICE DATE : FLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF AP' s are attached AP' s will follow No AP' s Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal1 Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) 7 Has City Attorney' s Office been YES NO •Wormed of forthcoming public hearing? Refer to _ Planning Department - Extension # for additional information, * If ggeai , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . Nr.•!ti: . ' 'Ni i u��tl.•a.rs/, I�Y . 0 +r eyyfl , - AP' '' -511-11. w.AP's 114-511-26 hPs 114-512-10 J� moon JAMES E. LOWE "' ARTHUR L. HITE 11131 TARL71 CIRCLE 22151 LUAU LANE 9441 LANAI iRCLE W1'P1W7M BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON HRACH , CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 APs 114-511- 1'; A1's 114-50-27 APs 114-512-11 A. Demmi$ U[Xi1N GORDON L. ti1XSOP1 '1HOMAS J. FISCHER 9361 TAHITI CIRCLE 22141 LUAU LANE 9461 LANAI CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON REACH, CA. (126f46 )11!NA tNCTON REACH, CA. 92646 APs il4-511- 13 APs 114-517-01 AFs 114-512. 12 MVnANA J . GRt9N8ZRC ROGER F. KUNKLE ROBS N. COOK 9352 TAHITI CIRCLE 9472 TIKI CIRCLE 9471 LANAI CIRCLE HUNTING-CON baACH , CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACIi, CA. 92646 HUNTI1+GTCN BEACH, (;A. 92546 APs 114-511 .14 APs 114-512-02 A)'s 114-512- 13 JAMS R. ASOWb BRIAN JOHNSON WILLIAM J. H.ARTINI 9342 T'AHITI CIRCLE 9462 TIKI CIRCLE 9472 LANAI CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BXACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HU`ITINGTnN BEACH, CA. 92646 APB 114-511-19 APs 114-512-03 APs 114-512-14 WaltGIR I . PETER:; THOMIAS F. VARGA JERI A. THOMPSON :1341 LRILl.NI DRIVE 9442 TIKI CIRCLES 9462 LANAI CIRCLE RUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA . 92646 HUNTINGTON MACH, CA. 92646 APs 114-511-20 APs 114-512-04 APs 114-512-15 JANIIS C. I68OTSOR RETTi' E. BUTLEF DONALD L. FOSTYR 9351 LBILANI DRIVE 9432 TIKI CiRCLF. 9442 LANAI CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 APs 114-511-21 APs 114-512-05 APs 114-512-16 KENT49rH D. KILLIAN JOHN A. HANSEN JACK W. ZELLER 9361 LEILANI DRIVE 9422 TIKI CIRC 4308 W. 17th STR99 HUNTINGTOR BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BE, 1, CA. 92646 LAWNDALE, CA. 9026'0 APs 114-511-22 APs 114-512-(js AP: 114-512 -17 ROBERT R. KSUSCUIR RING ROBERTI DANA C. RVAN 22211 LUAU I 'Na P. 0. BOX 53, 1750 S. VILLAGE LANE � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON I ,CH, V.A. 92646 OREM, hTAH 84057 APs 114-511-23 AFs 114-5tX-07 APs 114-512-18 CARROLL HOPKINS a0B9KT D. HALL CUBS ESTATES PROPERTIES 22191 LUAll LANE 941 ,' LANAI CIRCLE 76?7 UAKPORT STREET HUNTINrTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 OAKL.AND, CA. 94614 APs 114-511.24 APs 114-512-00 APs 114-512-19 CNARI.B$ W. HoNlER V INCENT L. ANTI STA RORERT A. R t Cw, TR. 22181 LUAU LANK 9421 LANAI CIRCLE 360 S . OAKLAND RUNI`MOTOW SEACHo CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON REACH, CA. 92646 LA HABRA, CA. 90631 Ne 114-511-23 APs 114-512-09 APs 11 512-21 TOLA D. VAZIll HANS G. JACOBS ROBERT B. ROSS MLNOA COVII 20871 SPARKMAN LA X 8405 6. VIA DEL. PAR" > tw � 181ZA t, CA. 92663 HUNTINGTON XNACH, CA. 92646 SCOTTSDALE, AZ. $5256 r'1`� e ' •1 Aft 14-542-22 ..,AP: 114-513-22 APt 149-361-03 r CLd6NICNS P. TE LOMBARDI MARGUERL M. SMITH PHIL 'IaYON ' � 0441 LRILANT DRtV9 9442 LFILANI DRIVE 22241 Wddn ISLAND LANE II lt1ll�ITINGTON SIACH, CA. 92646 HUNT14GTON BEACH, CA. 9264E kiUkVT�NCTAN BEACH, CA. 4264E I pP1 114-512-23 AP: 114-513-23 AO, 149-:i61• Doi KART. W. HEWES, 3rd KATHLEEN E. ARNOI,0 9522 N S NE I) ON ' 94t►1 LRILANI DRIVE 9452 1�EII.ANI DRIVE 5522 CASTINR bi�LVE HUNCINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 i APt 114-512-24 AP: 114-513-24 AP: 149-161-06 PAUL A. KRIST>uNSlLN SIEGLINnE BACHMANN WILLIAM STEIN 9G71 Ll1ILANI DRIVEP . 0. BOX 1862 1.77-F RIV�:RSIDF AVENUE HUNTINGTON ARACH, CA. 92646 COSTA MESA, CA. 9262E NEWPORT REACH, CA. 92643 APt 1x4-513-14 AP, 149- 351-03 APs 149-361-08 LUIS E. ARMBNDARIZ D. STERRY FAGAN !1NGELO r,_INALDI 035Z LEILANI DRIVE 22131 WOOD ISLAND LANE. P . 0. BOX 342 HUNTINGTON 6EACH, CA , 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON REACH, CA. 92648 AI', 149-351-04 AP: 149-371.01 Alit 114-513-15 JAMES S. ZANCGRK J . MICH:,EL WELCH I'IETRO TROZZI 9362 LZILANt DRIVE 2215 ., WOOD ISI.AND LANE- 9471 GATESHEAD DRIVE HUNT7XGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 1� APt 114-513-16 APs 149-351-05 AP: 149-371-02 KSWUTH 0. PARKMAN + MARION S . GOLFOS ROBERT C. KETNER 9312 LNULANI DRIVE 22161 WOOD ISLAND LANE 9451 GATESHEAD DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 APs 114-513- 17 AP: 149-351.-06 APs 149-•371-03 VtLLY FERNANDEZ ANTHONY VISCO FRANCIS K. C. FOO 9382 LICILANI DRIVE 22171 WOOD ISLAND LANE 9441 GATESHEAD DRIVE HUNTItroN BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 91-54-0 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 APs 114 -513- 18 AP, 149-351-07 APs 149-371-04 SHIRLET J. MC FALL WILLIAM JOHN TRADER ADOLF VARTANIAN 9372 LIZILAIrIt DRIVE 22181 WOOD ISLAND LANE 9431 CATESHGAD DRIVE j HU:�INGTOR BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 k Ape 114-513-19 AP: 149-351-o8 APj 149-371-05 JAMS M. MURRAY RICHARD J . 50SHNIK KEVIN G. GEYER 1646 PORT MANLZIGN PLACE :_2201 W OD ISLAND LANE 9421 GATESHEAD DRIVE nW ORT B&ACR, CA. 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 i Ate 114-513-20 AP, 149-r361-01 APt 149-371-06 EDGAR L. GRI"ITH STEPHAN C. SPECHT CHUNG HSING LIU 8935 Lt"ANT8 DRIVE 22221 WOOD ISLAND LANZ 9401 GATESHZAD DRIVE x f�1lIT'YIER, 4A. 9V603 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 HUN"rINGTO4l BEACH, CA. 92646 Ape 114-513-21 Apt 149-361-02 APs 149-371-07 R0§2RT T. RASNUMN oGE!!N L. WISH RRALlit"tI 22231 MOD 18LA11)i LANE 9391 GATESNZAD DRIVE ` 11 IRGUM SCAM, CA. 92646 EUNTINGTm B&ACN, CA. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 C 0o. '49-,771.08 APB 149-372-25 8. TINC GI:DRIA C. CUELLAR CATRSHIAD DRIVE 12301 WALLINGbaU LANE ■IINTINCTON BELCH, CA. 92646 HUNTINCTON BEACH, CA. 92646 ,APr 149-371-P, iLSEkT N. FARELL 937.1 GATESHEAD DRIVE 81INTINGTON $EACH, CA. 92646 � 1 APi 149-371-40 THOMAS LEE PETRUSON, TR. 22292 VALLINGPORD HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA., 92646 APi 149-311-41 SEND T61 CHENG, TR. 9361 GATZ81MAD DRIVE I HUNTINGTON AZACH' CA. 92646 APi 149-372-01 DWIGHT W. FERGUSON , 22291 WALLINGFORD LANE ' HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92646 4 APi 149-372-01 JOHN C. $ALL t 9422 GATESHXAO DRIVE: � HUN'1'INGTON BEACHt CA, 92646 APi 10-372-03 JERALD C. UNBAUCH g402 C<ATUREAD DRIVE HUMNOTOR BEACH, CA. 92646 R AFy 149-372.04 979Z6 d0 `HDV3R NO,LDHIJ.NnH GAETAIN C. ABANDONATO allOADNIIIVM ZOf.ZZ 019Z6 d0 '4uaag uollulaunH > 9392 GATEBREAD DRIVE X 113A •d S9Wb C '-10 I Nue7 Z E fib HU14TIWTOR BEACH, CA. 92646 K-iLE-61t :dV rau�+�p/au�plv�H i. APs 149-a'/2-05 � APs 14 Dj72-RA 9b9Z6 YO '4aeag uclOu j 3un" 949Z6 VO '43eag U01vul aunH 930R GA'FNBIt1IAD DRIVE 'aU i ee�v1 Z:S1t6 •n.tQ i aua•I Z ib6 1tMINCTON SLACK, CA. 92646 arvro0/luaptsay =aur►O/auapjoaR Apt 140-372-06 !RAM C. ILRIVAIfRtili 9'79Z6 VO '4aeag uo)lulaunH 0+�9Z6 VO '4�vOs uoaBul3uon `tMf ! b�AC1t, CA. 126y5 'a0 1uRtiary iE+16 'xtl fudiF"'� ji'i6 auuapljuaplsog ��wra��arplt�0 4.Aty of Huntington Beams ��r✓- . .�- i 7i PAKa [no � MAR-r!a AP, 1-'P APt 114-511-11 JOHN MOORE 9351 TAHITI CIRCLE HUNTTNMN BEAM CA. 92646 . i ;Y -w y; Av" to PuDOA #dvvaroneemrs of so k0a ►nc putt«: C AM11tM by WOW Of the Sufwior Court ol drol►ii Wnly. � (A 1' �d. M4"bW A.ii 14. dated 24 SWernbbr. M 1, 60d (� A+ 1. da1411 11 Jae. Nil �1 z 1 VA i STATE OF CALIFORNIA r County of Orange PWM 10-MWO A-,.M" Cud o M;Z, A is dq M 1 ppYd soh N 0+ —N40 ;OA� U� Yr 1 WN a Citizen of the united Slates and a reeldont -1 r tft County Alora"d, i am ovor the ni Of *9111 a+t )ors, ttu7d not a porty to or interested in the Wow entitled matter, t am a principal clerk of the Orange C*4st DAILY PILOT, with which Is c+.orlbine d mo NEWS-PRESS. a newspaW of genets: circulation, printed and published ;r the City of Costs Mesa, County of Oregp. State of California, anc, that a Notice of P,u b l i ci c Hearing o� whlch copy attached hereto is a t nia and vmnpieie copy, was printed .arid published in ilia Cost* Messp. � j ' "wport Beach, Huntington eeac",, :=ountaln Valley, IrvirA. the South COGSt comrlmur0ias and Lapum Heach im.mv, Of said newspaper !or r_i.m convacutiya weeha to will. the Issue(s) of 1 ' r 2,1 y � I � I dool e, ulcer penalty of perjury, that the to is true grid corroO. ftectmw on October 29 9S 3 at Code Mgt, California. i05 ',Q) S Mob i rz Y OF HUNTIN CXY BEACH 2= MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK y•lV� k Navember 6, 1985 W. W. Morningstar 92CI -C West 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 The City Council of the City of Huntington Reach at its regular meetirn; held Monday, November 4, 1965 denied your appeal filed to the Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit #85-60 and Conditional Exception i85•-63. Use Permit 085-60 and Conditional Exception #85-63 were approved as modified, and with conditions. Please contact Jim Palin, Development Services Director For f'urhher information 536-5271. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Ai�I:C$t,je cc: jots Pslin, Developmnt Services Director Gail Huttcn, City Attorney r t� fT 71i 1 , •1, CITY OF HUNTING 1"ON BEACH rr' D MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9260 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK j„ November 60 1985 Lincoln Propertiea r• 16152 Beach Blvd Huntington beach, CA 92647 The City Council of the City of Huntington beach at its regular meeting held Monday, ryvamber 4 , 1965 denied thi appeal filed to the Planning Con nission's approval of Use Permdt #65-60 and Conditional Exception #F85-63, and approved same �Nith modifications and conditions. Plouse contact ,dim Palin, Development Services Director for further information - 536-5271 . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark AMW:CD:js cc: James Palin, Development Services Director Gail Hutton, City Attorney IT�1�w:71�1 h ..Oft r 44 REQUE6 i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION r' �•i;«ti , Daft d t a il s . lbraiterdtat Ponorable Mayor and City Council bmitli by: Charles W. Thompaon , C.tty Administrato � � Q f"o good by: James W. Pali.n, Director, Development Services e USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 5-63 APPEAL (APPELLANT: W. W, MORN INGSTAR) c1Miea a whh 1`.verrW Pali"? P4 Ysa i l New poiky or 'rxaWion W2qRWW"%Mt true. 11 Wmmwrertation,Arrlysi:, Funding Scum@,AftwrniNve Actions, Att mwts: STATRIM2 or I SSIVE: Trairr �-ttted for your consideration is an appeal of the Manning Commission ' s approval of Ilse Vermlt No . 85-60 and Conditional Ex~-option No . 85- 63, a request to permit the development: of a 102-unat apartment: complex en the north side of Warner Avenue betwetn Lynn and Sams Streets . The project was previously approved as a 102-unit apartment project in Marcie , 1985 . Prier to that (January, 1984 ) the Planning Commission approved a 102-unit condominium for the site . The proposal presently under consideration is substantially the same project as the prior approvals , However , the applicant is seeking to convert 24 one-bedroom with den units to two--bedrooms , In addLtior , there wi11 be minor setback encroachments and deviations from the height limit . This is discussed in further detall. within the atnalyeis section of the report . t�l��IMflbO�l'yIQN The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council sustain the Planning Commission 's approval of Use Permit No. 85-60 and Conditional Exception No . 85-63 based can the fallowing findings . � i ON NOTIOR BY LIVENC,00D AND SECOND BY PORTER USE PERMIT NO. 85-60 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION No. 05-63 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE . AM: Li oengood, Erskine, Pcrter , Mir jahangi r 1145$: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher ASS UT: None ABSTAIN: None FIROM69 rOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 65-60: �51 it 14 The granting of Ume Permit No. 85-60 (herein described as Scheme Bl an the site plan dated September 26, 1985 ) for a l02-unit apartment will not adversely affect the Master Plan 1 f _ • . 1 w Tq F f of the City of Huntington Beach because the General plan has set forth provieionat for this type of land use as well ae setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing, .` 2. The ranting of Use gsrmit No. g5-60 for a 1O2-unit apartment coo ax will not be injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity because the lot size, depth , frontage and other design features as modified by Conditional Exception No . b5- 63 are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City. 3. The granting of Use permit No. 85-60 ( herein described as Schemer B1 on the site plan dated September 26 . 1985 ) for a 102 unit apartment project will not be detrimental, to persons residing or working in the vicinity because the property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for, Medium-High Densiiy Residential was placed on the property. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL, EXCEPTION NO. 85-63 : 1 . Due to the slope of the property coupled with the existing parking structure constructed on the site , the appli^arit has demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the land that: do not ap!)ly generally to the property or class of uses in the same district . 2 . The granting of Conditional. Exception No . 85-63 described as Scheme B1 on the site plan dated September 26 , 1985 for a 1 � foot encroachment: of storage areas into the front yard setback and a 1 foot 6 inch encroachment into the aides yard and a maximum deviation of five feet from the 35 foot height limit for building no . 1. and the maximum deviation of 4 . 7 feet for a portion of building no. 2 will provide architectural variations in the building fare and will not be materially detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land , property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which such conditional exception is granted. 36 The applicant: is willing and able to carry out the purposes felt the conditional exception as sought and proceed without necessary delay. 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-63 for height and setbacks is necessary for the preaservation and enjoyment of substantial property Frights . The applicant is proposing a project which consists of two buildings with two- and three-story elevations over semi-subterranean r. 1101 -2- ( 3517d) f -- 11JA F I�q i I, lY � 1 5 ptrrkier0. Tha easterly-moat building will contain 6E units , the weaterly-most building will provide 36 units , and the central area will contain the recreational facilities , which consist of pool and jaouaai . The units differ from the past approval in that 24 one-bedroom units with don will become two-bedrour. units while 17 units remain an one-bedroom with den. The units range in size from $04 square feet to 925 square feet . ThWtional reviously approved project was vfmilar in size but provided some a retreat {onal amenities . An with the past project, the applicant intt (ads to incorporate the existing semi-subterranean parking structure. Altho%gh the present 1:ro ject is propo..;ed to be constructed as 1, apartment units the applicant plans on maintaining many of the features incori�vrated into the conOominium project . The common open space provided ( 44 , 533 square feet ) will exceed the requirements ( 200 400 square feet ) for apartment units Another key issue is the appl.icant 'o request for a density bonus (which was also part of the past approval ) . , The developer is requesting a 10 unit (10% ) increase above the permitted density , These additional units would be rented to persons earning less than 00 percent of the oeange: County Medium Ync,)me . Density for apartments is calculated as Follows: Gross Average x Fermitted Units per acre in; R3 zone ( 3 . 73 ) x ( 24 . 89 ) s 92 unite 10 unit density bonus 102 total units The applicant is also seeking approval of two variance requests as part of the development proposal . 1 . To allow the front units storage areas to encroach X toot into the required 15 foot front yard (setback and 1 foot 6 inch encroachment inta the side yard setback . 2. The applicant is seeking i maximum height of 39. 7 feet (as mftaau, ed from finished grade to top of the ridge ) for a portion of the structure located in the northeastly portion of the site . With respect to the first variance , the applicant has indicated in his attached letter that the balconies provide variations in the building su ,Face along Warner Avenue while the storage areas between decks, provide privacy between individual decks . Since private {; 1*0teation space is not required for apartments , staff feels that the addition of balconies/storage vill be an asset to the project . ?he second variance which is for building height, involves the easterly-mast units adjacent to the rear property line. In a previous approval, the applicant referenced top of slab as a low ;.;., paint, to peak of roof, to arrive at the height of 35 feet. In the ourrtnt proposal , finished grade is used as the .Lour point and peak of roof to be ustd as the high g point to measure the height RCA ( 3517d ) { `rS immediately adjacent to the building . Regardless of the method used to determine building height , the structures have remained basically N this *arse . Each Consist of 3 floors ( 9 feet in height ) plus 7 feet f0c the roof, for m total of 35 feet . The rurre►it proposal differs from the past approval by a Z foot substructure plenum which the applicant states is needed to provide additional structural support . In to effort toward resolving the building height concerns , the at itact prepared three alternative roof designs . Each alternative t was discussed at the planning Commission meeting and is explained in the attached written narrative . The Planning Commission selected r scheme Al as the preferred alternative . This i3 depicted on the attached plan which was prepared by the architect . F Tha applicant 's letter of appeal (see attached ) basically takes exception with the findings that were made by the Planning } Commission for the use permit and conditional exception . Staff believed that all the findings are valid and are based on the physical characteristics of, the land . Both the Planning Commission and staff support Scheme B1 as a desired design alternative for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : In January 1984 , the Planning Commission. au'opted Negative Declaration No. 83-47 which assessed the environmental effects of a 111-unit condominium project ( conditional Use Permit No . 83-32, Tentative Tract 12084 ) . Staff ' s analysis indicates that a change from ownership to rental units will not alter the status of Negative Declaration No . 83-47. Therefore , no further environmental analysis is warranted at this time . TIOND ING SOURCE: Not applicable . AL'!"M1 THE ACTION: The City Council may consider overturning the Planning Commission 's approval of Use Permit No . 85-60 and conditional Exception No . 85-63 and teeny the Eubject request . The City Council may also consider selecting eno;.ner design alternative as presented by the applicant at the October 1 , 1985 planning Commission meeting. 11'f" ACVM!TS: w' Letter of AF-,eal 2. Staff Report darted October 1 , 1985 with attachments w Planning Commission minutes dated October 1 , 1985 �'. �PrS$rkla RCA -4- ( 3517d) ,M 1n5! � ,•,�" 7 APPEALCL W.W. Morningstar NF aNITY92a-C, West 17th Street NptitaT0i1 ou".CALIF Santa Ana, CA 92706 (714) 547-7415 October, 10, 1985 a, Huntington Beach City Counsel 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Use Permit #85r59 Conditional Exception #85-6� (Lincoln Properties Proposed Devel- cpment-North Side of Warner be- tween Sims 6 Lyrin) Dear City Counsel: 1 own approximately 1 and 3/u acres adjoining the Proposed Dervekq meat on the north property line. I al-peal the action of the Planning Commission granting the: above-derscrlbed Use Permit and Conditional Excep- tion on the following grounds: 1. The findings for approval of Use hermit #85-60 are incorrect and untrue; 2. The findings for the Conditional Exception *85-63 are In©orrect and untrue; 3. There are no special circumstances applicable to this a property that tim different from the surrounaing pro- pP�y 6. There is no hardship on the developer in complying with the code density and height; the grant of the commission gives the +desverltr a special privilages to his great financial benefit, at the expense of my property; � 5. Therm is no environmental impact eeporrt mad* r+rl consid- ered; r 6. The grant will be injurious to property arwi Improvements In the vicinity; 7. The rant will !;a detramental to persms raiding or r: werNng In the vicinity; 6. Mar*, the cmmission took a recess end asked the staff to prepeft fiWtt s to cmfbrae to therir intended do- dskm. The s ett thorn hued with the dcvekper to propene said finding, which as of this a"i have net been transcribod; I A • r n. • � S1 r, s 4: Huntington Beech Counsel �2J- Re: Use �it #85-6d Conditional g. Before approving said Use Permit and Conditional Excep- tlon, the ommissicn took a straw vote on Y alternatives: ' (a) Original proposal of the developer; (b) Now louvered roof design towering height on building next to north property line; (c) New louvered roof design lowering height on all buildings; and (d) Reductlon of units to 2-stury along north property line. (b) and (d) was favored by the straw vote, however, the chairman only allowed a final vote on (b) plan, which E;. carried by a p to 3 vote; plan (d) was nearer put to a final vote, but presumptively could have carried with an even larger majority; 10. T'ho density bonus results in a tier of 3rd floor apartments along my property lint, approximately 15 feet above the Maximum building height limit, and 10 feet above the Exception height limit, which not only substantially damages my property, but restricts Its logica! development as all other development In the neighborhood is 2-story; 11. The developer stated their plans complied with the 35 foot excerption to the 30 foot maximum height limit. However, sold plans are approximately 45 feet In height and the foundation is within 11 feet of my property tine. Such a high development next to my 100 foot wide lot IF very damaging to my property. The deveioper did not demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" or the necei'My to preserve the enjoyment of a "substantial property right" . A similar development on the neighboring property would create a narrow 45 foot high canyon; 12. There would be no �.mrdshlp to the developer complying with the density and height limit applied to all the surrounding property. However, granting the develoer a special privilege In this case is a great hardship to me In restricting the development of my property and Its k ss, of value; and 13. Although 1 was allowed to speak at this planning oommis*ion hearing, my written objections were not Included with the *14octlon s :r}om the other property owners In the ne'ghbor- , hoed. The developer was given the rl ht to speak over and over,, but 1 was nev t to reply, Less Itted, .--') ;, ' ' l r : huntbVon batch development services department IEP O `fO: planning commission 01r: Development services DATLs October 1 , 1985 AWNCTa dss PeRm T NO. 85-60/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-81 4 On SepteAber 1.7, 1985 the Planning commission continued Uso Perm ' t Ala. 85-60 to conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 85-63 (a r'quest to permit a 102 unit apartment project with deviations from setback and height criteria ) until the October 1 , 1985 Planning Commission meetil-, . A committee comprised of Commissioner Porter , Commissioner Rowv, the applicant , an4 staff was formed to reconcile the project design as it relatrys to two of the conditional exception reeq�uests . as a result , the applicant has agreed to eliminate the balcony encroachment into the rear yard setback which would alleviate the concern raised by the property owner to the north . Th* other balconies will remaln as originally proposed . The second tasue raised by the Planning Commission involved tee height of the two structures. Az discussed at the Planning Coknaission , there has been a change in the method used for determining building height for proposed buildings on this site. In A ' previous approval, staff referenced top cf slab as a low point , to peak of roof , to artive at the height of 35 feet . In the current proposal , staff hao used the strict interpretation of the ordinance code which measures building height from f. intehed grade (as the lov point ) to peak of roof . Regardless of the method used to determine building height , the structures have remained basically the same . Each consult of 3 floods ( 9 feet in height ) plus 7 feet for the roof , for a total of 35 feet . The current proposal differs from the past approval by a 2 foot Bubatructure plenum which to needed to provide addttional structural support . The staff has attached a variety of methods for determining building height from a random ;.= selection of cities for the Planning Commission ' s review. s, 10 in effort toward resolvtaig the building heigght concerns, the architect has prepared three alternative roof designs for the apartvledts , Xach alternative is discussed in the attached written narrative End is depicted on the attached plan. Staff cont .nues to "pport the first submittal as the most architecturally appropriate The last area of concern addressed by the planning Commisvion to the dWskity bonum and hoer it relates to affordable housLng. The Afft A•*M� I yy __ Y4 �} ill ap�licant is requesting a 10 percent increase in density, or 10 un to above the maxtmun allowed density for a total of 102 units. A. question was ra teed relative to they number of units which ,btu$t be set- aside for families of low to moderate income ( 100 or 25% ) for ' thin protect . Staft has reviewed the 1985 Government code Section 65915 which states : *65915. (a ) When a aevelopexr of housing agrees to construct at least (1 ) 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and Families of low or moderate income , as defined in Section 50093 of the health and safety ' Code or 2 e '( ) lb p rrant of the total. units of a housing development for lower- income households , as defined in Section 50079 . 5 of the Health and safety code or ( 3 ) 5Q y ► percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development for , qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51. 2 of the Civil Code, a city, county, or city and county shall eiwher (1 ) grant a density bonus or ( 2 ) provides other Incentives of equivalent financial value. ( b) A developer may submit to a city , county , or city and county a preliminary proposal for the development of housing pursuant to this section prior to the ;:u.mittal of any formal requests for ger, �ral plan amendments , zoning amendments , or subdivision asap approvals . The city, county, or city and county shall , within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal , notify the housing developer in writing of the manner in which it will comply with this section . The city, county , or city oral county shall establis'i procedures for carrying our: this ,section , which shall include legislative body approval of the neans of compliance with this section . Wherefore , staff believes the applicant has satisfied the intent of the code by providing 10 percent of the units for persons of low incomes (below 80 percent of the Orange Coun Ly ?.than Income .). These ten un i its only apply to the density bonus, any bond financing obt4ined , of Mello Act requirements will have to be complied with on an indivieual basis . RBCORN NOATIO : Approve Use Permit No. 85-60 in conjunction with Conditional BxcOption No. 85-63 based are the findings and revised conditions of approval listed below. ATTACHMENTS: Rev Ised Conditions of Approval 2. Written narrative from applicant Revised el evat ion& (Alternative A, B, B1, C) '. 4 . Staff report dated September 17, 1985 5. Building height definitions 6 V. Government Code Section 65915 JWP: �e Staff Report -- 1 Q/1/85 -2- ( 3339d) , :I - � 1 1d1.' y I . I i a't l.- 1 i .ti COLMITIONS Of APPROVAL (WITH MdDIFICATIUNS ) ' - 1 I III II..�.�III.I.i I.A�11 .YII11 III p� �rF 1 . The site plan , floor plan and elevations received and dated .rRl• August 29, 1985 shall be the approved layout subject to any .w revtstons described herein. y' 2# Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall fiti a *reel mas with the Board of Zoning Adjustments , which she 1 or to final inspection on the last unit . 3. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers . This requirement may be waived " .; provided that the applicant will install a more energy-efficient alternative subject to review and approval of the Department; of Development Services . 4 . Natural gas Mall be stubbed in at trhe locations of cooking factlitica , water heaters , and central heating units . Thts requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy-efficient alternative subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services . 5 . Low volume heads shall be used in all showers . 6 . All building spoils , such as unused lumber , wire , pipe , and other surplus or unusable materials , shall be disposed of at an offstte factlitu equipped to handle them. 7 . Energy efficient, lighting , such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps , shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for a:iergy conservation . 1 8 . All structures on the subject property , whether attached or det&shed, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CKEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering , with the application for a building permit. 9 . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structured within this development shall be constructed in comp; nee with the 9-factor as indicated by the geologist 's ,• ,port . Calculations for footings and structural memoer,s to withstand anticipated 9-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. ;, la+ A chemical analysis , as well as physical properties of the k'; SOU on Subject property, shall be submitted to the City for review p;: for to the issuance of building permits. Demotes new and modified conditions . r i;,dt,t 1 11. . A fire n1arm system, approved by l•he Eire Department, shall be , installed throughout as per NFPA standards . 12. Am automatic sprinkler system, approved by the Fire Department# shall be installed throughout as per NFPA standards and City specifications . •a' 13. A standpipe system a �sraved by the Fire Department: shall be installed as per Huntington Beach Fire Code and NFPA standards . 1.4 . A pedestrian access gate , minimum 6 foot width for Fire Department use , shell be provided from Warner Avenue to gain access to the east side of Building 2 , the recreation center , ,.;. and the west side of Building 1 . 15. hydrants must be instail,�d can-site to provide a hydrant within 150 feet from any part of the perimeter of any building. 16 . prior to any combustible construction all roadways , water supply systems , and fire hydrants shall by installed and operable . 17 . All perimeter block walls shall be on priva+-e property . *18 . The applicant shall submit to the Department of Development Services and Department of public Works a landscape and irrigation plan for review and approval which depicts: a . Heavy screen planting , specifically trees , shall be cequireu along northerly property line of the development . � b . Special attention shall, be given to the front yard setback . *c . Special plant material as depicted on the three dimensional plan submitted to the Planning Commission on September 17 , 1965. �1• 19. All on-site sew,�,r anO storm drain facilities shall be g,ztvate and constructed per Public Works standards . ra PTr; 20. All on- site accessways shall be private and constructed per public Workn standards . 21 . No on-street parking will be permitted on the north side of � I Warner Avenue. 2A.. The developer shall provide and install any traffic control devices as required by Public Works . ; :�,•'; 2 All public improvesenta shall be completed per approved pl.aoso ftese plats shall bra reviewed by the City 's engineering staff and revised to current City standards by the developer 's engineer. Denotes new and modified conditions . (3347d) a, + 1 rr'�IM1 *26 The a,pplteant shall draft a development agreement which addrenaes the following: Mechanism for monitoring of affordable units ' SaL aside 10 unit$ for families of low income (less than 90 percent of Orpnge County median income ) I. 'lt ., It shall be the responnibiltty of the property owner to yFovide' 17 affordable housing unitfi as required by Tentative erect 11716 .locate! in �he coastal zone. in addition to the 10 units required for the density bonus for a cumulative total ' of 27 untte . I : :. 625. AI common cable television acnten;-!a shall be provided for the apartment complex . The developer shall pursue *bulk rate* package with Cablesystams in order to provide cable television to residents that desire it . In no case shall the r. esidentn be required to purchase cable aervice to receive quality reception of *over-the--air * broadcasts . *26 . The Planning Comic iss ion/Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Petinit if any violation ol these conditions of the huntir ton Beach i Ordinance Code occurs . *27 . Archittcturr.l treatment for all e.;teriors of the structures shall be of uniform aeathet .. c i:reattment , especially as it relates to relief , materials , landscaping and roof treatment . *28. Roofing materials shall be of sufficient quality and bulk to ' provide shadow and r.elir:f• similar to that provided by t;.' e or shake. s29. if bona financing is obtained for the proposed 10:1. unit apartment project, the applicant shall provide an additional 201 of the units (above the density ron%;s related unite ) for persons of low income as defined by the County of Oranye. k Denotes now ajad modified conditions . ,n P 1 r^ 1. w r R' I rr, n wj i • . ,� ! �+l'r� ice' Hull SOW lvPn View Yi ^` lHlmongton bomh cii tiMaln Street SEP 2( • l-iuntinpton Bem+t CA 92648 s' s i-i sr Gateway Aportmonts 11680A� L'Inco n Property Company CA aft Isar Mr. Pdlins In a mdance with the direction of the Huntingtot, Beach Planning Cdcrroloslen qn, September 17, I985, we hmm developed two a<lawtial aAen** for staff review wW comment. In total we have three scherrres revIsir4'the'thrae-story roof configurdtiont ' r" As Design as originally presented to the Commission o: ��r 17. Sohat,sr Ek -Rroof redenign to accommodate a lowered "Mansard" 4' roof on Suiidi I (the building closest to the property line). This xftma basically says Wliding 2 is left in the original state as ' 1 M des ,fined due to its distance of 0 -0 from the property line. Selho e 1121 Roof design of both Building I and 2 are of this lowered � "Mansarcr Schmw Cs Both roofs are designed as a flat roof scheme with a 21»6" high parapet all around the three-story portion, a vJ pitch roofs are retained on the two"-story sec t iom r , On bWwlf of the owners, Lincoln Property Company, we would like to � ,t request our deletion of the variance of the 21-011 dock cantilever into the rear yard setback, Howerver, we would like to keep the variance along the front yard setback duce to the fact ftt a:--ng Warner Avenue it we ,'d ` hang the most aesthetic al bomfit. In addition, we would like to stress that the point of reference in the drawings pre•wled to you are all refering to the finish grade alcing Warner Avenue. We are submitting rwo sections which have overlayed all three roof conditions arld all grades are, referenced on both sides of the building where natural grade touches the existing parking structure. i r ifl r,rx ��.ry it .. _�.�} 1 1" .�. + �. 4 V .ter n•Ih,f♦y i `��,,r �"�f�F,�l' ��L'�!J f ~ �'��r� ,'fir •' r,, I �U� ,�'4W.�,- ,,I��,,i, f%�1 ! ';� V�`�w'1����, 1`�,,��v� M �' k �'.K.t r4,(+rp I�. 1. ;�,,� rPlr�+'!f.� T�`rR " r � � �,ll�, f 1 � � I / ' 1 � .r�.'�r �•� f{'.,�.'�rw 1 .r� r 1' t'��P �•��t+ 'M�,��.y�Li{��'l�r",'T� �'� �itVl `,', •�F ,` l,'�R !1 �r a *,, a,., �,,.� � ���I �„ � 'k�V I' ? ,f '�fi•r + ,t�J�e`µ+ �''1"" ` M•^p,� �� N 7��1T W�'94'� �r (.. "ti• •,;I, ) y., � j q r w .r r „ � v �V4� .0 ',rl S�/ P, yl�v..' � r � 'a � � �, �� {" a � 'X t„ r. t} ,. r I. � v+. •1 ^,. i ,+•N 11, Ir'''> y' ,r•' Y: „ � ,X ��I'fi1 w'�' .,,M-,f;L�*,r • V yJ � " .1 � '•�y r �� � � r . � � �•''�„ "���'� � ��� „ 1 Ir (' ��, •�; r I u r•f�\�'•lir ^ , n' .,:,� ...� �.��•'� �y,� r711+If S"'+h��,,,,9�M ti .p�P�h q'!j� r.+1`; � :1,�� r• � I 1 64, .r. Mr. jow Alin ow pop 24 T 1 ,. owwl� ow i11 dtAlwwtprs Is 41 1r+DtbVifsoScho � f 0 NO ot A 11 a YYr ar S2 to 1 w p n0t �s a c�nd C maet tt�r QI'dtl�dlrlco for - r: t, Mitt t still w0��ldter#fit! hrrre w+au14 ' it t� s A but , �1 c��tis�► intertl of bo% anti good &sign. 1 do Ikirart that SoFl " � C will rwt ar #Otioo 1 Via'+ •'' y w the profit co vwoll, because it poerotu a "bta"front dd fldt will loak oppil" V kwe any questions ar need additional InforMation, plum do not 1 Noltainr to call. AA TNEFL% w. Fyo -met 31rn p 'Y 1 1 Pri tp01f0ICoctcw of Nsign EMV/air Enckwurear ..rl: I ro r r e1 cr•: r�l� h ln� n bonh Mic dopartiveM R:7 s FUlWalp t tis ion , Seiry 460 a pWJJ WTI 0S2 PBRNIT Ito. 53-60/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO,, 8543 p16x � 4il In properties DAT�3 ACir:SP'TEDs 1613$ ''beach Blvd-P r 9,198S Muntingt9a Beach, CA* KANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: 'X 102-unit Apattwnt ZONE: M3 r; Age t Mirth sty of Warner Avenue between Lynn And GENBRAL PLAN: Nigh Density -Sim Street Roildential 11. ACC: 3. 73 :prom►. acres EYtBTTIIN. G USE: partially �...; '2. 90 .not acres constructed condominium , project (' 3 S LED ACTIOM r...wurrrr....Y, Apprgve Lisa► permit-Ho. 85-60 in conjunction with Conditional tagol►1tt" ' Mo•. 85-63 based on the findings and Conditions outlinsd in thte report. 00e permit No. 85-60/Condittonal4xception No. 85-63 is a request to pozll�k the development of a 102-•unit ,apartment complex .on thf north 800 of Warner xvanu* WtWeen Lynn And Sims Streets . The project ' ' f� WON;. ,previously a roved as a 102--unit apartment project in HarCh , .(Conditiona1 acre Permit No. 05--13) . prior to that , (44'nuary 1904 ) , the, plan nq Commission Approved a 102-unit condominium Pita j+art #os ''fie site. the ptopoeAl pirmwatly under consideration is substantially the same project to the prtot approvals Bowever , the applicant to seeking to convert 26 one-bedroom with den units to tiro-bedroom units. In 44,won,: ,there will' be setback encroachments for balconies/storage areas and deviations from the height limit . This is discussed in further detail within Section 9. 0 of the report. C- 5 A-F M43A n R eon a►ite is approximately 3 ,p 73 egress acres in stset with a + t Otte area of approxi stoly 2.60 acres , in determining density 4• c wo"t projects# one _creage to U4e4 to .calculat* the total ,,,•,�,, p +Qr gN r►ltr�r "0 city 's General. Plan designates the � 1b, , �;� ''��. • r *' I �� � �t +donllity r�r;ridafitial and tba eut,jest Propertya san•"w'' ,`� � 1� units/acre maximum) . J,ry,yp;. ungglRllc LAND uSE 8p INS A NENAL pWW gZSIGNATIONSt J rib MIS fir 11" r'1,, )• PLAN D118I0PATIOIN: High ' Density Residential � R3, (Medium-Figh Density Residential ) ` LAND US$: vacant , except for the parking structure constructed with the previously approved project. j Worth of Sub sot property: � I ORNERAL PLAY DESIGNATION: High Density Residential $0118: R3 (Medtum/High Vensitgy Residential ) LAND USE; Multi-Partly units Maskrl ,tll l•af Subject prpperty: . 1+�•�PlY.r ,..,� . OXNERAL PLAN DOSIGNATION: High Density Residential R3 (Medium-High Density Residehtia l ) i'AND USE: Multi-Family units 'Y South of Subject ProDertY: GENERAL PLAN ,QNpIGNATION: High Density Residential. .BONE: R3 (Nodtum-nigh Density Residential ) LhND USE: Multi-Family units West of Subject Property: GENBRAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential y EOI1E: R3 (Medium-High Density Residential ) LAND, USE: Multi- Family Units k � In January 1984t the Planning Commission adopted Negative Declaration No. 83-»47 which assessed the environmental effects of a 111-unit condominium proJect (conditional Use permit No. 83-31, Tentative Tract 12p84 ) . Staff 's analysis indicates that a change tic* ownerab ip to cental units will not alter the status of Negative Declaration No. 83-47. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is warranted at this time. 5.t) WASTAL STATUS: r Not applicable. � Staff Report - 9/17/85 -2- ( 3251d) r t .h N .21 not apttr4*4. ' ! (,. y # i mt eta �te►pa6in s project which consists of two buildings ' ►d''kbree�►sto y �lev ' t Iona over sen' t -subterranean a ea t tn*oeh building will contain 66 ux$.it$ , . the vfs Moosk b0*jdtn# -wtll pr-Ovide 36 'unita , and the dental area hill 'contMtn the rsakeattondl facilities # which consist of pool and jacaust the units differ from the past +ap ,roval ire that 24 ono-bedroom units wtth den will become two� edtoom unite while 1? 04 is ruin an one-bedroom with den. `. 4ha units range An slag fros ;666 square feet to 925 square feet. The prOViouexy e'ppreVed' pta +4ct was similar to size lout ro9':i aed s�aj" addlttional recreational amenities. An with ' tits past pr'o�act , the applicant intendi to incorporate the semi-aubterrongan .parking which w6e partially 00nt�ucted� IA «.. u r .xW 9t t i► ► #1 vpnnld k4 be oontructed as its the apol icant pl'sne oh, snaintai n ing many of the rM-AVcc oreted Itito the condominium pro jeot . 2he- cannon open ;.p .i�l d • (6e,'333 square feet) will exceed the requirements (20 400 "Uara• feet ) for Apartment units. Pethet>• hey !ague is the a0plicent 's re' quest for a density bonus. •�.� desAlor*t - in. r t9tidq a - 10 unit (10%) inciesse above the p4r"06d d'emtty, ba ' tQntfd to periohs earning less than 130 ; p�r�t qtk. of the Octal* Wnty Nediub- Incom. Danetty fob airkments 41 ,' •. .. . � .',' Iscoss Average x Pernitted Units per adra in IQ zone ( 3+73) ' x (34.99 ) , 93 unite + _:. 10 un t density bonus 102 --total unite TAetily, the applicant is seeking approval of two variance requests at part of the development proposal. it `fo allow the storage areas to encroach 1 foot Into the required is foot front yard setback and to allow balconies to encroach 3 feet 6 inches into the required 16 feet rear and aide yard setback , Staff Report 9/17/85 -3- ( 3351d) . 1 r Mr h, soft r :' applicant is seeking a maximum height of 45 feet (as s>te Utod frog finished We to top of the ridge) for a portion 6trootuire, locate in the northeast corner of ,the site. �f S 00 With respect to the first issue, the applicant has indicated in his r 7 Ot abed letter that the balconies provide variations in the ' but ding surface along Warner Avenue while the atoxa a ar* u between .,,. VkS, .. ovtde privacy betvesn individual decks* 81 ce pr�vat* r'ooreSt os apace is not required for apartments + staff feels that «>, tjjo 444ition of balconies/storage will be an asset to the project. The second issue of building height affects the unite adjacent to the rest property lines . An pointed out by fhe applicant , a conditional exception can be justified for this site because of the e�tistin Taxking structure coupled with the slope of the property. A e tooUto . the applicant does demons at trate that physical hardship exists with the property. The colored elevartions • on display at the Pianntn commission meeting will clearly demonstrate the visual guality 'd u sloped roof an opposed to a flat roof. ACTION: The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 4f: No. 85-40 in conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 85-63 with a dE 4stty bonus for ton affordable housing units based on the ; fol.40,ving findings and conditions. ,r tJNb1 i3$ YFOLNP R VAL U PERMIT NO. 85-6r0 : `y, M W I `7 1 . The granting of Use .Permit No. 05-60 for a 102-unit apartment will not adversely affect the Master Plan of the city of ilentington Beach because the General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as ,setting forth r objectives for implementation of this type of housing, j 2 . The granting of Use Permit No. 85-60 for a 102-unit apartment complex will not be injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity, because the lot size, depth, frontage and other design fea *tires are proposed to be constructed in compliance wirtrh itartdard plane and specifications on file with the City. 3. The granting of Use Permit No. 85-60 for a lag unit apartment ` •' pxoyect will not be detrtmental to persons residing or working the vtctntty because the proprty was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the land use designation for Medium-Htth Denaity Residential was placed on the property. erwri s - C0Nb1T10HAL EXCEPTraN NQ. 85-63: 1. Due to the slop* of the property coupled with the existing parking etructure constructed on the site , the applicant has demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the land that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same district . Staff Report - 9/17/85 -4- ( 3251d ) Y, 1 io. aout tat: pg...Caodbktonal ftceptton No. 89-63 for a 1 toot �0 of 464gd 0 areas into th* front yard stibxck and a ► f ; +8� aoOOT9*ausent of the balconies into the rear yard ag 00k 64 a 1 tout i Inch encroachment into the atde yard ` prOWO arahtteetural variations in the building face and PRO;i4P ly. dett Mental ' to the pgblia tiealth , 00fptx oo forming land, goporty or p h or ood •of the property r which auoh . _400pt too to 'granted. '. 3. *e, appltcant is willing and able to carry out the ,purposoe for tho modittortal , oxc+ption as sought and proceed! without n000ssary dewy, ' C Tie gjrAattgq, .ef ,Conditional Exception No. 85-63 for height and s60scks. is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. �y .00 -MM"M 211E #�h p1IIT NO. as-li t 1. T'he alto plan, floor plan and elevations received and dated dug �►t. 3 a 1981 shall be the approved layout subject to any fev'i6taa*, described herein . 3, Prior to issuance of building permits , the appligant shell file Al 'foscwl -imp With, the Board of, 'nbning Adjustments? which shall y t•j, J .6 , ,pgordAd, p,r,i.9..r .to final inspection on -the lost unit. 1. batoral gars and 320V electrical shall be stubbed in at the 10 *,,Wn• of c�l*khes . d�ryers�. This requirement may be 'waived d that the applicant will install a more energy e f approval of the ` ttctent alternative subject to review and a Department of Dev*lopment Services . +l. batueal . ges shall be ,stubbed in at true locations of cooking fe6tltties , water heaters , and central heating unite. This '4 Ve9vtr*aep,t may be waived provided that the applicant will InOdipll 9 ,0 �rner$y-eff ictent alternative subject io review and apprav* of the. Department of Development 8ervt6es. +l. tAw voluno heads :shall be dead in all sh6wers . building spoils , such as unused lumber , noire, pipe, and other surplus ,or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 7. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor loops# shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation . 8. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or i detached* shall be constructed in compliance with the State � acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 50 - ` CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall Staff Meport - 9/17/85 �5- ( 3251d 4, " Y ' s r ' 4 '•1 ,� of sobpt%tal of an ac�ouatteal analysis report prii a ed ,,,.�.,•; ,; w.,,, 7 „� • �.h• tgpsr�riai'on o! o soon ex riencrd to the field of E *' IY ar�gtneertn�. wtth the app !cation for a building ��� r ;Ok�ving >paolcgjst shall be engagarA t0 bub4 ►t a report " h found iuri'acs accelsratton t h movement. � rbt�property« All st,ructuires wi hh this �' v opment shall be conatructed in compliance with the p44*'Otor as indicated by the geologist 's report. Calculations q.• •,E00tinge and structural members 'to withstand anticipated qq-- *94o.rs shall be submitted to the City for review prior to ' tesuAnce of building permits . � 10. V cb6mical analysts',► an well an physical properties of the sail Y' `' ' on subjoct prroperty# shall be submitted to the City for review pxioa- to that issuance of butldtrig permits . 11 . A fike alarm systems approved b . the Fire • Depertment , shall be V` installed throughout an per NPPA staff radar s. 120 �t ayt .°matic sprinkler system, approved by the Fire Department , 894111 be installed throughout as 1 9 per NFP�1 standards and city spociftcat tons . X3. ' o. �r�ie system approved by the :Fire Department shall be �{ thatal'lyd as per Huntington Beach Fire Code and NFPA standards . r ll 14 .• A padastrtan access gate , latnimum 6 foot width for Fire P.epartmernt usep shall - be pprovided from Wagner Avenue to gain &bbos* ,,w the bast ' side of Building , the recreation center and ' the west side of Building 1 . � � 15. Mrants must be installed ors-site toprovide a hydrant within feet from Any part of the perimeter of any building, j 16. Prtor, tc any combusttble construction all roadwaysr watar supply systems, and tire hydrauts shill be iihstullaa ' and 0kA 0 0". 17'. All perimeter block walls shall be on private property. 19. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Development I Services and Department of Public Works a landsca' pe and irrigation plan for review and approval which depicts: a. Heavy acreen planting, specifically trees, shall be required along northerly property line of the development . b. Special attention shall br given to the front yard setback . 19. All on-site newer and storm drain finm.tlities shall be private and constructed per public Works standards. Staff Report - 9/17/85 �6- (3251d ) �`aTlt r I� �'1 � ' •iy . 1 err ,rrW,: .,•M , ed r Sul ;'.�FNlIir,{,•r N�+i W!!A','y�.', •• r i ,y Via. pr ,1 to a ccteewa *bell be pr ieato and constructed per '. Ot joicking will be potmi t ted on the north •ide o ¢, I ! a jpo tostalll any traffi oontrel 21. 1 01tiuc t r aexonto oball be' com#l�eted per approved *plans. , y4bae n# e ar I be ,xpv$owed by, the City 's engineering staff to current ' City mtaende,tda by the devalc�per e IF , M w 001tea"t shell -draft a dev�lapmht agreement which �..' . Addt+ape04 the following: ' a tam . far moni"t �Ying of a f f o rdeble ud to e606 to snits fee families of low inooeo (lose than go peen of Oran#e County median' inama t l' r� M A ao oih ce le tel,ewteton' an' torina shill 'be .provided for - the apprt.OWht lext Vie. deV40ropef. shall a!xaue mbalk retO � tck ' d- wtth gable6yst.oms..: to order to 'pr•*,O idt cable trlVVAS f Oo 'M to that dos tre it Y 1 ( 11, tWAti bel the re*V6h6tbtIiiy of the' ' prnp"orty owner to provide r :. i , aft " deble houstiNg unite ee required by Tent�pttve� Tact 14 ,716' 100etod to th6 Coastal zone. 27. ire PIa"nina +CoMMie$fap/board of zoni.nq Adjustments reserves r kO ,thib Conditional Use Permit if any ' le on '"a Pooditions of the Huhtingkon Htach Ordt,nande P19, 46 w<> Il I ypy t99e ,YIYp■■I� �' ' '. "' ! C '� ee perilit too* 85- 60 iq' 'con junction with Conditional � �xoepiti�ah" '.1 �r• W lift lit Z, site r n, floor plan elevations Lettefrom op►pl icatnt � • Lettei from andjacent property owner 1 .lMNSOokla M 8tOff Report - 9/17/95 ( 3251d ) u �►' i c—R A. RI-CZ R3 R G R2 R G IR G is Z,_,__�e�cr _ 92 R2 JR2 R2 R2 R3 I ! ey • - I L RI•CZ s r R3 _ ___ . R3 R3 R3. R3 s N 9 - C2 'q t2 !-CZ R R3 M `? R Sr RI—CZ — _ •4 RI-CZ 3 V Q w �' •, ir R R *: R3- .c.n..kr ..• � Ri �' � t JaenR� R3 RI—CZ RI-CZ L4 ........ RI- Rf - CZ \ a:. .2 .pr y i i �11�"scot � If me r• E •r c NUl1'r'I N ipc DEVELOPMENT $MICts "ptom r lo, loss N.O. dox 11v Hundngtoa Urach, CA 926U Kr. Jambes Win Director# Depto of neveio5"nt Services 2000 in street 1., Huntidgton 9ach, CA 11668 Dear Mr, Palins .I Attached is our request to permit a modification to the approval ! of Use Permit Ba-il, The primary reason for this request is to �ersli t 26 of the one bedroom and den units to be converted, to two bedrtom mn•i t si. The exception to the setback requirements is necessitated in part by the -acct that the buildiags are to be constructed on an ..� *z1stl.smq parking structure. The buildings will be setback 2 feet f9aisT he exterior Mails of the parking structure which is the waxisum hetback permitted for structural design reasons. Also, tM encroachments are for private storage areas and private dock areas. These structures serve an architectural features while providing 4 convenient location for storage and private areas for the residents of the complexi The code does not require private bol.coniees nor does it require storages adjacent to each unit This proposal incorporates both of these desirable features for tho convenience of the residents. The exception to the building height is brought &boat in part by the need to raise the floors 18 .inches to meet structural design needs , Also , except for the 18 inch increase in height, the building height .are the• saie as shown an the approved plan . This is brought about because the 'comaman way to measure buLldinq height is from , the highest point adjacent to the bail-ding to the Midpoint of the roof . This error was not discove're6 until final plans were prepared and the new plans submitted . our alternatives wake to lower the pitch of the roof or submit this request. We feel the roof design is attractive and vi ll be more of an asset to the neighboorhoc'd than a flatter roof design. The rervi nio,u to the bedroom mix is brought about by our perception of market needs . We own and manage approximately 150000 apartment units And have found it more desirable to provide a variety of unit types . The one bedroom/ion unit is a .% large unit ( 880 sq . ft . ) and is well suited to be canv4erted to a two bedroom unit, 161S2 Beach Blvd.. 6uiw l4o Em Hu MMon beach. CA 92647 (714) 841.1419 `1\e r`yr•', II 5'r,l,F?5r n ea * , lea with Wittarml iato ►tLoa w+aaaoral mp till t ootoot e 8 soxf or .-D" "T Y \ :��� '+' M�r�C �", ' ''' 1y� r � I,1 `'.?"• ` �'� `F�i'i .•�• ��r��• Cti��� Cy'1�'Ir'', �,' +r �',rr. M� 1 :�{ ��,� i,T� i �� �� ,4 IJt" ��k''T.• i. I° .�,�Y � ,err' ` • �.�a� �, ��•! •���„� •j •�� , y^�•f .+ x M � 11, l5 + 1 n;• r s, Ali 1 i �l r r w a r •I Polult the rollowieg: ,r••' '''I '^ Y'r.rfr:l.,•.' •r:o � A w. rY f• '/ •�' SI t �i r b Mon Dxivst* dock to s 6i6i � "6 M" Mir , ! / ,r/F. ''I�,T+ PT 'r� 'Ir /1'IirJ.:• 1, ! 1ri4 ,II ( Al tw ,r"x yard s" *"tb&c&g a j 6at0 t r y4krd •etbaft f .r 3 9 ' CoatJI&OX &cks along the rear of 'dui.lding 1 +gip bath ba'ch 2 iir , t" tag be 41 'toot, A in. &6 nrsasured' f r6a the � n R - ti. s'urfAce of- thi lilt ed todbt to �'' '' • i e t the midpoint of the roof ,, the b� ding � � 1. r a + .I,y 1 1 T� r ?r r '1ii r qq 4 Spectsent,, 4�,�t With a 30' '"it ° a i f. a,t, anwad'"ant to Us* Posit Mo. ' tit, Ott& on "a , I,*$$ 'f de tip to the but sitbae k r ifaa+et�ts storage areas and deck arras to oncroaeb Uea setbkoks at shown On the attadh6d sits iuft the bullditeg height to be dl' ft* - 2"inches as "*anre4 fr+oa the loaset••.portion Of the liaished surface 09, lot adjacent to the building to than midpoint of the s + d1 4s►o 11+lnts haVee been treated as architectural VWO' 'Os •gip► ,provift asriatian in the, building surface and taus 116"iW Attr"ti've elevation. y10 ! VXacament of the storege areas between decka provides . i bcy bostween IvALvidual dooks, It also provides r rrt oboe to .the building design and plec!os the storage is a �, a ►VW"i«nt location for easy. use by residents. °'F MThe bufldi,bg elevations are chinch that the buildings' facing 11'aroar 1►rirMer are 1 f ai tad t0 story, 1 .baildiem lt' only exceeds the height limit along thr , reokr Oortion of , the lot . Thin is caused by tho fact that the lot slopes to the roar wad the parking structure already exists. Also* a fist Toof design could meet code but would 'pot be as attractive* �t anleon method of determining building height is to measure tiw bey Obt to riltpoint of the roof. The ,present method f■ an ii tre*e Bray to measure building height and could cause three story structures to have an unattractive roof design. the present roof design results in a better building design and t'br attic space crenated by this design is nonhabitablet. r.:J[ 'I .- '.'.'. •! .,, �'r'�i, '�J ins:'.' a.�yl�,k•. , ., i:"?,;r } ♦ .. . .. ,, r, q•Y, v. r =f', tip•. r , , 6$40 toot Birth 8treet ,' ,.4 1: I ` •, ', •'y : ft9tember 10 1985 City of t tbn Noah Do artaorit of olo ment fire lees Ho nt tratoh Beach , Cs ilrf orynis 92648 We s M►rmtt Q� 5� O in son junction with Cored itione l ;. 0' po, request to permit. a 10 unit spvrbiaent a 3.73 sore site. LA owner of an eper`taeat Mild iAe closed to the proposed ;i vel+� rmeot loogted porth of ,,garner between LL��Yynn end Sims street , to roLrtstpr oy opposition to s tort unit density bonus, � The lC density designation all ovs d higher lonpity thbn the 82 donsi.tt lust north of the proposed develop Brit site and shouO al ow sufflaisnt density for. development of this .project . he o ty of Huntsqg ion *eoh ha € , teen rather strict In the pa of s rW, the der"tt"►' reffulrtions for the smwfiler deve'fiopmente a q bM L nod I feel that there should be conslatency In their .� ant with lerfer 4*ve1op*,ente ss well. � X ip , j.re6dy subs,%a ntisl trsfric in the ' area , - and 11�Lted t� �te'tlti ing - for 'ii Wit ore pt it is . Ton addition'414 unf:te W.CM 14 s4d ,:twe the tristflo flans one, to the street barking pi-pbleme , * t1wroore nolre;. to a dee''6i that would adversely affec:t other', Proport1*0 iA the iores., fir. .1rold V. Breed �Jgot Aw 1'.. r i1 ' I 4:I t" +. � v l' �•r J c ('71 �� - s k� I yetis dw qlp ,r �J ,� ti Yh' 1 't wJ R r+4-4o, 0,,, &-1 04 S+r 44,40 0.0'a w4;;.ok A4.c ILA i . I pas .'� y*.+i y/YetZG •-rIpour do 400, ^M. ■ .21 Imp 4 r �r 40 r • '" I 7 rr�►, y A wr • ' zrw y _ r e otolof me y / r / d:r ` . C + All Ave 4 l7po C ; JqA* I . • 1 �1 1 Iv soft ap u I , RUILDYMC 83108T AtFYNITIORS hu3tington Beach Buildin Bpi ht � The vertical distance from they OwMange cods: ' owe a eve on of the ground level immediately soatton 9100.2 adjacent to the building, to the highest point of the toot antferr gutiding 6e1 hb of tr ng -1 is the vertical distance T code above is reference datum measured to the highest ink. 4 O# g01p,irig at'• a f let roof 'or 'to a dock ►M±. n�rt, f •trhoh or the average height of w� t, the h� wf b Itched or hipped roof, y 2he. ;rM '. tum. 6hhl l be selected by either , of, >thb l`lWM►thgp WAchever yields a greater height of building. ' (1 ) The elevation of the highest aid jo.tning �►sialk oI oand sutIace within a 5-foot hr''i�tuii�tel atat�ce of` the exterior wall of ' the building when such sidewalk or ground surface to not more than 10 fe4t above lowest evade. (2) An elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest gradde n the itdewalk or ground surfade doscrtbed in ttem ] above is more than { 10 feet above lowest grade. ",•✓ 1 htl�m s4ti- 6,�1,9 RAI - 'the varrttcal distance m*adUt# fr.6m the aiierrage level, of the highest %arid loWdst point o! that portion of the sit* covered :by •the building to the ceiltng of the uppermot 'ataxy. (Ord. 774 Bee. 2 (part ) r P*bz nary 27, 1951 , ) Buena nark Buildings height of shall mean the vertical, s ande :Asa a rcm the ae jotfitng curb level to the higbest•• poiint of the building, exclusive T of chimneys and ventilitars and other 1 eaceptiohs, to building height perottted in the aonesr Vto*tded , however , that where butld'isgd .. ; are set back 'from the at-root line, the height . shall bye measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the. building. rbr u to Height shah ''140an the vectical ,P - s. Mfrom the grads to the highest point of ;.. , the coping of a flat roof or to the dock line IS r, of ar mansard ,roof or to the highest point of � the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof, but ' exclusive of vents, air condittoners, chimneys , or other such incidental appurtenances. E�'i'+• � i r IA a h It �i A t sf Building height'V's " means tne C4 4c* measuredil'o�I the ` rounO to the cotling of the uppermost story. Ord. Of See. 2 (part) o 1961 ) . pa'r .a ' dr' ove Ouildtn Height means .the vertteal distance m�rasured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the building at.te covered by the building to the ceiling of the u,. ppexmost story. •.fbpq beach dai'iht of Building. The vertical distance above raft ae dined herein to the highest ., port o the cop.1 rig of a flat roof or to the dock Uns of a mansard, roof or to the , average "'hOtOt"'Of the. highest grade of terraced building- is the maximum height of any segment of the building. Ocarn` et"ion 9490, 11 "Duildtn -Rot ht " . Building e "� e�E "ire � �c 't��� '�' " ��'rom the g � • ' aver4ge. of the highest and lowest elevations of } thoee eta of the lot -immediately adjacent to the bu ldtng to thr: ceiling of the uppermost story in case of ! ;ti flat roofs the deck line of mansard ioof► to the mean height between eaves and ridge of, ,a gable, hip or, gambrel roof. Placentia 23 . 04.335 Hei ht butldin , *building height" Ineans, the ver ca a ante .from the average lovol of the highest and lowest point of that portion .of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the building exclusive of chimneys and ventilatorfs and other exceptions to building height permitted in the ranee. • (prior code Sec. 25-1 . 1 (part ) ) . S*londo. Teach "HgtMnq Rei t" shall mean the vertical to e fromthe average natural finished Ur ade around the perimeter of a building to the ghost Duct of , the building. Artificial grade* ctefated by planters, retaining wall, ,, or other structures shall not be used in comp'titing the' building height, "A' ' elemehte Height of Structures 4 The average vertical Lance measure " rom the ground level grade to the top of a 'struoture. (3344d) lip } distance s � '!ht rrerttca�lthe top ground level grade to \ .;�.• � e � U Idtrig• 4n' ' sloping situ the hsight s u shell be the ve�rtioal distana ' a' h `n � tut� atton or underetruatuce between ;v tb li���h�d ground iyrfac�r adjacent to this a enq t and the highest paiMt of bui2''cY�i1i ythet a �! $$ di#et above provded the buttath roof khal l it moasurad to the outrage height of that roof bct tbat no part of the roof shall , �aof ebn f the •( 5 ) feet above the P rVAU66"'w�.' of + + F 1 a t r 1 + A 1 r . I .. 3344d) ,' S• ''IBC / 1 ; M � .� " -• '({) A deidrM fora Uminary inJunction was amde bar the plain#rand denied by a court of ecr�gpdteat Juriedietton , such denial not hawing been reversed on appeal , or the action or rpzwAoding me dlwisgd as a nm1t of h Motion for sunw ry judgment by any defendant, and not arw4 c h appeal'. ' (b) In any appeal of any action described in aabftwision a)•t tbo, rsvi•ewing court may award a)l reasonably lacurrad owto of suit Including ittmeylxfofto to 'fin,prw ai ling public entity `, if the court review$ and upholds the trial '' ' '• cxmrt;s- f1ndinygs with repvet to paragraphs (1 ) to (d), inclusive, of subdivision (a). (wed by Stets. lgel, Ch. 959. ) i Chapter 4.3• Dow4ty Aod Other Inoeanti se ,r jkjUNW edo-@1 6915. (a) When a developer of Bossing agrees for Lahr- or to construct at least (1) 26 percent of the .total • ' t unIts, of a housing e �t for �dal won3 an , 1 r�A�O �iMd families of loan or m demte• income, as defined in r!• Section 50093 of the stealth and Safety Code, or (sty 10 percent of the total units of a. housing development for lower-income households, as defined in Section 30079.E of the Health and Safety Code , or (3) 50 percent of the total dwelling units of a homing deuvelopoent for qualilying rweLdwtur, as defiwd in Section 51.3 of the CIvU Oode, a city, county, or city and county. sha l 1 either (I) giant a density baoue or v (S) provide other incentives of equivalent. finanatutl ve]ne. (b) A dwolo�r any submit to a city, county, or airy and ou my a preliminary propoeal for the dewy t of housing pursuant to this motion pt�,or itue aubmi.ttal of any formal requnt.s for general plan ammadments, zoning amendments, or <<• sulAivisiau map appr orals. The city, minty, or city And oounty shall, within 90 days of receipt of a *ritten 'proposal , notify the housing dowloper In writing of the manner is which it will amply with this section. 7he city, oounty, r - arc clty and c wnty shall es'tablieh praavd+urvs for carrying out this emotion, whiab shall includo leegislativeu' bodyapproval of the meatus of . . earpliauoe with this socticn. (n) For the purposas of this chapter, "dlnaity bonus" means a density increase of at let 25 piaror'mt over the othervisee masimiuin allowable maideential density sunder the applicable moing ,rr 'ti,, • ,1►r� 122 M f iY r . ordinance and land use elcx mt of the genoml plan. The density bonus shall not be included 1 when determining the number of housing units -A which An eq%wl to 10 on 25 percent of %he total. The density bonus shall apply to housing deve 1 opmen is aoasist ing of five or more dwel 1 i ng (d) I f a developer agrees to construct both • 25 percent of the total units for persons and laadlies of low or n6adamte income and 10 percent of-the total units for Imerrincome households ' the developer is entitled to only one density �" btdmis undor this notion although the city, city • . . and county, or county amy, at Its discretion, grant mare.,than one density bonus, ' (AOetnded by State. 1984 ; ~n . 1333 . No r 65M.5. (a) When an applicant for approval to pi low convert apartments to a condominium project 1 or 10 ee 011 agrees to provide at least 33 percent of the t,wwdll,ers total units of the pr posed condominium project to .persom atld families of 1'ewv or moderate incom an defined in Section 30093 of. the Health and Safety Code, .or 15' pert ent, of the total units of -the proposed condaminium project to lower income households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health,-•and Safety Cade, anal agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary administrative c6sta3 incurred by a city, county, or city and county Y pursuant to this section , the city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density banue or ( 2 ) provide other incentives of . equivalent financial value. A city, county, or city and county may place such :•-easonable conditlaw on the granting,'of a density bonds or M1` other incentives.s. of equival oamt financial value as It finds appropriate, Including, ,but not limited , ' . to , conditions which assure continued affordability of twits to mitbseque�nt p�uoaaeers who are perwm and familial of low and moderate incWe or lower income hamftXde. . .(b) For purposes of this section, "density boas 11 means an incream in unite of 25 percent over the number of ape.rtamiats, to be provided . ,s within the existing atructure or structures arepowd for oom mien. • (a) Po'r purposes of this section,, "other incehtives of equivalent ti cial value" shall not be construed to require ,a city, county, or city and county to provide caAft transfer Wywnts or other monetary compenvati on but ray include the, reductlon or waiver of isqui rernents *Leh the city, cowty, or city w id county might otberrrise apply 4a aoWi tionls of conversion a1mrrml e 123 { k 1 t' yy� yaw + )' � W M r � i , t,,,,, , r •�`�4 �, ', ul;,,tc. `ni��,'l:h '�4; , "'• stir r��1 F' 0 8et aside unit for families of low income . C-3 Ogg PERMIT NO. 8540/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 05-43 ; l�lgant:Lincoln Properties 1 Use Permit No. 85-60/Conditional Exception No. 85-63 is b request to Permit the devtl000tint of a 102-unit apartment complex on the north s side of Warner Avenue between Lynn and Sims Streets . The project w previously approved 'hs a 103wunit apartment project in March , $$.5 �Co • dit o►nal Use Permit No , 85w13 ) . Prior to that Wanuary a�r4) f tie p a0aing Commission approved 3 102-unit condominium prbj*ct tier the site. Ix• The proposal present.ly,:uhdor consideration is substantially the same project as the prior ",Jprovalz . However, .the applicant is seeking to oonv*rt Zvi one -bedroom with den units to two--bedroom units. In addition, there will be setback encroachments for balconies/storage areas and deviations from the height limit . • The project L,'i•te is approximately 3.73 gross acres in singe; with a net site area of approximately 2 .66, acres . In determining density for apartment projects, gross acreage is used to Calculate the total number of units permitted. The city' s General Plan designates the area .is - high density residential and the subject property is toned ' R3 ( 14.89 units/ache maximum) . On Sep tester 17, 1985 the Planning Commission continued Use Permit Mo. . 65-'60 4n conjunction with Conditional Exception No . 85-63 (a request to permit a 103 unit apartment project with deviations from Whack and height criteria ) until the October 1 , 1985 Planning Commission greeting. A committee comprised of commissioner Porter , Commissioner Rowe , the applicant, and staff was formed to reconcile the project design as it relates to two of the conditional exception requests. As a result, the applicant has agreed to eliminate the -balcony encroachment into the rear yard setback which would Alleviate one of the concerns raised by the property owner to the n6rth. ' Thi* other balconies will remain as originally proposed . TM second issue raised by the Planning Commission involved the height of the two structures. As discussed at the Planning Commission, there has been a change in the method used for determining ballding height for proposed buildings on this site. In e. p%eviors approval, staff referenced top of slab as a low paint, to poag 'ot roof, to arrive at the height of 35. feet. Regardless of the i4thod tiaed' to determine 'butlftng height, the structures have . to stirred basically the same. Each consiot of 3 floors ( 9 feet in Might) plus 7 feet for the roof, for a total of 35 fee.t. The current proposal differs from the past approval by a 3 toot sub6tructura plenum which Is needed to provide additional structural support. P.C. Mf nVF►aS 101110% -7- ( 3455d ) M, � w �'L' I a fir^+ ,yY :■ r^ X Will D 14 A- a, Yy. •:' BD effort tow&C4 resolving the building height concerns , "the , Own% OrOiteat has prepared three alternative roof designs for the Patt1hents M�rd ISNINS A Design as originally presented to the CoMMissiod on September 17 . S„ 1 Roof redesign ;to accommodate a louvered "Mansard" roof ,a^4 on building 1 ( the building closest to the property line). This scheme basically says euildinqq 2 is loft in the original state as designed due to its distance of 901 -a'" from the, property line. 91 Roof design of -..both Building 1 and 7 are of the louvered � '; �Martrsard" . �t C Both roofs are designed as a flat root scheme *,Yi tjh a -60 high parapet all around the three-story portion# and pitch roof's are retained on the two-story section. BSM2 D Reduction of 12 units to eliminate 3 atocy to 2 story. I This scheme was added by the planning commission ) The last area of concern addressed by -the planning Commission is the density bonus and how it relates to affordable housing, in Jahuary 1984, the Planning Commission adopted, negative Declaration No, 83--47 which assessed the environmental effects of a lllrunit condominium project (Conditional Use Permit go. 83-31, Tentative Tract 13884 ) : Staff 's analysis indicates that a change from ownership to rental units will not alter the status of Negative Declaration No. 83-47, Therefore, no further environmental analysis is wa;ranted at this timei TH1 PUBLIC REAR100 WAS opsoft ldiiliam Morningstar#, ownor at property in the back north of the property,* spoke in op osition to the development adding that the 'toject vill hurt the value of his property in the amount of •'y 100,000. 8rnle Vasquez , architect , spoke in support of the project and was ,open tot comments or questions. i r. Commissioner 86humacher questioned the architect if this project was the sate era the other two projects proposed . Mr. Vasquez said yes, excopt now they are two bedrooms . Commissioner Schumacher aa:ked why the chango of roof materials . Mr . Vaaques answered that there war a cmaern about the weight of ,the building , �:s I i ■ -� Mak Harlow# representinO LiZcoln Properties, requested is regards . to the dffordabie housino issue that Condition no. 24 could also read that the requirement be satisfied at another location. CorAissioner Porter said he would agree to Mr . Harlowls ',AL%-Idest if , this tequicoment was met• on or prior to completion of the project . There being no further testimony, the public hearing was cloned . i bm missioiner Stowe stated -that he met with the Applicant and staff to roviee the plan and said he would support schIme 81. {` Commis►*loner porter expressed concern about the flat roof design stating it was not appealing and requested that added wording to Canadition no. 'l8(a) for mature headgrowth of 25 to 30 feet be placed. IaJ , along the northern property V ne. Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern that the slab wall only able to support 86 units not 102 , ltihe also &eked if are exception ft a height was granted to Nola ' s development • t; Howard Eelefeky stated no. Nce Vasquez addressed tha first question explaining that the pm:evivus design of 66 units were 2. to 3 bedrooms but the floor area is still the sawmne # and further explained they were not adding additional weight to the slab . The Commission discussed the height and flat roof design commenting that theme were no flat roof designs in the Immediate area or in the harbour area . Commissioner winchell asked , if the middle area of the building on the north property line could be reduced to 2 stories . Mr , Vasquez said this would .impact the project with the loss of 10-12 Units. Commissioner Nirjahangir •asked staff it the floor design plan needs rf; to bra changed and how that will be handled. Howard feeleef'sky of staff said it would have to came back to the Planning commission . The Commission discussed affordable housing. Dick Marlow stated �. , that Lincoln properties and Mola Development were aware and agreeable to the , requirement but requested they be allowed to satisfy this •requiremnent off -site so as not to burden the proposed project. Commissioner Winchell stated she would support the relocation of the units on this project to eliminate the need for a deen+zlty bonus . She Added she would like to nail down the 17 unit affordable housing. Commissioner Erskine reworded condition no. 24 to reflect the suggested changes . Chairman Liven ood took straw votes on the four schemes submitted by the applicant or revising the three-story roof configurs,tion. M ' 1 � II r Po C. Ni r+rtt0%ft 1 n/I ia5 011-1� !- it % '�S �w' �1 � x � " '. .J ' `V �V�f '� , 1 ul � � ! 1 u ^<�K 'I'' Y.: ' ; •I! * g( Y r 'r7L� 47 1'�,,;�Id i r J Y R��!""''��i�� ��'r it'll i, . 1 • ..1 ., 'T..• X • 111�1•M,71•MYM1 Olo'�•}��"Y;'•'N ir JW T _rr r .r in-•+M .. n . r .a , . v , .. R + I r. A ,r O J None Minebslll , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, • • ,r°�'�r Mir ahsngir .• .. ; ,.,; 41,ti� I r�'rYr�Ail� - ' 1MYB$t ft"*,, L1vvnj904j', NrAk1ne, Porter , Mir jahangit r ' *14 031 r Schwachet r News Nfacholl, SahUmachar, Givengood, Erskine, Porter. . Aft8 s alone s� Rove, Winchell , Schumacher , Liyengood, Erskine, Potter , Mir�aharagi r Xowo, Winchell , Schumacher , Porter 11 t Livengood, Ersk.'%ne, . NJr jahangir C jimissioner love stated that 1f there was a choice of two or three � stogies, he mould gu along with tw,o stories . f co"IBsioner Porter supported CapAssioner Rowe's statement, L**"10 s$oner zraiine reminded the Commission that they approved a 'loot tVo years ago for 102 units, concluding that he did not feel be ' l,Beian sht�uId talk about reducing .the units at thss late of ,._ .+e or Winchell etvtdd she would Clot be supporting this t r ion because of the gonnection of the units and bulk of the• pftjon WAS 14)Wl BY IIVZNGWID AND SECOND BY' PORTER -TO APPROVE U$B jildt"Ir •.06,6 05-60/cONDITZOMAL BBCEbTION NO& 195-43 WITH P1"D% AND Bit at FOLMNING Voris ' xh�lengdoil, ne, Porter, hir jahangirr saw*, Ninchallr Bchuhacher : none t bone • � fAt ;, 1��C�. �Minnt a ih/11gS -10- ( 34596) 1 �I. 61 - - - Aft c /T�,� yizl , v 1 • r � a .} � .,1• ire ' '' 7 t` . ' •, 't �L•r SAY' r • n„ ♦� T 1 fic rd `+. FINDZ!21 OA kPPIOV L •-U88 #ZRMIT NO, 85-60: A . Thm granting of Ilse Permit No. 85-60 therein described to Schemer 81 on the site plan dated September 260 1g851 for a 102-unit apartment will not adveraely affect the 11V. ter Plan of the City of -Huntington Beach because the General Plan has not forth provisions for this type of land use as .well as setting Perth ob j,octives for implementation of this type of ,,,; •.,I • 1Yolleisg l.. ThM +�ranting of ttae Permit No.. 65-60 for a 102 -unit apartment am ox gill not be injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity because the lot size, de th$ frontage and- rather design features as -modi,fied-.by Conditional Exception" No. 88-63 ere proposed to be constructed incompliance with standard , planer and .wpecifications on file with the City. 3. The granting of Urge Permit No. 85-60 ( herein described as ' scheme 81 on the -site plan dated September 26, 1985 ) ,for a 102 unit apartment - project will not be detrimental to peisona residing or- working the vicinity because the property was previously etueled for this intensity of land use at the land use designation for Medium-High Density Residl�ntial was placed ` on the property* F1NDINGs - CCNaITIONAG EXCEPTION NO, 85-63 : fi 11 Due to the slope of the property coupled with the existing parking structure constructed on the site, the applicant has demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the land that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same district . it The granting of Conditional Exception Nov 85-63 SChmme .$1 on the site plan dated September 26 , 1985 -for a 1 r; toot encroachment of storage areas into the front. yalyd setback and a 1 foot 6 ineb encroachment into the aide yard .and a mAxivium deviation of five feet from the 35 foot height limit tot building no. i, .and they maximum deviation of 4. 7 feet for a portion of building no. 2 will provide architectural variations ir, the building face and will not' be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or In driotis to the conforming land, property or improvements in k they neighborhood of the property ;for which such conditional ' exception is granted. 3. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for the conditional exception as sought and proceed without necessary delay. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No . 85-53 for.,height and, setbacks is necessAry for the preservation and en joy ment of substantial property rights . ' � J P.C. Minlitws 10/1105 --1 X- ! 3459d) 1 �& CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . The site plan dated September 26 , 1985 herein described as scheme B1 shall be the approved layout subject to any revision described herein . 2 . The floor plan an4..elevations received and dated August 25 , 190 shall he the approved layout subject to any revisions described herein . 3. Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall file a parcel map with the Board of Zoning Adjustments , which shall be recorded prior to final inspection on the last unit . i Q. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers . This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy- efficient alternative subject to review and approvaloof the Department of Development Services . 5 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of"cooking facilities , water heaters , and central heating units . This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy-efficient alternative subject to review and approval of the Department of Dev,�Iopment services . 6 . Low volume heads shall be used in ail showers . 7 . A.11 building spoils, such .as unused lumber , wire , pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials , shall be disposed of at an off-sate facility equipped to handle them. 8 . Energy efficient lightf.ng , such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps , shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation . 9 . All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached , shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNLG contours of ' the property . Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for a Wilding permit. i '10. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property . All structures within efts development shall be constructed in compliance with the 9-factor an indicated by the geologist 's report . calrculatioms for footings and structural members to withstand antf.cipated 9 -factors shall beMsubmftied to the City for review.,Prior to issuance of building permits, P.C. minutes 10/1/85 -12- ( 3459d) i 0. r 11 . A chemical analysis , "as well as physical properties of, the soil an subject property, shall be submitted to the City for review prior to thsa i$.�uance of bailding permits . � 12. A fi•►te alarm system, approved by the Fire Department',6WILhall be installers throughout - as per NFPA standards . 13 . An automatic sprinkler system, approved by the Fire Depar. �ment , shall be' inslalled throughout as per NFPA standards and City specifications . 14 . A standpipe system Approved by the FirQ Department shall be installed as per Hunt'.ingron Beach Fire Code and NFPA standards . 15 . A pedestrian access gate , minimum 6 fout width for ;ire Department use, shall be provided from Warner Avenue to gain .access to the east, side of Building 2 , the recreation center , and the west side of Building 1 . 16 . Mrants must be installed on-site to provide a hydrant within feet from any part of the perimeter of any building . 17 . Prior to any combustible construction all roadways, water supply systems , and fire hydrants shall Ue installed and operable . 18 . All erimeter block walls shall be on privateproperty . p P 19. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission a landacape and irrigation plan for review and approval which depicts: a . Heavy zereen planting, specifically trees with mature head growth of 25 feet in height, shall be required along the northei4ly property line of the development , b. Special attention shall be given to the front yard setback . c . Special plant material including additional planting not less than 12 tropical trees along the Warner Avenue elevation as depicted on the three dimensional plan submitted to the Planning Commission on September 17 , 1985 . 20 . All on-site sewer and storm drain facilities shall be private and constructed per Public works standards . 21. All on-site arcceasways shall be private and constructed, per Public Worka standards . 22« Na an-street parking -,4111 he permitted on the north side of . . Warner Avenue. � P. P. Mfntvh�w ino rps; .. i "t- ( 1tirsgd ) �M r Ir M• ' L . 23 . The developer shal provide and install any traffic control devices as required by Public Works . 24 . All public improvements shall be completed per approved plans . These pions shall be reviewed by the City ,}!j engineering staff and revised to current City staridatds by the developer ' s engineer . 25 . The applicant shall draft a development agreement which addresses the following: Mechanism for monitoring of affordable units Set aside 10 unito for families of low income ( less then 60 percent of orange County median income ) in addition to the above described 10 units it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to provide 11 afford&ble housing units as required by Tentative Tract 11716 located at this project or within three miles of the coastal zone as required by the Mellow Bill prior to the issuance of building permits . In addition to the 10 units required for the density bonua for a cumulative total of 27 units , 26 . A common cable television antenna shall be provided for the apartment complex . The developer shall. pursue "bulk rate" package with Cable systems in order to provide cable teievision to residents that desire it . Tn no case shall the residents be required to purchase cable service to receive quality reception of 'over-the-•air" Lroadcasts . 27. The Planning Commission/Board of Zoning AdjusLment:s reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use permit if any � violation of thene conditions of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code occurs . 20. Architectural treatment for all exteriors of the structures shall be of uniform aesthetic treatment , especially as it relates to relief , materials , 1pndscapi'ng and roof treatment . 29. Roofing materials shall be of sufficient quality and bulk to provide shadow .arid relief similar to that provided by the or shake. 30 . If bond financing is obtained for the proposed 102 unit Apartment project, the applicant shall provide an additional 201 of the unit:a (above the density bonus reloted units ) for persons of low income as defined by the County of Orange . 31 . It the site plan or. use permit No. 85-60 is modified.-by the structural engineer, the applicant shall submit a aii-e plan amendment to the pl:,anning Commission for rev; ew and:;approval . ' P.O. Minutes 10/1/85 � 14- ( 1459d ) . I ' Publirh �'`V.0/24/85 y NOTICE Of PUBLIC AJ?pW, TO PIJINI.NC COM ISSION 0PBOVAL OF U$8 PEWT 6 5-60/CONDITIONAL EXCL?TION NO 65-63 NOTICE IS HEREBY C' VXN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public heArin$ in the Council Chamber at use Hunt'_ngton Beach Civic Center, j 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, oa the date and at the time Indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DM: November 4, 1%3 TXI M: 7:30 P.M. IApPLIMION NOMXE&: Use Permit 85-60 - Conditional Exception 85-63 Moxrh aide of Warner Avenue between Lynn and Sims Streets PROPOSAL., To permit a 102 unit apartment couples with a 10 uait density bonus on a + 3. 73 acre site. The appellant is seeking relief from building setback requirements by ulloaing storage areas to encroach into the front and sideyards. The appellant is also requesting that.. the City Council allow a maxirum deviation of 4 feet 7 Inebes from the 35 foot height limit. EVIROMMWAL STATUS: Previously assessed by a Negative Declaration. ON ME: A copy of the documents are on file in the Development Services Office. All INT-iAUSTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. Al] appll--atifts, exhibit*, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 7000 Wa Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. Wh"TINGTON $FACE! CITY COUNCIL 8y: Alicia M. Wentuortb City Clerk Phone (714) 536-3405 1 � r a IWO lk NOTICE TO CLERK TO SC H DULE PUBLIC HEARING I T E M_ / _--_ TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1. DATE: F'ROM PLEASE SCfiEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE ' DAY �P�sare attached "4-wttl Mow No AP' s Initiated by: Planning 'omission Planning Department Petition * Appeal Other Adoption of Envircrmental Status 0) X NONE _ Has City Attorney' s Office been YES NO nformed or forthcoming public hearing? Refer to Vk f elanning Department - Extension for oddi ti on i rrformation. * If appeal , please tr i,smit enact wording to be required in the legal . ce �� U� �E�'�w�' yf✓c�"'�d/ G�i 16�tv�ir�a.� Cx C 4j0/7 aA/ ND 6,zp/a4c� 7-D CDAIA-\ J� hv -���lf 4-1 �/ -- - I&..- J vx-lfzm /-V- 0-v Ae 4-4 wll. a1z. ji Ao- iles ry th., At 4&1 tic Ir r�� 1 1 • I it i •w�_._..+».�.�+.��»mow Y.--.� _ ».,. .a.ti►r.rr.r.rwr.� - � — ___ �....��........r.__...._.....-._....-� �+...- .v.�._—.—»...,..�.•«--.�w...w.._-_. .....u.w+....rw..w..r.�w►.......•.....��...�.�.+..r«...�.r•+..�alr.r.�....�-`-.�_'-'---- .�....�......._�.,»-.. -- ...�f «.«�.�....w-- __ _ ...w.��...�--.»•+•—�=�—�. mow.•.►--•--...-.-..��...�,y .•...-- - - -- .•..�. ».---......r J•, 1 , ,� � . '1 � � u_ _-—_—.r��...rr• mow. �� ',.�•� � ��;ill 1 MA ,y1 1 Tir..4hrwV•Y�.�..WYIwawW.�.�Y�u,Ww...ilr.�y�.•www�..ia1��_�.F.i - ..�+ww...�rs..r�w ww.,..�V•�r�a_-- i,r,1 , 1+ i I[ {. 1Publ' 10/10/85 i WWICZ Of PUBLIC RRAMW CODE AMENDMENT NO 8 5-2 0 CONDITIONAL ru PERMITS FOR COW-RCI L ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDING ADULT ENTEkTAI?J'ENT NOTICE 15 WE GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEACINC in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 7G00 Main Street, H=tington Beach, California, na the date and at the time indica;ed below to rftelve and consider the statements of all persons who :wish to tie heard ralative to the application described below. III Bm t mandIrro , xrA: 7 4P30 4LS.M. ARF'LICaATx�N �ICMDRR: C LtTION: Cit "de PROPOSAL: A,meadmert to Article 975 (Adult EatertainaeLt bu nesGpo) Article 943 (Community Business strict) , Art a 945 (General Busluess District) , Arficle 947 (HIS Commercial District) and Artie 933 (Unclassified Useb) . a Code Amendment establish that Conditional Use Perui,ts f certain uses are grant to the operator, do not ruh with be land and are no transferable to another owner or opera r upon sale of no business;. Those uses affected by the endpents a as follows: convortieneP markets combined h gaso ne stations, adult entertainment, damn:- A /or live entertaluxent in a primary or secondary u teen dancing, fortune-telling, day care centers and ay urseries, temporary uses, amusement enterpri s and a arcades. The proposed asendment furthe requires th Nanning Commission to consider wbeth a proposed ad entertainment businessr is lu a family- ented location who ousidering a conditional as permit for such businesses. EII'E Ott t . $'l s N e declaration No. 62. asssassAng the environment a Code Amendment will also by n&Ldered by Council. am nxt A copy of the pi-.opdb0jQode Amendment is on file is the Department aI DerejapdWis Services. ALY. IlrU=TED PMWNS are invited to attend sired hearing and express opinims or submit evidence tar or against the application to outlined Owye, AU appileatioaa, exhibits, aad descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clark, 2000 Main St:rest, Huntington h„ CallforuLaj for inspeetlam by the public. HUNTINCTON BEACH CITY CDUNCIL By t Alicisr IN, Wentworth City Cleric Phone (714) 536-5405 J y a � 1 .• r � 4 'J 1 L .�1 of 1 •^_ '' it•1 r 14dre �d R 939--54-025 1 � `tarori IA201 St Clare Mark S r . �tcna Beach, Ca. 92649 46A2 Wainer Ave �A212 Huntington Beacli, Ca. 92649 9391-14-015 939-54--026 Cbersack Harvey J Straton Richard A $631 801tn C- : 4682 Warner Ave 9A213 Yfua' ,Lngton beach, Ca. 92649 11ant.ington Beach, Ca, 92649 939-54-1016 939-54-027 Piaeda Anselmo Pilecki David J 2880 Atlantic Ave 6021 Littlefield Dr Long S eacb, Ca. 90806 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 E f 939-54-017 939-54-028 Casabier Deborah A Leever Marc Edward 46$2 Warner Ave PA204 4682 Warner Ave OA302 Huntington Iach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Reach, Ca. 92649 939-54-018 939-54-029 CrosLod 8wry Earl 6 Jan butchful George d 4682 'Warner Ave 4682 Warner Ave #A305 Huntingto, beach, Ca. 92649 Huttington Beach, C.n. 92649 939-54 -019 939-54-030 Fenton George R Elk Norman R 4682 Warner Avra OA-206 4682 earner Ave OA306 Huntington beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 939-54-020 939-54-031 Felich Do=ld L James Becki Lea 4682 Darner ;Ave fA207 15602 Chemical. Ln Huntfagtvu loach,Cal. 92649 :1untington Beach, Ca. 92649 939-54-021 939-54-032 Rvarres Tom`H Charlabols Dennis J 3952 Huubo.':« Dr 1045 N. Marta]. St ftut ton Beach, Cs. 92649 14, Hollywood, Ca. 90046 1 939-54-022 939-54-033 Vanderlee Olga M Richter Eberhard 46$2 `Vamor Aire $A209 1816 Evergreen. Dr llantiogton leach, Ca. 92649 Duarts, Ca. 91010 OWS"23 939-54-034 WL11LON C Charlebate Dennip 3 Wetpsr Ave OA-210 1045 H. Martel Ave ftntjmgt= 8eaebe Ca. 92649 *,or AnSeles, Ca. 90046 F(s �3��w1024 � # sP �hrt OA211 �'iE gF, .43 Uachca * . � � �. ff44 1 Y?Q 253-04 .o%r 178-261-05 N 178-261--16 LonjURob D. Becker ;tick Moody •Jonat T UNIO t t Ave 13?3„S 11 1 � DFa, k ALA qs Patos4Ave ar tiuW Ca i o r 493,74 t atrp z �aua!i, Ca. �2` lg Hu _i�ton Bach, 6+11. 92649 l78~25./3-09 178-261-06 178-261-17 I Morningstar W W Tr Wheller Douglas W 6 Helen Moody Janet I 920 -C W 17th St. 19821 Quiet Surf 4641. Lou Parris Ave Sanca Anao Calif 92706 Buntington Beach, Ca. 926/48 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 178-253-10 178-261-U7 278-261-18 Buccella Franklin J. 'Tr Brooks Jicmuy B Bragg Harold V 3541 Courtside Cir Arooks, WIllma 5540 E 6th St Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 16892 Lynn St Apt B Long Beath, G... 90814 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 173-253-11 178-261-08 178-261-21 Dueller ,tichael Strauss Lerny M Stanger William T Tr 6472 Crandall Dr 730 Santana or 16862 $laotoa 5t Apt M Huntington Beach. Ca. 92649 Corona Del Mar, Ca. 92625 Huntington Reach, Ca. 92647 178-253-22 178-261--09 163-301.-04 Fong Peter Kuan Sherg Pncter James F Duncan Dorothy J 953 Vasaar Gir 5550 Aspen St 12042 Bailey St Apt 1 Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Cypress~ Ca. 90630 Garden Grove, Cs . 92645 78-253!/(.w3 178-261-10 .. - - - 163-301-05 Moore Florence E Marchand Leo Haltom Paul T 1r 21162 MirawAr Lm Bennet- 16601 S. Pacific Ave P. 0- Box 417 10412 Russell Ave Huntington Beach, Co. 92646 Sunset Head, Ca. 90742 ._Garden Grove,�Ca. 92643 _ -----•-.___._-___-- ._ 173-261-11 163-301-07 17B�253�25 Iota James V Tr Hodder David GraeA Hart H. & Sandra A g2$ '19Ch 5C 6012 Point Lagoa bumf tots Beach, Ca. 92648 44 Manitoba St Huntiuston Beac;t, Ca. 9.,%1.6 Playa Del Rey& Ca. 90293 178-261-12 163-�301-08 7.78-253-x6 Smith harry A 4 liayetta 8rerge Orin G Jr Hodder David 807 Val.kvood Circl -t 3561 Venture Dr 410 Manitoba St Wmvstao, Texas 77tilt HuntinRton Beach, Ca . 92649 Playa Del Rey, Ca. 90291 lib-Z6I-a2 1/8-261-13 163-301-09 Brooks Jay BiII Ferry Ray C Welch Hilda R Tr 17091 Westport Dr 17491 Cress Cr Braalrs, Willman 3.6A92 Lim it Apt 8 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 0untizqtoa teach, Ca. 926411 HuntingtoA Wash Casa. 92649 � BroaM Unry E i• Wills 163-301-1b 4way 'William J 163301 16892 47rn4 St Apt B 16921 Hoskins at 164bb WillIns M Lotus WMIAagtie Leh. Ca. 9g04b hugtizAtOA flar Cho Ca. 92640 Harbour Ln Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 .17l�a6i�d4 175�261�15 - �. 178-252-06- ._..�__...._. curady lilelsel J IbOdY Jnnst T IKull ears Celesta Redd Tr 1421 Part Clyde 4641 Los Paton Ave rur.ei"tft di Che Ca. 92646 s U464aga ws to"%, Co. 92649 4581 waroer Ave Huntingtoa death, Ca. 92649 ' lT -2fi2-08 `1�3-291-74 939-54-003 ►ana RicY ard' D' -estfleld Huntington Cc Ranagan Craig J 16242 Wayfarer Ln 17802 Sky Park BJ.vd 4682 Warne: Ave #A102 Huntington $each, Ca. 92649 Suite 104 Huntington Beach, Cu. 92649 Irvine, Ca. 92:15 278-252-09 363-291-75 Berge Orin. G Jn Westfield Huntington Cu 939-54-004 3561 Venture Dr 17802 Sky Park Blvd Lawrence Helene lfuatingtcn Beach, Ca. 92.649 Suite 104 Irvine, Ca . 92715 4682 Warner Ave PA104 Huntington Beach, Ca, 92649 178-252-10 163-291-76 939--54-005 Clause Lloyd Westfield Huntington Co MurpIi. David E 16742 Intrepid Ln 17802 Sky Park Blvd Ste 104 4682 Warner Ave OA-105 Huntington Beech, Ca. 92649 Irvine, Ca. 92715 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 178-252-11 163-291-8: 939-54-006 Cappelletti John Westfield Huntington Co. Jones Mark R 13452 Fepperdine Cir 17802 Sky park Blvd Ste 104 4682 Warner Ave #A106 Westminater, Ca. 92683 Irvine, Ca. 92715 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 178-252-12 163-301-01 939-54-007 Snow .lack T Duncan Dorothy J Keil Jeanette Y 401 Purdue Cir 12042 Bailey St Apt 1 4682 'warner Ave #A107 Seal Beach Ca. 90740 Garden Grove, Ca. 92645 ac a 2 4 , Huntington Be h, C 9 6 9 178-252-1.3 163-301-02 939-54-008 !McKenna Robert L. Jr British Home In Duanne Susan M 5520 E 2xid St California Ltd 4682 Udurnex Ave #A108 Loup, Beach, Ca. 90803 P. 0. Box 546 Huntingtcn Beach, Ca. 92649 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 178-252-14 163-301-03 939-54-009 Fabian David L. Browning Ilettie. A Ford Michael D 16931. Sims St Browning, Joe C 4682 Warner Ave U109 Huntington beach, Ca. 92649 Box 588 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Kennett, Ho 63857 178-252-15 110--021-02 939-54,-010 Doyle Michael Tr Yiu F'u Huey Shieh GAsteiger Roger L 14122 Ipswich St 702 Scripps Dr 4682 Warner Ave 1AI10 Wastaina ter, Ca. 92683 Claremont, Ca. 91711 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 175-252-16 110-021-03 939-54-111 Liao Henry H Swattigan Herbert. V Tr Halley Lynn Naren P. 0. Box 595 17132 -A 4682 Warner Ave #A111 Los Aiaaitoe, Ca. 90720 Harbor Bluffs Cir Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntingtot Bes.ch, Ca. 92649 J.7b�252-17 939-54-001 939-54-112 Asamhi Xle Sherman Duane C Brown Heft, R 6690 Viart Dal Mar #y 9882 Cornerbrook Dr 4682 Warner Ave IA112 Flay& Dal Rey, Ca 90291 Huntington Retch, Ca. 92645 Huntingtou Beach, Ca. 92669 163-291-37 939-54-002 939-54-113 Alps Arthur M Crusing Victor b Badal Robert ' 14 Cr*Wwnt Ave 4682 Warner Av 9A102 4682 Darner Ave. 0113 Buntingtoo Reach. Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 ...$!le Pranriten Yg Cal 94116 _ - - - Ad w • r + Y ' 1 I � o. -I ;goal .#i {. IL ISO 1 a� ���'F � wry � .,t h ., ��_` 4• T'F Y ■ - Vol 47 • ��. 1 ri a�1r16�+r � - yr - gal �r.l drip + 1 � 1 _ A-Les-fill 11,+114do 4� 1 AF M / #A�IMW fog&V —R�Yt YQ Y YY!'m�7i!• PMO U'r a el i w 1 6 Harbour Gateit 16 ` A DEVELOPMENT BY A PA R 'T WA E N T S f 1 r - �.. - f 1p jai�Ni�r r owl WM � Mal ♦ �_r..•...,+•�,.r•H,.r..�.. . -., '�=i_ .L 5.�,�,.. .�.. —�..�L.,,.,—.1-��—._s.�_. —1ra•u�--ter.--, .--•- h.......r.�,i�_. .._..�� .L—.........��.����_a.....�_—� a, �n .. .. ._. � j' -t�➢:r..-r:.- ATM pwrom"Plow As ZEy[s®WZA-.E A YMOMD ftCCV SOW art•a 48 O I r I f F[ F ALTERWE 'LYKN STR:FT !:L€WIGN HarLvur i�a� J 'r f • Gateway A DEVELOPMENT BY A P A R i M E N T S [,Nilt I'!'4MWERRUP I 1 l �.".irils.''. - - - - - _ - _ ,� - __-w.n.:. .:.•.Z.`- _+:c .-- ==tea'. `�.-+-c.,s.===' -- - - - `'-y=- ...._. �....�.:.a.:�4, 'ram•�- :u-•rV - s i d.f�C AAt low r 3L71EIE C ftA7 ROOF ALTEI.NArT&GFMI VR FE-t I.E UVION Harbour Gate.uw. A D ELOPMENT BY _ APARTMENTS - • WARNER PARTE s'P I � s f �' e �� .�i►i-=r6ri..r�_�_sue -- - -'--- - '--+ --- � -_� _ _ _ - _�—�._.+...- �.-_�.--�-Y. •-�--_ �.__-.__-. -�.....� -'. - - - ---•_- ---- - - ...._��_. __-•__�_-. �._-------��.v.. � -�..-- - - ---- - - _' -_3r Mf 110�lIDi9!G plow 1N owsomw7 F1�1l OF 04FATMM t. l 9CHFAM c HIT aoor �-. ALTERNATE ;LYN1� STREET REG ELEVMON (ID... ; .harbour Gat��a h Dt"VELOPM ENT BY A P A R T M E N T S WARNER P}`.RYNEkSl-[P I ��F AN .t, MAW NMI f � 1Ilk , y; Or Or ^� 1 i�--r- � ` '�,y� :+4 ''�' 1• IIIti F 1 +A rrr • I . , 4 . �a •• F 1 r I • ,t', 11 'I I 1 '� II r ,• Vk \fl+ill •{ •' ••i• I 'j[� � •1i,���'•Icy :^�,.! *- Z1ti"-',.' ��� �: . I �* I i11 ;C�� �• •,,• - ram, . � I T111 1 14 f L2 1 I P jp- F 47 I . /"-VUOa COW M 5� j- axF- r— ..o&V,K-.0400 ate ! 7 SUM t,simm � -,r7�� Y ■saris sW ' !W OF■CWWAhr F*3&"J AT tNVIRY are PMWr IY LIW 46 Gafeuwy �� •+ A MVELcPMEI�r BY APARTMENTS -- f - F r i e 3-4 An I �r POA" SOMA It-w+CHM Poor AS UMMUeo saes e1- wno++�p+r+xwta noa^� � C-MOPOWD R.+Y NM. i i fe•a••error 2 STONY OMMM EEL I r i • � + � ! [ J , F � f_ T Iga,N- y . . _YNN fTiEEY • ► + � ,�, eCWW sofa �` I Y �Cile7 Y - A DEVELOPMENT BY A ? A R -r IM E N T 5 i 1 h. Y 1 Aa*Amsrd to pubkM Advw1i*ww1•&of W kinds lo +ntludrrp Irubw "wWas try cr*6 of Ihs supstow Courl of Orono* County, CslMWOW Nvmbqm A-6214, Mod 29 SePl embV. 1951. And A-1401, (1atswd 11 Jura, 1116: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ;S) HY CITY CUUIJC11i.� County of Crainge robot Ww" �e•.n•wMl � .•'�, *V Nws *"&A •• M +r T poem rMn 1►,Prsr ea.,�nw wM�h •—....,�.,.�.....—.,......r-- ...._..�..r----�14 I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of L1 ��I';4WX the County aforesaid; I am over the age of sightew years, and not a party to or interested in the blow I entitled rnat(w. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, •` printed and published In the City of Costia !utksa+sl, County of Orange. State of California, and that a Notice of publi.a Hearing of whictr copy atiached hereto is a true and complete copy, wale printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, tho Soule Coast communities and Laquns Beach Isaues of sold newspaper for ?t gt *to wit the Istsue(s) of i November 21 t.}: 5 19d 198 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Is trlus and correct. Executed on November 21 , 198 at Costa Morse, California, mama" �Rj 19 - ftnature 001, _ 1 •i,y^ yw, F 4 , CITY DF HUNTINGTON BEACH a 2040 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY V-ERK Decetter 4, 1985 Hmi,lton Properties 9421 Lailani Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 I The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting hall Dev.-ember 2, 1985 approved your appeal relative to Use Permit #85-43 snd Conditional Exception #05-51 . Jhe Council , in approval of yoL:r appeal, emended conditions on Use Permit W-43 and Conditional Exception #65-51. Please contact the Development Services Department for further information. i Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:Js ITeM�t�s�t�fl • ^rr REQUEZ FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and 'City Council j Submitted by: Charles W. ihompuon , City Adrnintstr. ator O.W. 0 Prswred by: games W. Pal in , Director , Divelopment Services m Subject: USE PERMIT NO. 85•43/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. -51 APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ' S UPHOLDING OF BZA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR HAMIA'IJTO1 PROPERTIES Consistent with Council Policy? Ki yes C ) Now policy or fxaeption Stertsenent of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fund ngi Source, Alternativi Actions, Attschnwnts: STATMMBYT OP ISSUE: 1. -� The applicant is appealing several conditions of approval imposed by the board of zoning Adjustments ,and upheld by the Planning commission on a request to add 825 sq . feet of retail space to an existing shopping center and re-stripe portions of, the parking lot for compact stalls # with a variance to maintain existing landscaped areas (6 .61 ) in lieu of required 6% area , and existing 5 feet wide streetside planters in lieu of 6 foot width requirement . The location of the property is 9596 Hamilton Avenue, south side of Hamilton and east of Bushard Street . The code specifies that existing de,,,-olopments may meet reduced landscaping requirements totaling 6 percent of the site , with � strert:side: planters a minimum of six feet in width . The Board and Commission granted a portion of the variance request to permit the existing five fo.,� wide streetside plasters to remain , but required that the site plan be modified to incorporate the minimum 5 percent landscaping requirement, specifying certain locations on the site that would be appropriate for such planter arean . RXCONNINDATION: Planning Commission action on November 5 , 1965 . ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BI ROWE, THE PLANNING C'OMMISSIO"t VOTED TO UPHOLD THE; BOARL OF ZONING AJ.JUSTMENTS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 85-51 . AM: Winchell , Rowe # Porter, Mir4ahangir Not:: Li V etngood ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: Norse: The staff recommendation im identical to that of the Planning Commission* ` ' f ANALY518: Section 9792 .10 of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code provides an exception to the current landscaping provisions that require 8 percent of the overall site area and minimiln 10 feet wide s t reetsi de planters . It re7ds as follows ; Developments approved prior to the effective date of this i ordinance shall comply with the landscape and screening standarda effecci.ve prune 7 , 1983 , which require & minimum of six (6 ) percent of the site be landscaped with a six (6 ) foot wide ( {aside dimension ) Landscape plantar located along the street: side property :line . . . oMisting development3 that do not meet the di:ne 7 , 1983 st:andar"&, shall be required to meet hhe standards in exict:ence. .Tune 7 , 1983 at the time expansion and/or exterior modifications are made to such developments . The Board and Commission agreed that it would be an undue hardship to require the existing five foot wide planter to be expanded by just: one foot , when other landscape areas on the site could 5e provided to meet the 6 percent requirement that: would have a greater: impact . The site plan submitted by the applicant depicts 4 . 6 percent landscaping. to addition, a review of the site plan showed some circulation and design problems that needed correction . The second driveway east: of Bushard is located only thirty feet away from another drive entrance . In order to eliminate unnecessary and excessive curb Cuts , the Planning Commission recommended that this driveway be closed, with the landscaped planter continued across it and additional parking spaces accommodated in the area . Landscaped fingere to protect the end parking spaces fronting on Hamilton Avenue were also renommended, as was deleting the space adjacent to and parallel to Hamilton Avenue and r placing it with landscaping . Deleting this space will provide for a driveway entrance unencumbered by vehicle turning movements in and out of parking stalls for fifteen feet into the site . other conditions include the restr'iping of parking spaces to the rear of the site in order to meet parking standards and to provide for improved access and circulation , the provision of required trash enclosurea, and the provision of proof of irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easements across the adjacent parcels . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : j The ptoposed project is categorically exempt Class 1 from the provisions of they California Environmental Quality Act . PONIM NO SOURCE: Not applicable. RCA 12/5/05 -2- (3731d ) 7" T � 1 I Ent i ALMNATIVE ACTION: Modify conditions of approval ae. desired . F ATTACl HINTS: 1 . Request for appeal of Planning Commission apcision dated November 6 . 1985 2 . Planning Commission staff report dated Novembex 5 , 1965 JWPtJA ! kIa i 1 a I I, HAMILTON PROPERTIES t�N 9421 LEILANI DRIVE HUNTINGTON f►cRCrI, CA 92646 (71.41 962.4271 Novernbe:r 6, 19BS Hunti.ngf.oArk, Beach City Council. Attn: City Clerk P. 0. Box 198 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJSCrT: Condit.ional Exception 85'-51 and Use: Permit 85'-43 Madam Mayor and Council Wimber s : This le:.ter is being orr•itten to appeal several conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission on the subject conditional. exception and use permit. Said conditions are so severe or in some cases Igo unreasonable that the Planning Commission has, in effects, "denied " the Amall 825 square font addition to our shopping center . Please set this inaltter for public hearing as soon as pounible . Very truly your , �f K . A. Reynolds for Hamilton properties Fnclomed: $155 filinq fee 1 ' I I hueitington beach dwelopment aarvices department ,1 W^f f R E P 0 R a[ TO-. Planning Commise ion FRON .b Development Services DATE : November 5, 1985 SUBJECT: USE PERMIT NO. 85-43/CONDITIONA.L EXCRPTION NO. 85-51 AMICANT/ Hamilton Prcperties E 9421 I-eilarii give Huntingt3n Beach , CA 92646 RREgMT. To appeal the conditions ZONE: CEO , Highway of approval imposed try the Commercial Board of Zoning Adfustments on a request to add 825 sq ► feet of retail space to aye GENERAL PLAN : General existing shopping center , Comm cial re-stripe portions of parking lot for compact stalls with variance to maintain existing landscaped areas ( 4 . 61 ) in EXISTING USE: Shopping lieu of required 64 area , NnnEer' r • and existing 5 feet wide street side planters in lieu of 6 foot width requirement . LOCATION: 9596 Hamilton Avenuef south sine of Hamilton and east of Bushard street 4 1 +0 SUGGESTED ACTION: RR hold the Board. of Zoning Adustments and approve flee Permit No. 6 -41 and Conditional Exception No . 85-51 based on the identical ltndi,n a and conditions of approval ; which are listed in Section 10. 0 of this report , 2,%Q..-ar an i Pg1RA&N MATION: The appellant (who is the original applicant ) . is appealing sev*ral conditions of approval imposed by the Board of Zoning Ad jueteaents on a request to add 825 square feet of retail space to an eriating shopping center which lneluded variance requests to both the m nimum ov ermlx ppeercentage of Undecaping on the site, and the minimum width of etreetside landscaping. The code specifies that existing lot AM& r r t developments may meet: reduced landscaping requirements totaling 6 percent of the site , with st:reetc- id►. pl a.nter. s a minimum of six feet in width . The Soard grarnt►-d a portion of the variance request to permit the existing five foot wide et:reetside planters to remain , but required that the site plan be modified to incor. por:ate the t minimum 6 percent .land-scraping requirement , specifying certain locations on the site that would ne appropriate for surh planter areas . ?. 0 SURROUNDING L."iND U EL_ 7,0.11P'1G ANDGENERAL PLAN 1)Ea.iGN�1�CI0T'a : Subject Pro erLX: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE : C4r Viahway Commercial LAND USA! Shopping center North of Subject. Fr pe_r ty: (across Hamilton Avenue ) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 , Single Family Residential LAND USE: Single Family Home East of Subject Property: GENERAL P!,AN DESTONA'.CTI)y : medium Density Residential ZONE: R2, Medium Density Residential LAND USE:: Apartments � So•.lth of Subject Property : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Low Density Residential %ONE: R1 , Single Family Residential LAND USE: Singl.r, Family Homes West of Subject Proper: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : General CoMme,Ccial ZONE: C4 , highway Comrer. cial LAND USE: Vac-Int 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is categorically exempt Class 1 from the provisions of tine California Environmental Quality Act; . 5.0 COASTAL STATUS : Not applicable. 6. 0 REMELOPMGNT STATUS: Not. applicable. 'StA f f ftport 11/5/85 ( 3595d) I J y i 7 . 0 SPFCIPIC PLANT Not applicable . 6.0 StIb 3IVYSION CGEM-1TTEE : Not applicable. 910 SUES AND MIA Yszs : Section 9792 . 10 of the HtpltjI-igton Peach Ordinance Code provides an exception to the current .tanciscapirig provisions that require 8 o€,'; percent of the over .III yit " area cind minimum 10 feet wide streetaide planters : r*, Developments apprr.ved prior to t.hti effective date of this ordinance shall comply ,i. th the :.. odscape and screening standards effective Jiii_e 7 , 1983 ,, which require a minimum of ,. six ( 6 ) percent of the Pi. t.e k,e landr.-caped with a six ( 6 ) foot wide ( i nsidt dimension ) lariftcape p1„nler. located « long the street side property devf.: :.arments that do not meet the Junt.t 71 1983 ,,tandards shall be r-aquir:ed to meet, the %tandards in existence June 7 , 1983 aL the time expansion and/car a,xt c : 4or modi.f icat:icn : a.re madf! to :,uch developments . The Board agree,, '"-hat it WOUld he an undue h:ir. dship to requ ' r. e the exiiiting five foot wide_: planter co be expanded by just otie s- ,aota when oche : lanc!ncape areas on the sitecould ►,e provided to m .!ek LtaE Fy' 6 percent requirrcment that would have a greater 4.mpact . The 1wite plan submitted by thoapplicant depict-s 4 , 6 percent lindsc ipir:y , in addir.i ,)Pi , a ►. e'vie',• of t:hel, . to p' :;n showed ci):c, ila3O_ I on I!d design pt(;blerns gnat needed cokrect: iOrr . The second dxivewi;c/ ci- ' t c` Bushard i p located c nl y t_h i v:ty feet ;,,vay From ano Lher drive esni:rance . 1n order t�) el '.minate unn�jceasar- v and excessive r,;, rb cuts / the soard reconmendeyd that: this dri.vE.way bc! closed.. w �( th tits lands ,_ap%d planter c rnt: inuoid across it and additional park in-7 spaces accomr-adated in the area . Landscaped finger8 to protect the --nd parking epeires fronting on Hamilton A4oaue were also recommended , as was deleting the apace ad j,,,cant to and parallel to Hamilton Avenue and replacing it with landscaping . Deleting this space will provide for a driveway *ntrance unencumbered by vehicle twining moverlents in and out of parking stalls for fift,e,:r feet into the site . y, lather conditions include the r• estting i of a; p' parking spacer to the rear of the site in order to meet parking stai,5lards and to provide fot improved access and circulation, the provision of required trash onclo►raures , and the provision of proof of irrevocahle reciprocal driveway and parking easement$ across the adjacent parcels . RECOMMUDJ TION: Staff recommends the planning Commission upheld the Board of Zoning `. Adjustmerts and approve Use permit No . J5-43/Conditional Exception No. d5-51 based on the following f i,ndirigs ant.', ,:onditi-jns of approval : staff Report - 11/5/85 ( 3595d ) a~ I 1 %k I L 'h PON APPROVAL - USE PERMIT No. 8 5 43= The establishment # maintenance and operation of the proposed $35 $qusre Foot retail addition and parkiny lot restriping will not be d#trimental to: The general welfare of persons residing or Prot k in, in the vicinity: b. Property and improvements ir► the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . 3. The proposal is consistent with the City' s General plan of hand CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 al' 1 . A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein : a . Trash bin unclosures shall be provided . b . Landaca►ping shall be provided on-site to meet the minimum six percent ( 6% ) requirement . Such landscaping shall be distributed throughout the site, but shall include the addition of landscaped fingers to protect the end pa,rkiny atralls fronting on Hamilton Avenue. In addition, landscaping shall be provided in the area of the parking space udjacent to and parallel to Hamilton Avenue , with the parking space being deleted . c. Second driveway- East of Bushard Stre�t shall be el i.minatnd, with curbing anC sidewalk restored , and landscape planter, continued across it . Packing spaces shall also be provided in front of the closed driveway. d. Ninety ( 90) degree parking spaces shall be provided behind r the existing 8, 009 Square Font building rather than► . angled parking and spaces parallel to the building. r,. .. e. Parallel spaces adjacent to existing 6 ,014 Square Poot building shall be striped in accord with the standards of Artidle 979. E. Vhe slit (6) parking spaces between the buildings shall be ;+ sttl"d is Compact spaces as noted in a letter dated 8e'pte1%bec 6, ItU r from the applicant in order to provide fat minimum twenty-four foot ( 341 ) aisle Mutt e a: Staff Report M 11/5/85 y4- ( 3595d ) +y AIM F, a { f $. Proof of irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easements between the subject site and adjacent properties shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits . A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to fprm and content and, when approved , shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Development services . 1. Proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures . 4 . Existing landscaping along Hamilton Avenue shah be intensified �:„• in toms of larger plan~ materials or a larger number of materials . Plans shall be approved by the Departments of b*velopment Services and Public Works . Or 5 + Prior tQ is3u�z&ce of building permits , the applicant shall 401ti t the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval . b. Roe topp Mechanical Equipment Plan . Said plan shall ind1rate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and � shay ,delineate rbe type of material proposed to screen said equipment. i • � 6. A planned sign program shall be approved for all signing within the commercial center pursuant to S . 9760 . 43 of the Huntington � Beach Ordinance Code . 7. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, eisi.lding Division , and Fire Department . S. Service roads and fire lanes , as determined by the Pi.re Department , shall be posted and marked . 9 . On-site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Piro Department . FINDINGS FOR APPROVJtL - CONDITA7ONAL EXCEPTION ,NO. 65-51 : or equcs Ma to nta n Ex st ng F ve Foot W e Street Side planters In Lieu of Pequired Six Foot ( 69 ) Only . ) l . Due to existing conditions of the bite , it would pose are undue hazdahip to the applicant to increas , the existing width of street side landscaping by one foot (11 ) when other areas on the site can be added Far the repaired sic percent ( 6% ) landscaping, 2 « The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order t0 reserve the enjoyment of one or more substantkal property rights. Staff Roporr - 11/5/85 -5- y1 Jtp''�e 1A,• ' t' ., , 30 The granting of Ccr,df tional Exception No . 85-51 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to pcoperty in the same zone classifications . 4, • The granting of the conditional exception will not • adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Reach . r CONDITIONS OF APPROM, - CONDITIOVAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-51 : 1 . A Lev-toed site plain shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein : 0. Overall percentage of landscaping on the site shall be provided to meet the requirement of six percent ( 6% ) . b. All Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 85-43 are hereby incorporated ae part of conditional Exception No . 85-•51 . 2. revelopment shall compi.y with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance coded 9uildAng Division , and Fire Department . 11 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION : The planning Commission may choose to require landscaping only at the specific areas mentioned in the conditions , with nothing additional to make up the remainder of the 6 percent . The j provision of landscaping at the end planters , across the closes driveway, and in the deleted parking space would provide $20 square feet of additional landscaping , just under one-half of the 1 ,063 square feet that would bring the landscaping total on the site to 6 percent . ..•TTACI MENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Letter requesting appeal dated September 26, 1.985 9 . Site plan , floor pl.a►ns , and elevations 4. Board of toning Adjustments minutes of September 18, 1985 5. Latter from Applicant -regarding parking dated September 6, 1985 ►.: JWV r JA*k 1a Oft Report - 11/5/85 -6w ( 95954) �d � `ilY���.�:'y.�r;�i'.d:.id sr�'1: , '';, ,. .'._' ��.'d..,. ,'. '.,^ . •,. .1W_. .A" J.+' ��l11�lfflf�.uf1► • � '� +'tea`�► Y�if.mot/ ��' s . •' �11a111 �� ifftif � _ p �/ � �'�1Ii111111► � f ��/! . aai�Itl Illilill►� ir lllftfl3 , . ■ =r�p�I��� M�l ��� Ld . rim fff �� '! 1llfil � I11�� ;�st1�H • � 1f1iilt� :•:."gipl � � lfftlfi�lf�ttlf#i! -sf�l#il � .:: 1lfllfi!!lffll!! Illfilil • �� •!� <� a ._ _% •• #i1#�Hi,. �:`111111Ia111i llll�ifEL�:" f1lllllfill! � lff�Hfi •� � IIIil1llflill� � .wilN Ntl ! T r !61N .11i�. Hlilfi fi�11l / 11111t�H►� Ilk J � y;Via----�! � !. • Er_���C.- � - .� !!!#lNiil!/ fir' illili � ■��s AllIf111i1 Iff1t11I1>r E/1l1i1! . ors a� �e Esii LL ul � �.�....�.■ mat � �"� � wry sa , 's a as • �. - #'�rE � . � �S.-'� EEC liE: �l•4� Est � y ti*s h 4' HAM iLTON PROPERTIES , r HUNTINGTON BEACH " * 9471 LEILAMI DRIVE HUNTIN0TON BEACH, CA 92648 �EVE�C1d MERIT SERVI�� • ;�: (71419624271 OCT 01, 1985 P.U. bUA 19U Hunt,iii;too peach, CA 92648 �► September 26, 1985 'CO Huntington Beach Planning Commission � /u//� f, p. mor 190 ' 101:tirijton Beach. Ca . 92648 SUBJECT: Conditional Exception 85-51 And Use Permit 85-43 Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission Member s . This letter is being written to appeal several conditions of approval imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on the subject conditional exception and use permit. Said conditions are so severer or in some cases so unreasont.ble that the ►'curd has effectively ";tilled" the small 825 square foot decision to our ) shopping center. Please set this matter for public hearing as soon as possible. Very truly yo K. A . REYNOLDS for Hamilton Properties fincland t $165 .00 filing fee. r f ' nu:0M s , H . H . Board of. Zoniric� r,djustments ,-- $a bar 18 , 1965 �► PA q 1 0 If ghting is included in the parking lot , ht -,epreesure sodtu vapor lamp, shall .��:� ►�:�t3d for energy �n A,11 ovtsid lighting shall he directed to pre�•WA " sp?llage" onto ad jacen t roper :: i'e s f 17. A deta i led ails analysis 1 ys i 5 shall l ] be ��,� prared by a Kegi-stered Soils Engines This analysis sha include. on -site soil satmpltnq and 1 ) oratory tenting e ryiiteriats to provide detailed recommelt atione roga ing grading , chemical and fill properties , founds ions , ret . tr.g walls , streets , and utilities. 18 . If foil-type insulation •is to be used, a fir" retardant type shall be ►.nstalled as apptoved by the Building Division . 19 . When more specific.-details rOlative to Parcel "D" ( stown on the site plan elated .eptember 18 ,. ��P5 ) as to the type of use has been determinerl,a more precise ,mite plan shall be submitted to the Board for/review ana approval .`,, This site plan showing aisle widthee circulation cf t•.raffi � location of order and Pick -ur w duws , speaKer layout , archi-�ecture , etc . , sha11 be submitted under a ,Site Plan Amendmiunt . � AYES: Cp/a;imer , fivars , Sn►i t;h , Poe NOES : Xodf. rey ABSENT: � None glen odfrey asked th(a tlinute reelect: that: n^ had votes\ "NO" bec se the front circulation for the drive-thru is not sufficient. - he would rather s1,e the resta.Urant relocated to the Southw6gt rtion - and the dr ietion of the eight scot ( 6 ' ; wall would\ ave -an dvnrse effect on the residential property since too limits ha been placed by the Board on the hours of operation for the drive-thru restaurant . CONDlTIONA1. EXCEPTICN NO. 85-51 USE PERMIT NO. 8 5-4 3 AMI i,cant, H,a m i J t on , p,r oL:)e r t i e s A request to add 625 square Feet of retail space to an existing siiopp;.ng center , reutrfpe portions of parking lot for compact; stalls with variance to maintain existing landscaped areas ( 4 . 6% ) in lieu of required six percent ( 61 ) area , and existing 5-f�;ot .wide 'planters along Hamilton Avenue in lieu of the 6 - foot wi.dth requirement . sub 3Ct property is located at 9596 Hamilton Avenue ( Soutt, side of Hantiton Avenue at intersect ion with Spyglass Lane ) . ' This request is covered ,by Categorical Exemption , Class 1 ; Caitfernfa Environmental. Quality Act , 1584 , 1 A ti 1 1 Minut,«,-sr H . S. board 'of Zoning Adjustilients . September 16 , 1985 t . page 11 Staff said this is a request. to ..dd an 825 Square Fast hui lding to ark existing commercial center and Staff b+_l ieves the -request to maintain the exist in five foot ( 51 ) volde landscape rIanter can be supported as the Ian�scaping can be expanded in other areas to meet the Code ' s six percen '. ( 6% ) requirement . Staff is recommending approval of the Use Permit and the first portion of the Conditional Exception .wit:h conditions such as deletion of a parking space in .one area , changing compact space ,; t- o thf� rear area •, obtaiding reciprocal t., park inq and driveway nasement:s , .and consol ida t i.on of the f of r ( 4 ) prreels . The Public Fear i nq wa ; o1wrierrd and the, applicant , Ken Reynolds , was + present'. . Mr, . Reynolds expounded on each of the conditions as presented by staff and statedhe t1LCj not f. ee1 he could aCSppt most of the conditions . Tom Poe and Mr . Reynolds entered ini.o a discUssion concerning the Fire Gepartmen ` ' s requirement d, for additional fire hydrants and their locations , and there wa6 a further dissertation relative Lo the, lot consolidation , the reciprocal easements , restriping of the entire shopping center , and the closure of some of the drives i.rto t_he ccrrter . Mr . Reynolds stated he felt: he and the, board nf Zoninq Adiuic�t-menLs were too far apart on these items and sugq st(�d that th(j E1oard refer his Conditional > x::eptiC)n and Use rer•mi. t: to the, Planning Commission for their con sideratinn . Les Evans stated he would inovp for approval of Condi t: ionaI Except ion No . 85- � 1 and Use Flermi. t No . bl)-43 wi t.h the findings and conditions ar, pre.yen t*ed by Sta f f . Gl(2n c;ocl£ rP. y said he would second the motion if the maker would atjruey to cdroppinq of the condition relative to consolidation of the four. ( A ) 10t5 , -And th(? 111,-3r Or a5rue�d . UPON MOTION BY FVA..~ AND SFCOOD HY GCVFREY, CONL) TT TONAL EXCEPTION No. 85-51 AND USE PE,RYil' N0 . 85-43 :,f;hE APPPOVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDXNGS AND CONDITIONAt 13Y THE; F(. LLOViTING VOTE; PINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL, J'XCFPTION NO . 65-51 : For Request to Maintain Existing rive *'rot 15 Wide Street Side Planters in Lieu of Required Six Foot � 61 ) Only. ) 1 . Due to existing conditions of the site , it would pose an undue M. I hardship to the applicant to increase the- existing width of street side landscaping by one foot ( 1 ' ) whet, other areas on the site can be added for the required six percent ( 6% ) landscaping. 2 + The granting of a con6itional exception is necessAry in order to preserve the enjoyment of one cr more substantial property rights . 9/16/85 BZA y 1 �iputa� , N. H. Board of" Zoninq Adjustments . September 18, 1985 Page 12 3, Tho granting of Conditional Exception No . 95-51 wr11 not be xattriail detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property Tn the a&me zone classifications . 4. Tho granting of the conditional exception will, not adversely *, affect the General Plain of the City of Runt ington !Beach . ,,.. Ot T_10NS OP APPROVAL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0._ 85-5 1 . A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the r Modlfteations described herein : . �, . Overall percentage of landscaping on the site shall be provided to meet the requirement of six percent ( 64 ) . , b . All Condit -ions of Approval of Use Permit No. 85.:-43 are hereby incorporated as part of conditional Exception No. 85- 51 . 2 . Development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the O dinance Code , Building Division , and Fire Department . W •� FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85 43 : 1 . The establishment, maintenance and opertatiors of the proposed 825 square Foot retW addition and parking lot rest,ri.ping will not be detrimental to . a. The general welfare of peruons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and imric'oveirenti in Lhe vicinity of such use or building. 2 . The granting of thO use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the 0tv of huntington Beach . 3. The proposii is consistent with the City 's General plan of Land Use, e 1iOMONS b? APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 85-43 l� A revised site plan shAll be submitted depicting the rwdifitations descr ibe6 herein: a. Trash bin enclosures shall be provided . I -12- 9/18/85 - BSA c ry r , { I'. 1do } A f! mtnuteso, N. a. Board of%. Zoning Ad jusLments Sep,;ember 10 , 1985 1r,.• ` b. Landscaping shall be pr ovided on-site to meet XI ' 'Min imurn $ six percent ( 6% ) requirement . Such landscape6' r;ha11 be d t� }buts throughout the site but shall. include the a t tor, o landscaped fingers Eo protect the and parking stalln fronting on Hamilton Avenue. In addition , landscaping shall be provided in the area of the parking space adjacent to and parallel. to Hamilton Avenue , with the y parking space being deleted . c. Second driveway East of Rushard Street shall be eliminatedr w1(th curbing and sidewalk restored, and landscape planter cont1 ' 11,ed across it . park inq spaces shall also be provided in f • .4t of the closed driveway. do Ninety ( 90 ) degree parking spaces shall be provided behind the existing 8 ,009 Square Foot~ building rather Ehan angled parking and &paces parallel, to the building. e . Farallel spaces adjacent to existing 6 , 014 Square Foot building shall be striped in accord with thq standards crf Article 979 . f . The six ( 6 ) parking spaces between the buildings shall 'ter tae � striped as compact spaces as noted in a letter dated September 6 , 19850 from the applicant in order to provide for minimum twenty—tour foot ( 241 ) aisle width . 2 . proof of irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easements between the subject site and adjacent properties shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permtta . A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by t-he City Attorney as to form and content and , when approved shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Development Services . 3i Proposed addition shall be architecturally compatible with ettsting structures . ' Co 21tsting landscaping along Hamilton Avenue shall be intenstfied ' in terms of larger plant materials or a larger number of 04tekials, Diane shall be approved by the Departme itra of Development Services and public Worka. 'r S. PrOr -t* issuance of bui ldiny permil;s , the applicant shall stlbirit the following plans : P a . Ge►ndscapi and irrigation plan to the Department- of Development Getvices and Public Works fner review'. and approval . .� -13- 9/16/85 - SZA 4 " ML is Iwo , i Al 1 Minutes , H. S. Board df Zoning Ad jUntments • September 18, 1985 " Fag* 14 b* Rooftop Mechanical Vquipment plan . Said play* shall indicate screeijinq of all rooftop mechanical `e uipment and ash l de ineate the type of material proposed . o screen ea equ pment . 8. A planned sign program shall be approved for all' signing within the Commercial center pursuant to S . 9760 . 43 of the Huntington Search 3rdinance Code . ' h ' 7. The development shall comply witty all applicat;ie provisions o! the Ordinance Code , Building Division , and Fire Department . r ' Sr Service roads and fire lanes , as determined by the Fire r Department, shall be posted and marked.5 1 90 On-site fire hydrants shall be provided in number ,alld at locattons specified by the Fire Department , AYES: Craniner ,• 1: ,,ans, Godfrey , Smith , Poe NOES: None ASSIPT: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 05-57 �. A Itcant : Jackie L. Garr. out:re � Min,� � ■PW �Yr�— W MV ISw�� Mr--M..wa�—Y1� w A request" to permit an approximately 60-foot, long.-decorative fence , Carta;istir���f 52-inch high brick pilasters evory_ V -6 " with 54 -inch .high wroughtN, rron fencing in between , to encroach 15 feet into the required 15-foBrtfront setback and to 9doach into the required 25-flat earner c:u nff at the h►orthw t corner of Yellowstone and McKinley in an Rl2 0e<. Subject pfoperty is located at 9651 Yellowstone Drive (NorC est c '.nor of Yellowstone Drivaa and i aKinley Lane ) . Thin request to covers y Cat rival Exemption , Class S . Caiiiornts Lnvironm al Quality t , 1984 . Accordtng to S f the applicant is ro eating permission to Fti . construct a 1 WIth a fifty-two inch ( 5,R" ) hoi►ght rather than the T m8VtOum f ywtwo inch t416 ) height as per'ahttted by Code. Also, the ' car or off, an proposed, could cause v1sibIl i.ty problems at the OOC . This wall could be constructed to meet's he �oxty -two inch height and setback limitations and Staff i � ecpmmending of the requerst . ' i R -14� 9/18lK5 - S�rr " 1 J \ ro� !r;' 1 •'VFy, irl HAM ILTON PROPERTIES f� 9421 LEILANI DRIVE HUNTiNOTON BEACH, C/► 0260 ' 11141 9624211 ' September 6. 1995 1 k'n i Kr v seftt M i, Hass }i' :•`` '+"''''''�;'; •t"`(�ici � y' y1.'� bt lNuatington seacb W, * box 190 Huntington Bench, CA 92648 SUBJECT: UP 85•-43 Dear Mr . Hebb t This letter is being written to confirm our conversation on Sept*mber 4, 1985, regarding compact parking as.. part of. the I amended sit* plan. Parking indicated by yellow on the attached plan will he reduced to compact parking standar'de ; and , thereby, increasing the adjacent drive to 24 feet, which will satisfy the Fire Department and clear the way for a public hearing on September 18, 1985 . Thank yOu for your time and consideration to tbif; matter. Very truly re, ';. K. A RZYN0LD r<�t�• � y BEACH �i { '��•'�: � ° "`' ,, •'�„ h?•.�Y'1° ' ESL' '. fi y � '- Pa Box 190 •fix! h r, . "1j"t1roon Bewh, CA 92648.' roes, ■ Vol, �+�art� ► ��1•.. .• ♦ Y• . �•• iliJ � rrM,F Y�.I+• �„ �^I_y � �.�_� i_.r__i•w._•.f••��a,,�.YAI •• • �-r.t�-,�.••� •�Y•••••• 4-1 lit) FM .10 � Cliff) `' �• �.� "'�, •- f 1�� �'� «•f 11��-� �''f`� �'i)l 1 ' fir' a• � ,;;: 1 1 � , , '•ems�� •�.��.._��i_�•..� a.r......+w..•........•.�_.�.�..� ,... •. F x NVI" t, t. MOM 41 0 �. wv':+,','.•p Mtn r90 Publish 11/21/85 A""L " C ITIONS OF MROVA. Rr. 109E IPUXT 10 65-43NOMITIML EZ=M10H 00 6 5-51 NOTUM IS HWDY CIVEN that the duatia,gtou Beech City Council will hold a public hearing In the Couuctl Chaaber at the Hunti►igtov Beach Civic Centers 20M W41a Street, Nuotlagcon beach, California, on the date and bt the time iadicatod bol.er to receive and consider the statements of all pervious rho wish to be hurd relative to the application described below. Monday, December 2, 1965 T s 7:30 P. H. APPLICATION NMMER: Use Permit No. 8 5-43/Canditlonal Exception Nu. 8 5-,51 I,�OC�ATI►CN: 9596 Hamilton Avenuc, south aide of Hamilton at intersection with Spyalatu Lane. FROKW#: To appeal the condicicn.s of approval Imposed by the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments and upheld by the Planning Comuission on a request to add 325 square feet of retail space to e:a existing shopping cenkpr, re- .tripe portions of parking Lot for compret stalls with variance to maintain existing landscaped areas (4.6%) in lieu of required 62 area, and esiating 5 feet wide: utreet aide planters is lieu or 6 foot width requirement. VIilil1R aL STATUS: The request is categorically exempt, Cla is 1, from the proyrlslons of the California Fnviroxmeutal Qus11ty Act 4' OR! A copy of the proposed development plane are on .'Ile iu the �} Dopartment of Development Services. AJ-L OMMMED PIRSO 5 are invited to attend said hearing ac4 expre" bplatoi or outwit ewtdeoct for or against the application as outlined abo". Ali apprlicatioss, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are oa file with the Off -1-4 of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntlogton fib, C&Ufornia, for inspectim by the public. HtTl1'r-MMU BEACH CITY COUKIS. By: 1.licia M. Wentworth City Clark those (714) 536-5405 r. • �`, lit i , � . ,. �1,� .purl yid41r 'T • '; ', 1 Ax :IJ , USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE 1985,y�.y.'• r y, ;f-Yi1 •�71 I fiat 1 ow f, 1JJ, ,_E r• > , r , i a ted by• pi'6011 09 comi ss i on , s ri i rig Department .. ..... ; Yr. p'oti ti on w Otftr Adoption of Environmental Status 'x Has City Attorney' s Office been YES NO Mforsed of forthcoming public Waring? �r•tlr ,1 4:, i 1 ;;" •', { r.��- Planning Department - Extensions Olr tionai infonation. $� i J, please transmit exact wording to be reqqi red„ip tl�l dal . Iry ,I�►,...,,;_,. ,. .: �� 19;°bedW lr + � .' i '.'ti i, i•,Y. , y J' :n; I !"• �•�J: .. �, Pf r, R err `�l �; r. n - „ , L ., •t m ;�' y •z J dM�#h .4„ ii M..w-.ip.:.. 4!t'v �e�.L •y.J _. q_ n.,}r�.. _ . .,+ia�l i ►�' nEwth Jo Watts4 w. 81boct a.. Tanoey 9612 CirarbMIk Or 9622 Clearbmak Dr. kph►. , Va.92546 Huntington Iloh. , Ca. 92646 IiuntLAgtan Bch,, Ca. 9264i Y .'4 9 W46 APs149-201-46 AP: 149-201-48 ftbe " 10. Tambe RQbee rt 16. 74Ubs Qr. 709 0aalarilm Aver. 2$28 I. Haskoll SO* , Ca*23649 Costa Mesa, Cai+91626 Dallas , Texas 75204 4 AF r 149-20L-55 AP: 149-201-ml6 #8,ia• Hasailton Properties dani lion Pro9orties 2622 Circles Dr. 2622 Circle Dr. Vt a0 f r Ca.92660 art beach , Cap. 92660 Newport 8eearch, Ca. 92440 AP0 149- 201-56 AP s 149-201-57 Ali+ : 149-201-58 "SIA44 Ce Ot,1a Stove n 0. Walter Angela Rinaldi P„0. tot .622 9501 Drumberat Der . 9521 Drumbeat Dr. $"s t 4*4ahg Ca.90742 Huntington Bch+ , Ca .92646 Huntington Sch . , Ca.92646 AP t 149- 01-49 AP: 149-2 01- 60 AP: 149-201-61 Joseph A, Y.asoureeux 3rd Michaerl. Juhass David G. Todd 9531 Drm"Bt Dr. 9541 Drumbeat Dr. 9551 Drumbeat Dr. X=tlr%gt» 8oh. 0, Ca,92446 Huntington Sah. , Ca.92646 Huntington Bch. , Ca92646 Ap: 149-201-52 AP s 149-201-A3 AP: 149-201--64 ,Ort H. De Ok 4orley V. FRank David S . Wiggins 93d1 Drumbeat or. 9581 Drumbeat ar. 9582 Drursbea►t Dr . r Huntington boh. , Ca.92646 Huntington Bah. , Ca.92646 Huntington Debt Ca.9264 AP : 149-201-67 AP : 149-231.-68 AP ; 149-201-69 Thomas V. Slaae Jewski lichard 1. rric%ina via F ., Thompson 227.72 Arberlla Rd. ?5 31 Dorba Cir. 9551 Barba Cir. t+egunst "iiguel , Ca.92677 iuntington Bch. , Ca . 92546 :iuntington Bch, * Cry. 92646 AP s 149-201-70 A r 149-201-71 AP : 149-201-72 t1illim T. rri Joseph Sellleth Jr. Michael, J. Shwor 9161 �prba Cir. $729 Frazer River Cir. 9562 Barba Cir. R=tington Bch. , Ca.92646 Fountain Vrtllay , Ca +92708 Huntington Bch. , Ca . 92646j { i49--201-74 AP 75 . 149 20i AP . 149�2os-��� AN - - toill.iam ir. i4r Carthy Jr. Charles W. Hahne Robert G. Love I 9562 Sorb* Cir. 9552 Borba► Cir. 9532 Boiba Cir. 1 Huntington Bchv Ca.92646 SUntington Bch. . Ca.92646 Huntington Ach. , Ca.92646 AP: 149-201-7! hP; 149-201-80 !etary Louis* v0stexy Mildred A. Cloney 21571 Da:k.:br In. • 21651 Dakar Ln. Huntinc,;ton Bch . ,, Ca .92646 Huntington Sc h. . Ca , 92646 � i A. .F� �,k�hy . � "' � � ! �1 ., � ,i r 1 • .�, ,v i ' IW• rs.t 'ui� ,A'h^ �1 ,�. '•1,� ,w: '( , .,X 'Z jv rfi�i�' p ' " J .71 • f',)•�•r+} , � rCNaiMr> f.ii�j. A'. W:r• ?'}i,w 4♦'r. , hr.y .0.:.�'Gc,2, h:r .I,�`p; yYR.+, !J. d'l'., •,;. _•+.]TiL• .. .._�ir4 i�r�r►: dr. 6f�' r 21422 1ingttsta Clr. �. h7 3 6un*ingtQn Beach, Ca. 9164 JM !, -282�2Q AP 149-212-121 Apt 142.*292-22 . g4 4ti 8 nord Kratsmahmar ne rald C. je rski fiesta Cir. 2%431 Pen"dola Cit'. 2918 M&gna Vista in lewh, C*o92646 Rubtington Reach , Ca.92646 Pasadena Ca. 01101 tt Thomas 140 Benson nary Gregg 441harn 21301 Pensacola Mr. 21381 Pensacola Mr. Cal.94246 Kuntington Beach, Ca.92646 Runtington beach, Ca.92646 t AP; 149-282-31 A;)r y 149-2$2-29 API 149-282-30 Philip d. Groan Stuart XaAa Fames Satterfield . 21402 Pensacola Ciro 213112 Parisaaola Ciro 21392 Pensacola W.r. MUntington Beach, Ca.9264i Huntington Bch Ca. 92646 guntington Beach, Ca.92646 AP : 14P"282-32 AP : 149-292-33 APP 149-282- 34 .4ichaeL ti. Qinr Robert P. Bacon Theodore B*r9astrom 21422 Pensacola Ciro 21432 Pensacola Cir. 21431 Lemontres La. Wntingtan Bch, Ca. 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca.92646 Huntington Beiach$ Ca.92641 AP t 140IW242-39 AP * 149-282-36 AP : 1.40-202-37 Caseor N X 6rr.ith John. Ballentyne Raul Alcalar 21421 lAobntree Ln. 21+401 Le#ontree Ln. 21391 ontree tn. Hursangton Echo Cat. 92546 Muntingtlon Beach+ Ca. 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca.92641 AP i 149-202-36 API 149-283-61 AP : 149-283-02 Robert M. Scopin Jr . F R&nk Marter A 0 Slater 21331 Ca use Ln. 9612 Peppertree Dr. 9622 Peppertred Or Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Hurhtington Beach, Ca. 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca. 9264� Aft • 149-293-03 AP • 149-293-04 AP: 149-283-05 Harald L. Qrtuan Claude Ritchot Larry Robert Cope 9632 vapp►ertrnn Dr. 9642 heppertree Dr. 9652 Peppertres Dr . suntington Bch. , Ca.92646 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Huntington ;leachp Ca.9264 AP s 149-201-31 AP : 149-201-32 AP s 149-201-3 3 Lyla 9. Elston Jack L. SaWson Raul J. Rodrigues 9561 Clearbrook Dr. 9441 Clearbrook or. 17412 La Hesa Ln . Huntington Behr Ca.92646 Huntington Beach, Ca.92646 Huntington Beach, Ca.92641 AP : 149-201--34 AP : 149--201-35 AP : 149-201-36 C1 da F. Pate ottilie Bolt John W. Bawer 96 1 Clearbrook Der. 9611 Clearbrook tar. 9601 Clearbrook Dr.. Huntington Bch. , Ca. 92646 Huntington Bch. , Ca.92646 Huntington Bch. , Ca.92646 t✓ 7r 7^}'{' ,. ify - " ''? r irti , : i, '*1 'a'A ,}4w w ,rJ�.M;h' , 1 A 1 I Kw i t4 '• I Y '. *Y 1/+ 1 r ,• f > Ar I 1 t +• 'r r '/ � ^�L , ,,r ° .t Pit w'M 9!hrS ,`\+t hdk'I . 4o• r.+ ,4, .¢ ' e.i{h •r. ' ''= r ,r.y•,1a AY l. :a' r;;r-.,.� • � PA + ,we��..+rr.ware ' ^'k� I r ,�2'4•�ill:.. � s � ' / r S I diva, i w,•cr ii.:r•' Ir rr7 o�'f,i;a . , AVa 1A9-2410-04 AP : 149-201.-05 to L, Jaeksm Robert T* Cote ' 21401 P inetree Ln, 21421 P inetaree * kkk h, C•.92644 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Huntington beach Ca. 92646 49 " 6 AP s 149 281-07 AP: 149-281-08 M, I�stt . Donna L. Kelw*A' JoA�! R. Hoyden gander 14 1 ! Ln. 21441 Piynetrme Ln . 21471 Pinstree Ln. Hunting ach • CA.92646 U=tington Beach, Ca. 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 kg t 14946140 AP s 1 9-281-10 Apt 149-2 81-11 Jar 9- kab' Edmond T. Samoker xenneth G. Fllson 932. re 9542 Pa p ertroe Dr. 9552 2eppertroe Dr. I 'ifuntinqMnaMh , 6a.92646 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 I � 4l�" 811t AP a 149-281-13 AP -- 149-281-14 Pat 1Crr,x1� Robert P. Juuranek Donald F. Me Pherson 4 IDV* ,9572 pappertr#e Dr. ���2 Prpp�� t1 Dr. �.ri . a 56"h, Ca*926446 Tuntington Beach, 6a.92646 Hun-tin ton B*tch Ca. 92646 g Uz AP : 149-282-04 AP-t 149-292-05 'lE9 vl h w. Kolet Larry A. Hauler John Minar 21302 Pinotree Ln,, 21392 Pinetree Ln. 21402 Pinrtrae Ln. BUatington Beach, Ca.92546 Runtington Beach , Ca.92646 Huntington Beach# Ca.92646 .h AV: 149-282-07 AP : 149-282-48 Laurance ";ker Stuart L. Douglas `red Krelci 21422 9► 1 La. 21432 binetreer Ln. 21431 Au Beata Cir. RUntingtha heseh, Ca•92646 Huntington Beech , Ca.92646 Huntington Beach , Ca. 92646 149-202-09 Aps 149-282-10 AP: 149,202-10 �.ichael z4kwsw rence D. Orohman Laurence D. drohman :1421 Augwta Cir, tington Beach , Ca. 92646 21401 Augusta Cir. asnt.ingUe ,• heach, Ca .92646 #'vetlwt2k. Huntington Beech, Ca. 92646 hV . 149-282-11 APs 149-282-�2 AP: 149�-282-16 John 7 . Korboaski William a. Clark William B. Lacina TK 31892 Via be Linda 21381 Augustan Cir. MO.Addi4an Hd San Juan Cavistrano Cap. Huntington Beach,Ca. 92646 ekdes Esiatee90274 92675 AP s 149-282-17 I Oct p. am�ifi gawoort NeAc4, C4. 92560 Y , - Yj'j 7�J��, .d + ' rT'�1 I C•JM. H�r.•�4 I i 1 �7 t ;+ ,• _ rS I} R 1 I'S,G 14 rjr. 1 IL y�y �, riflA � ,1Mr+ .tdt•s1 K / �rW v ',y r7 • h ` r y u t n: �A? j a •: N ,��1 . ':� I A�Af M' : I�`'. i fY • } 1, .'^f)1w s, + w, • � . �., 1 .. � ` • ••fin•'1 x ,Iy� yG�, ,� n' I ' '�" �71 yi�J,^,�1,��'�.'K'r�'�I�M1�fgyF',T��V � �'`''�J• o. 'di �'v d71 nip , _ •,• 'a '. ^ \.�'.y,'r,!',:a, .. ., • i ' ,: 4,• October 21 , 1985 ' NOTICS OP PUBLIC RZARING T •til • J.E,t ,�6,, '1B5-4 CONDI QN_4 1 n V :A4 TO- BARD OF ZONING AD.IC)STRI11 NDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROJNet.' 18 M1lRffi ZYNN th t , the Huntington Reach P14009 . Commission in theCouncil Chi**Og at the Huntington 1I C 'Vic r �, pd0; ain street, Huntingtoh Soacho Carlif'orni.a, ` 06'„ thi :date and �t the time indicated below to receive and consider `` thk statemeAts of toll ger;eons who wish to be heard relative to the I' -Ak li+cation described below, 1' D,ATE: Tuesdalr, November 5, 1985 TINSs y :Od PM P. t NUMBS17: Ua0. Pr"-rmit No. 85-43/Conditional LXception No. APPLICAAIT: gamiltors Proverties LOCATZON: 9506 Hamilton. Avenue, south side of Hamilton jkt ri'ntersect ion with spyglass Lane MUEST: To appeal the conditions of pf proval imposed by the Board ,if Zoning Ad justmentaoon a request to add 825 square'! feet of retail space to an existing shopping center , re-stripe por4ions of parking lot for compact stalls with variance to maintain existing la►ndscapeO areas ( 4 . 6% ) in lieu of required 6% area, and existing 5 feet wide street side planters in lieu of 6 foot width requirement . ENVIROHNSNTAL -STATUS : The request is categorically exempt , Claas •1; from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON PZLEI: A copy of the proposed development plans are on file in the Department of Development Services, ALL INT18928TED PBROONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above . All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with. the C::fice of the City Clerk , 2000 Min Street,. Huntington 'Beach, California , for inspection, by the public . Jameas W . Palin , secretary Huntington Beach planning Commission Phone ( 714 ) 536--5271 �( 3 518d) s 1 I fo �41 rl� . 00 "�, i aes�r� M 11N � rwr Nowt dl brM� ouhh►. '� A•63 t4. 061 d " 100h 6. 1961. #Ad .� $YATS C4114 OANIA CduMy of or"" .r.rr "M"wr w M�MMr �+r.rr1 f MIIIAI 1 on a 00m of the United States and a reeklent of the Comfy stores"; 1 am over the ape of eighteen years, End not a party to or Interested In the below entitled matter. I sin a principal clerk of this drenpe Doan DAILY PILOT, with which Is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newslAW of aaneral circulation, , printed and published in the City of Costa Mess, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of PA114 bearing+ M 1f, of which copy attached hereto is a truo and cornpie* copy, was printed and pubNshed in the Costa Me", . Newport Eepch, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach Issues of said newspaper for i �'stIssues Q"poll WO IMMIM to wit the iris) of September �W egg 5 lea --— ............. . �....�..�.. , 1 decla o, undor p nalty of perjury, that the fc gMng is true and correct. Executed on €teptenber 6— , Igo .. 3 at eta Mque California. Signature C/ A ���' I,fYti rj ` ! .,,.4, '( ' i` �f,,�, •{•,, i "i „� ir�� ,, 7 n A it'�14 ., r ral, ro AlY� y�'1 W �,, 1' ./� T rice, W,•� L� tv � � f'�r �' •�T� �,r. �f '/� �'� t '� y,.7J f r 3,n'��y m� �+ t r t• S� ,' � ��r.',. AZT '� 'M1��t'P � r .'V" ��. .n� "1Y � 1�•>v l 4�d!}, 'J'�'�.�' '1� 1 yap yy �• �, ,, � i, 'I'll SiT '7 r � � "'��1 jr,« r� t� � • �'"�f+�t�' Z ''r� u�.4 •' �y" n IZ• ��� 5.���'� �'�f�i� .y � w'+.f��� Z f vrr' V, l ,� y �IA,�} r .r i`, y .r,�t,, _- • . � :����r�+ 'sy����%'' "i; � ��•; c fit-'�,� .+ �, y� 1 atY.V �r 1 • � 1 q HUWIN CALIFORNIA 0" MAIM "Key 4"1=OF TN! CITY 0ARK 1 Soar log 1905 FJ,. m ` . OveyMoK. Carl Corporation i CA 91101 h t t �+M1M 1 of the City Of 4mtjrgt*n Reach at its regular meting t` id, 1985 approved Cartditionai Exception 85-32 snd Adsin- te"airti i, r 85 .22 ss riled OW with mWitions. *"i* of t ' the Doolopment %m me icas Deportment for further information, . ..,! . l ie M. Wonb arth I oc I X0 0 Dovolopmmont Services director tTM.: �t4aae�ril 111; 11, ♦j , it Wkr + NCO v441.y�„(dy ,l,r , ' ,`.:;��rM rty '��1 f r a rer y�. ,r,n,..i(C y:• ,e`4 r If FOR CITY COUNCI ACTION s ' Eworabl* !Mayor and City Council ::. CbstION V, Thompson, City AdministratorPoop birs C' 04MAe we Palin, Director $ Development services 40 MOW APPEAL OF TNZ PLANNING CONNIESION' S APPROVAL CON620IONAL IMPTION no. 05-32 AND ADN1NISTRATIVE IttVIZ 1 NO. 85-22 con no 000"reaw? [ 1 ya N� Folioy or Exompdon a blot powit 0 Remi iv wa kWon,llnslyria, Funding Sours,Al tive Aztkww, pttaahm*nto: The Kannjn Co�issi�on 'u approval of Conditional Exception No. � 85-32 and ALinistrartive Review No. 85-22 to construct a 851600 squwre.'loot, 3-story mini-sta►rehouse and relocate 4 #400 sgua►roi feet of an i*iebing offices building on the property with variances :or building encroachment into the front setback and a reduction in ;Onter Width at 7532 was has been appealed by Councilman Kelly or tho Citycouncils consideration . It wa originally approved by the, Ord of Zoning Adjustments on June 26, 1985, An appeal by COsalssion6r . Porter was made. After three hearings by the planning Comi,ssi,on, the appeal was denied and the Planning Commission upheld the hoard of Zoning Adjustments action of approval . � C . ltn►ATION: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION: On august 20, 1985, a public hearing was held.- ON NOTION BY ERSXIVE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, THE APPEAL WAS DENIED AND THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RRVIbV NO. 85-22 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-32 WAS UPHELD BY � THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Mir jahangir , Porter NOESr Rowe, Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher AHSTAtN: None FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-32: 1 . Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape , topography, loca;:ion or �oa� 41)} 4 T 1 'f•�' � IP•�j(Yp V �4114 Fy .Y „ M J:k Y,i• K 6 IrYrr. 1, r1 ro 1+1. , rltl 4. W r' 51'• 1 attro"dings, the attict application, of the Boning Ordinance is tdoh'd""to deprive the subject enjoyed by athe folortiea in the vicinfroperty.of.priviloges ty and ndr identical none 2' fxonting of a conditional exception is ne06444F in order to *dorve th'e enjoyment of one or more substantial property f i I r 10. 3. The grantingq of conditional Exception No. 85w32 will not be �I Materiallydetrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. ' d. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely 4( affect the General Plan of the city of Huntington Beach. CqPa1J1*N8I+1 OF APP92VAL - CONDMONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-33 : 1. That site plan, floor plans , and lelevatiotte received and dated July 130 1985 shall be the conceptual layout. A revised site ppIan shall be submitted depicting whe modifications described below , The revised site plan shall be reviewed and a pproved by the DiLeotor of Development Services and shall be the approved plan . t a . Txaeb Areas bs parking spaces 4, 5161 and 7 labeled and signed "ljoading Area Only' . C., Additional landscaping provided adjacent to the relocated building (eastern most point of site) . 31 The building shall comply with all Fire Department standards and standard number 41.4, 3 . The property owner will be required to maintain the interior shrubbery area and the city will maintain the outside. a. The property owner will be responsible for keeping all trash and debris out of all landscaped areas public and private. 4 . Underground tank removal will be to the Fire Department regulations . S. Aisle ways to be two way and pasted as fire lanes per the Fire Department Regulations. 6. Gates to be designed per the Fire Department Regulations. RCA - 9/16/85 -2- ( 3145d ) c �'e A,. • rile.*f � '}rb ii'rfi11 ,I ,.'r. 1 I+Nd .r / 'n l'i4 r, I' ,l I R F, •� . � ' ia• � r 't; ''' �'' ' � � ' +, ''� r I" ' IV . ,,jl+'+ 'Y' ,� '' M+4 •• 7ti N,'`•," � ' ,1'hb l ,.bw f. 1':,' + 1 �Yl�y�j„1+ I�. ' �,,r,1} r,,'I.' , ''� ,,�,r,.''.� „ • .'..*w>w h:,g•:", '+n ' b,:�1 � ' ,\' •,' ,ry..', C�'�2 I 4". op IF \,}1�YT'1 TY tv'I f,� , r'14,' b'�'r.7."„ ' r .1 c• ' pti ',{. 1a�x^�, `� R4"l'r`�.Pi `� ,4,;ti r{rF'.•"F{(' �� y�� qy > rr. ! q�,rr , +•.r_fn,, ". ',i'A h1.' .Y yM. + MIS.'• Ity , a/l♦.' .ity, •% ., •,, ; '., ' ,I, On glone , and elevations received Asa dotod o the conceptual U out . A revised 810 11 be 90mitted de ictin9 the Mod fication* described 11'9 misopd site plan shall be reviewed and approved by Development Serviess and shall be the appBov0 a. �casb �raas b M .Thing seaces 4j 5,i i and 7 labeled and signed "Loading 1►too Only i . ce ;Additional landscaping provided adjacent to the relocated r• • buildii.cj (eastern most point of the site. 1 . Prior tv issuance of building permits, the applicant shall subsait the following plane= a& ramdscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services And Public Works for review and approval. b.0 Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan, Said plan stall indicate screening of all rooftop Mechanical equipment 46d shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment, 3. ThT development shall comply with all applicable nr.oviaions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division , and Fire Department . a. prior 'to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit proof of reciprocal driveway use or shall enter into ltrevocable driveway easement between the subject site *Ad adjacent property. Be ' Pr ibt to issuance of building permits for the relocated building, the applicant shall i ubmit to the Department of Development Services floor plans and elevations for review and approval . B. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 7 . There shall be no outside storage . Be All signs shall comply with Article and 976 of the Huntington Brach Ordinance Code , 9 . Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures . RCA - gr15/55 -3- ( 3205d ) I h lip Mwf- le, pJra"stkd project to be in accordeace with Eire Department 44440 904 414. lit ovolu" hoof~ Irhall be used on all spigots and water lie ilbidding spoils, such as unusable lumber, wLre , pipe, and . giief Susplas or unusable staterial, shall be disposed of at an oi'fatite fatciltty or uipped to handle them. 11, in the event an on-.site manager 's quarters is proposed, the structure on the cub ject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the Bute acoustical staAadards set forth for unite that lie within the 60 CNBL contours of the property. Evidences of compliance shall consi4t of ,submittal of an acoustical analysis report , pro red i;rider the supervision of c person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with tho application for building perattts ?. 16. If ] fighting ie included in the parking lot , high-pressure sodium vapor lamps eball be used for energy savings. All o4tsidee lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage' onto .adjacent properties, 15. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared bl a registered Soils gatineer. This analysis shall include on-s i to soil gampUA4 and, leboca►tory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical, and fill pro rtie,s, foundations, retaining walls , streets, and .utilities. IC if foils-type ineulation is to be weed, a fire retardant type shall, be installed as approved by the Eltilding Division. 17. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent ptloperty6 ' A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and , when apptovedp shall be recorded in the office of the County ltedorder and a copy filed with the Department of Development Services , STAPT RECOMME"ATION: Staff reecormonds sustaining the appeal and approve Conditional Exception No. 85-32 and Administrative Review No. 85-22 subject to taodified site plan and layout dated September 6 , 1985 , as submitted by the applicant , subject to all applicable conditions , revisions and additions as outlined herein. UNDID CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL w CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION M 85-32: wwswr+ r■��.[.yw.+r[ .■weir. ■�■www—�w� .. 1 . The rtvieed site plain dated September 6 , 1905, shall be the approved conceptual layout for the mint-warehouse building. RCA 0/16/66 -4-. ( 3205d ) I ,, MT � C 11S 1 I 'I t• r. ,. .r 1 •', 7 1 - ..I Fll� , •1 I .� v 1 1 ,LL.� r rj1� YrM'y F I�F'r ' „I� r '1 •� � Nl rrl'E+M 1• t I r�l �•t.. ', 'aFy AM w �Wn •t 1 �1 � r, I h.' t � y' L rujlrC P .}I Y( �r }Nf' r 1 1 1 S 'r r ✓ 1N 11 ' r r An1r J�'p✓r•,nr � "�a 'i�•,' ,'" 10, fi t* ' J 1 d r li r w Jv4rr r ),t i, ..1 ' ti!•911i r , r e �'.. �• ,�n•1,,{q;r" 1 q . •I�1�1 1 :1. 7 1I ' Ni44d grits clan to be reviewed and approved by the ,. '.a OV91opment gervices, the fire Depart"At and t pepartment *boll be submitted d0pldtinq Cbe #. All trash enclosure areas . n • x: b* Fully dimensioned site plan. of Label all parking spaces parallel and abutting the building as 'Loading Area only. ,* d. Addttional landscaping adjacent to the relocated buia diisg at the easternmost paint of the site . 4 o. Sufficient fire lane access. 7. Prior to the isouance of building permits, on Parcel No, 1 of parcel Map 107-18 an agreement shall be recorded with the adjacent westerly parcel owner of parcel No. 2 granting an emergency fire access over and across subject property to a six foot wide game at the northwesterly corner of parcel No. ' 1 1. ' 8. An agreement shall be entered into between the property owner 1'r And the City and recorded, guaranteeing that the property owner' or future property owners, will remove the 4,4OO square foot office building at the expense of the propmrty owner at the end of a $-year period of time from the date of a proval . This agreement shall also provide for an exchange o City right-of-way area on McPadden Avenue for property to allow for future off -ramp construction of the 405 Freeway at !McFadden Avenue. ,AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPVOVAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-22 : 1 . The revised alte , .Aan dated September 8, 1985 shall be the approved conceptuaal layout for the saint-warehouse building. j A revised site plan to be reviewed and approved by the Diractbr of Development Sevvices , Fire Department and Redevelopment shall be submitted depicting the following : a. All trash enclosure areas . b. Pully dimensioned site plan . c. Label all parking spaces parallel and abutting the building as OLoading Area Only. " d. Additional landscaping adjacent to the relocated building at the easternmost point of the site . e. Sufficient fire lane access. 2. C. Detailed elevations and floor plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board . RCA - 9/16/65 --5-i ( 3205d) �h�,I v,,p! i y��L I,il•i�fra ','� hA 'i f 1 p 7 h]DII!•,Y+'F. 1�.••i'1 rr�'" • A' ! 1 ! ryl�� ' '/ „Vr4 r'1 r,�i yo r 1 �� � •�ti.' -, �'p''F �• ^yrl " i• d .�1" rllp .''• + r" 1+ w-' Y•wtiti' r hlY�r kv'9: �+%' Iri r '�,, I�r a " " 7 1 � 4 C.'ik� � ,, •' r, W M 1.. 'f y 170, wv{, �, ,• f�,1 ��V1 yl ; . +, '. r , 1 ' YI• '• "�1.' . �.•��'� ' 1j. Sr,'r� ''fM'i� 7-7 ` ,Q,a ! v,. 'yam, + NM •1 ,'.>" i , . .•` ,-� .•' 1 !�r 1,e'� 1 'fin � ",",..� 'Y�1u,+ ' b�r w '' '}• ," . ' .. L 1 , '' '�'•I.��i; r SkP• 'YY "'f'n"t „-!'' ' ' .. 'J-�'.r�y��f1�,yy�p� ,( yr�Y' 1�. ' ` t ,,µ 4 1• '''f+i. '!,' ; i•,.. . . •.f';!�'''�. :'C•',`.7R�I'.'•';T.rPM'!?�'R!';••".` �, I"'•.�,ryr'•"'+iIF'.i�,'•,'-a�„'I�J m'�"1r 7. �1��!ry,-vy`:'}- '' v . . t,( , 111, � �1 f�1 V+,! 1 �,�jl F •;�I ',^, �q,,, dv, , 1 :gip tb� pana ce of bufldin e�rtaite, an Parcel tea. 1 0! I be recorded with the 14 r -of Woo ra"OAq all �i;0040, 6114t And .a0c,08 r aub jest property to a tote, tyre hatthObstarly cornet of PlAtcel Na, f ' . i 'aaareenent shall 'be entered into between the property owner hod hni. City and recorded, guaranteeing that the property 1"t'? 'or future 'ptopi arty owners, will remove the 4#400, IWO%re fao� Office building at the expense of the pro�rtY at the 'e�ad of a 5-year period of time from the date of approval * This agreement shall also provide for an exchange of City right-of-way area on McFadden Avenue for property to ailtsM for futute tiff-ramp construction of the 405 Freeway at 91cpsaden Avenue# AP�t1T: John Cray/O. K. Earl Corp. 199 S. Hudson Avenue Pseadena, California 91101 AMZ&AW.T: Coupell n Jack Kelly - : 7531 McFadden Avenue (north side of McFadden approximately 2r190 feet west of Beach Soulev"ard ) On July 16, 1965 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal of Hoard of toning Ad juatment approval of Administrative ikeview No. 85-22 and conditional Exception No. 85-32. ,. A MMION W hs HADN BY ERSE INE hND SECOND BY PORTED TO APPROVE ADNIMTS'Y�LTIVL REVILV NO. 85-22/CO D1TIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85--32 WITH CO ITYONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: I AYES: Erskine, Porter , Mir jah ngir MOM, Rowe , Schumacher , Livengood A982M x Winchell AWArN% None Due to the tie vote, Administrative Review No. 85--22/Conditional Exception Me. 05-32 was automatically continued to the Auguat 5, 2905 Planning Commission meeting. On August S. 1985, a public hearing was held : A MOTION WAS !JADE BY LIVENGOOD XNa SECOND BY ROWE TO CONTINUE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-22 ANl7 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIOV NO. 85-32 BY THE POLLOWrNC VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter , Rowe, Schumacher , Wtnchel.l NOES: Gone ASSENT: Erskine , Mirjahangir ABSTAIN; None RCA - 9116185 -6 ( 3205d) r ty i.. 0-0 Aftialstrative Review Hot 83r-22 is a request to construct a 85, 600 agisare foot mini-warehouse and relocate 4, 400 square feet of an exieting building pursuant to Article 953 . Conditional Exception No. 96-32 is a .request to allow a portion of the relocatmd building to encroach 8 foot into the required 10 foot front yard setback (9#9i39.06) , to permit a reduction in planter width adjacent to a iandstaped bank adjacent to Wadden Avenue (b.9792 , 3 ) , and to permit use ofsurp us land for landscape purpose between the property line and the back of the sidewalk along McFadden Avenue . The board of Zoning Adjustments approved the request on June 26 , An appeal to the Board.'s action was made by Planning Commissioner Porter because of, concerns regarding inadequate acceso lanes for parking, loading and unloading, and driveway access for two-way traffic adjacent to the westerly and southwesterly portions of the building adJacent to the private storage doors. In addition it was pointed out that there was insufficient customer parking adjacent to the warehouse office for inquiries , visitors and customers . After review of the Board of Zoning Adjustments ' action, Staff felt that the Hoard did not discuss all of the pertinent isaues and acted i improperly in approving the applications. Of serious concern to Staff was the propob'*d parking for the project . The applicant had t` proposed parking at a ratio of one space for each 5,000 Square Peet of warehousb bui•ldtno area for a total of 17 warehouse related parking spaces. The relocated office building would require the additional 15 spaces the applicant has proposed. The City 's Parkl.ng Code# Article 979, however, requires warehouse parking art , a ratio of one apace for each 1 #000 Square Feet of warehouse building area. Including the office building, this would result in a requirement for 105 parking spaces , 73 more than the applicant has proposed. This parking deficiency was excessive and should not have been overlooked. For comparison purposes, Staff assembled a table Mgrure 1 ) indicating how other cities assign parking to mini.-warehouses. The proposed aite plan for the mini-warehouse also indicated conflicts betweer. proposed parking areas and building access . The submitted first floor plan , when analyzed in comparison with the site plan, showed that parallel parking spaces at the Southwest corner of the building are located in front of the elevator access doorway. It in Likely that parked cars will frequently block access to and exit from the building. In addition# the stairway access and building entry point at the northwest corner of the building is served by only fotir parking spaces . This is poor distribution of parking spaces in proximity to the building ' s entry points which results in poor traffic circulation , orientation , and parking availability problems . RCA - 9/16/85 -7- ( 3205d ) Sy staff also had concerns with the Conditional Exception which was raquesied for the site. The applicant had requested permission to receive landscape credit for areaa within the puolic right:-of-way, reduced landscape planter width , and an encroachment into the 10 foot front yard setback for the relocated office building. These three variance requests indicate that the applicant is proposing to overbuild the site . %%*• Redevelopment staff had expressed concerns regarding the use of the site] that a warehouse is not the highest; and best use under the tedeyeio sent plan. other uses may tend to maximiPle tax :revenues `L for tax Inccoment financing. Another concern was the buildings orientation in relation to a proposed .tonceptnal right-of-way alignment for the Gotthard street/405 freeway off-ramp. The current conceptual right-of-way off-ramp alignment as proposed by the eity' s traffic consultant would require eliminating a portion of the warehouse building, removal of the office building and deletion of several parking spaces . Redesigning the warehouse building could alleviate these concerns. At the July 16, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the appeal at which time the item was continued automatically, because of a tie vote (3 to 3 ) . On ]august 5,. 1985, the appeal was continued by the Planning Commission as recommended by staff and per concurrence by the applicant to allow time for staff to meet: with the City Traffic I Couaultant to discuss conceptual right-of-way off-ramp designs for the Gothard Str-eet/405 Freeway off-ramp prior to the Planning Colntafssion 's action , and to obtain data indicating parking ratios for mini-warehouse facilities of this type in other cities . The Planning Conmisaioni on August 20 ! 1985, dented the appeal and upheld the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of Administrative R*view was 85-;32 and Conditional Exception No . 85-22, Subsequently, the action of the planning Commission has been appealed by , Couhciliari Jack: Kelly because of concerns regarding the parking ratio for the facility. for the last fifteen years, the City - has allowed a parking ratio of one space per five thousand,,:equare feet of building area for mini.- warehcuse facilities of one- 'and two-story construction with drive a sloe to acco oi4ate loading and unloading. With the advent of multiple stories, elevator access and interior corridor circulation designs , staff feels a more aipropriate layout , based on the survey informationo would be one space for two thousand square l:eet of building area. Staff has worked with the applicant since the planning Commission meeting and conceived a revised plan which addresses all of st+aff 's concerns and provides a bettor layout. The warehouse building in approximately 86 , 000 square feet and is provided with 43 panting �tCA - 9/16/85 -8- ( 3205d) f i •1 ry tip q ',r Jay., / 'F� •i .. w v h .^ r; IXS;'r y1�zI� A�p f��1 a`/'�"~4�1+!'�Ih�/n.b al'l+.Lt'� � ��� '; • r. I, sptees , a 14tio of 1 apace per 2 ,00 square feet of building area ; and the ofltde building has beenldesigned with 15 parking spaces. parking, loodin and unloading rind driveway access have been widened and sigaificanty improved. Afire lane will be provided along the mouth and east side of the property. Additionally, an agreement for �re:manont emergency fire acce%s over the ad scent pyto arty to the 6 foot 9at6 at the northwest corner of the building will be submicted. Although the variance r.equeut is still necessary for the office building encroachment and ,parking stall overhand in the front iaAdscaped area, it is not necessary for on--site landscaping since a sufficient aecoot has been provided which complies with the code. �w in a4dition the rev!xed layout will accommodate the current conceptual right-of-way off-ramp alignment proposal without any modification to the warehouse building; however removal of the office building will . ►je required* A proval of the variance should be for a period of 5 yearm at which time removal of the office building shall be required at the expense of the property owner in .preparation of the property for the proposed off-rump. The revised layout and design of the facility is more compatible with the site. ENVIRONMENTAL FrATUS t i Nogative Declaration No. 85-25 was approved in conjunction with Administrative Review No. 85-32 on August 20F 1985 in the planning Commission. No further environmental review is necessary. FUNDING BOURC„E_: Not applicable. ALTERNATIV2 ACTION: 1 . Deny the appeal and uphold the planning Commission ' s approval of Conditional. Exception Nc , 85-32 subject to the Findings and Conditional contained in the planning Commission action section of this report. 2 . Approve the appeal and deny Conditional Exception No. 55-32 based on the: fall-lowing f indings . FINDINGS POP. DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTrON NO. 85-32: � 1 . Because of the size and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there is no extraordinary circumstance justifying a use of public right-of-way for landscaping purposes . RCA 9/16/85 -9- t3205d) 1.�'' ..�r'; 1 � r'y,," ;',I� ' 'l' a ' .} • . f F A,, 1 � ^�• 4 k ` S��-•{ 'r ,, _ L , f ' 1 1� , • S rr w FI OF *•f,T�+ 4 Y7u%15 uFu'rr 1i'r fr ;i , y1 q L" : (l�S• y�,•rl•Y/P 44P''.f« '�,�^r .�• + N'� l :�.' 1 tt' MW �''P• ,fry,>,,A� i 'r•�.;tii r :�IIry R�+► .� )• '� � 'ff^1Nzo-. ^ I.;,K ln.r,rV ' \ Y 4i�J..�1�14 J n i 1 �!•n . ,M,F K r I .li•.f4 1 • 1 2; because of the size and lack of unique topographic features of the sub j*ct property) there is no extraordinary circumstance justifying a reduction in width of the laidscape planter . 3. because of the Baize and lack of unique topographic futures of the subject property , there is no extraordinary circumstance justifying encroachment into the requited 10 foot front yard setback . 40 Reduction in size of the proposed mini-warehouse would allow the proposed project. to meet all aspects of the s,oning code. i. mini-warehouse Parking Standard Survey 8. Memo of Appeal. from ,Jack Kelly dated August 29r 1985 i 3. planning Commission report dated August Zpr 19f,5 4, Planning Commission minutes dated August 50 1985 5. Rlonnin Cotemisson minutes dated July 1.6 , 1983 8. Appeal fitter from Marcus porter dated June ':8 r 1.985 7. Board of Zoning Adjustments Conditio,is of Afproval dated June 260 1985 i I i I 4' I I k I I I I 4f f • w RCA 9/16/85 -10- ( 3205d ) I i r }� i �T�t �i:F� •r: x' l q.�,�� _ t a. ' �� � ) �Yy^, n .,�c+e, :.P �' ,� . r I r010� ir,•-y ^ ?}, {'':.�`•F�r TA'�(JM 4�fi 1 MrM I'�. T�it "� 7hA 4'.:� } tom` 1r} . ,, , ' ' r '�r; r •�,',- � ., �,ti `?'Jr��h"' 1 i� �' 1 ^J '; , i•.} .y ( i' '� :�* t ''E: i y,r ! 'L 4+y. rA' ,(. °i'r�;1'o-�4�r }- y$�'r jrtl;' „��,1. } ;�• y. ',4'}"}.. ''� a4'R 1 r`l, },. ',�"� �' r . • yYM „17��J ,R Y .., 1% r Il'I d/ n1' , w✓,fir Y' ,1,. ,A '. �}}� m �ry + .:. tin ♦.1y��• r` Cittt litaf l4d�t� J,arking Standard Comments .., . .:M.. .,w _ Baas• coviaw, usually Have oxperisnced ',-, �i!#►•r�1la sat ; b � Di ' 6f g0tvall warehouse stand, problems with vehicle '16dintly approved ant at stacking. Design of 1/70500 sq. fts unloading area is critical . �.� "1 iio itocage unity plus 2-car aCago for Fagg. 30 ' drive .4tf . e ,.or t.Vo -va i traffic. Santo Ana 1/150 storage units No existing 3-story mint 's in City. stmi►ni.ster Casa-by-case bs,sis, 1/10, 000 Most of the parking IC sq. ft. was recently approved. next to the office* orange Caatr.-by-caste basis , generally k , 6-1: spaces/complex. Log Alamitos Recently. approved 3--story mini One building with no at 1/i3400e center aisle . ' rullerton 1/1,000 general warehouse No mini-warehouse in standard. City. Cxnacd 1/1,000 for first 20, 000 sq. ft , Same standard fcr all 1./2,000 far second 20 , 000 sq . warehouses ft6 and 1/4 ,000 for anything over 400000 sq.ft, I Discussioa with zoning officials and mini-warehouse managers have indicate4 the following: 1. A p�aarking standard of 1/5 , 000 is reasonable when the mini-warehouse bnildings '•are separated by an aisle of sufficient width to allow anstriped parking along the building. 2. Two covored parking spaces should be provided for a live.-art manager . 31 Approximtely 501 of the required parking should be outside the gate at the manager 's office. 4.« Design of parking and vehicle access around the elevator loading and unloading area is imp*ctant to avoid stacking of vehicles and � blocking of aisles. S. A live-in manager with a view of the drive aisles is a significant aid to alleviating parking problems when they occur . 310d f AT"4vHMM41- :W .w',' �;n1J°,i;1�iv �-'r r _ � ,,,M yr• y) � � ° � �r��'t�1,' • �' �. ��� I'h''•7A1,� � „...t•'��M! � !!� . '. +' �`' '.fir � , I � r � l t � e. 1 �. �'',' ��•� '.,.� pal . ' ,;�r ri. I" '),•'tom_ yy��, �..' 1.+1'.� Ada `rllgy.r+1�l+r yiF' �1•.; o-�.�rr.J.y�6 , '�'� � �.:.r.'�.' . .t l ARKTION" SOURCES CONSULTED cit+�'' %,p4cl,hy. zvey of 1100000 square foot facility operating at 93 p►t at An average of 17 vehicles per 34 hour Period tet ., rr IANI 4 Assootates , Zt4flig Mgtkeer a Letter to Linkletter . •, 1 % cilt8 a' AftVey 'df a 713 unit facility which cavenled a maXIMU t p►arkin#$ 40and of 3 vehicles at any given time, to a40049chkal. *nd will call bock. rr Ka tiona�l Parking aocistion - No infora�ation on mini-vrarekouaas � � ��l�.rl��������i o u s ei No xnf rep ion i h fill "File stvc4ge�-,Assocf,ation - is researching and will send v' &&A*letket pro erties - Left meesage to call City back . In"I - Request for information sent out. J� 1 i I i (3145d ) L �Y •y',fir. 1 4�'�1� {� �+e , ,�i , , �t41 �, +,.1 '•'��,�� � ,'lerh y4,i`r K r'r`" • :.�i •`.., 'c , y4w NUMIN luau" 4i, . .Miry COUNCIL CQ 1MtJNl A1`1Q -dta'' + L r `• e r it 1 r j zz :St. rch '4 � y,,•, owe Aux �:. :. ,,.. ►a ooGix Sri* Ciy �► �+' •r ir WAN r i fir.?ir� ,tit' .,��'�4a ,•�4X'}� •, ,•r'� �• ,� Pt +n; .,, "We kw, *,,4 q r�r ,�, f 1 f y�A!dZ '4 yro ` „� r �r a N"1 • y° ,.M pi. _r i• i=w} •r ,4' * •. 6, '•AYE ',,{{rY. t .y4.. .;nt' f nib 1 ,! + i it � 1 �r . . A M. ,, , ,...'4�, S°r' aywi A` ,�'. a ,,. .,, t, ,', ! •v '• C'n .r .. T� '` '; `� ,: , ,•;'MI� � is 1 /7 e X Y 'LbmW*beach deveh*mnnt tervices dopartm*ant 4 IEPORI • TO: Pl ni'nq Commirsion Mom � bovelopient N*rvices AM$ 20, M 5 SM&.►c.lrI APPEAb Ot. ,JIDNINI STRATIVE REVIEW NO. 65-12/ , CONGITlf NAL MEFTION NO. 85-32 Deny Administrative .Review No. 85-22/conditional Exception No. 65-32 and overturn the Board of toning Adjustments ' approval oil; those � i tea . • NEAALI INFORMATION: These items wGre automatically continued from the planning Comminsion ' s July 16 , 1965F meeting because of a tie vote ( 3/3 ) on the Applications!. In the ensuing time , Staff has further researched several ampects of the project and has developed a recommendation for denial of the applications. AMALY51st HISTORY: The subject property has been the object of a series of applications and developments over the years . In 1971 , a permit was issued to ,Jegar ra'ctor Company four construction of an 1880 Square Foot office building facing McFadden Avenue. In late 1977 , administrative Review No. 77-170 was approved for construction of a 5pDOD Square root indusz ribl building on the western portion of the property. Tentative Parcel Nap No . 77 -40 was also processed ai that time to divide the property into two parcels . In March , 1979, field inspedtions' indicated that plans submitted were not matching field conditions which the Building inspectors were encountering . .11 written request for a survey was sent by the City to the property owner but they request was not adequately complied with . In June, 1970, a permit to add a second floor to the original office building was authorised. ra February, 1981 , a carport in the offier . building was encloded into an office without proper toning entitlement . The subject administrative heview and conditional Exception for mini-warehouses was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments in .dune 1985. , A•i M 43A � Or , , l '� G VBt t w. - Otaft has field checked the property and found the following uses : OU106 building houses a Dental Co,.lege and the office for an WO repair shop. Cars for re it are stored on the South aide of the attic* building. The 51000 Square Foot industrial building houses a boat rapair operation . P. metal building on the' Northeact portiop of the property presently houses a wood planter . manufacturing operation . Avis Car Rentals stores new automobiles on the southernsioat portion of • the property. fal,rIT9 0 MIC2 BUSING Lam: A detatlWsu.rVey map which was finally submi't:t'ed in August , 19850 ihdifaied that the office buiAding is located in a . portion of the b y.bli,e tight-of--way and is nog: located as indicated on • mapssubmikted the property owner in 1919 :• The building is located at a - different angle and ten feet closer to the right-of-way. The Southwest corner of 'the •building in two feet from the right-of-way line and the front entrance stairway extends six feet over the ri ht.nof-way: As aresult, the office building was evidently illegally constructed and is in violation of City Zoninq, Ordinances . PROpOUD, MrNI'-VAREHOUSE -DEVELOPMENT: On May 1.4, 1985 , Administrative Review No . 65-22 and Conditional Exception No. , 85-32 .were filed with the City. The t.dministrative Review was to relocate the existing office building and construct a mini-warehouse of 90 ,000 Square Feet . The Conditional Exception wa!, to permit use of surplus land for landscape purposes between the property . line and the back of the sidewalk , reduce planter width adjacent to the landscape banes adjacent to McFadden Avenue , and to . , encroach into the ten foot front setback . The Administrative Review and Conditional Exception were approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustm*nts on June 26 , 1985. After review Of the Beard of zoning Adjustments ' action , Stdff feels that the Board of Zoning Adjustments did not discuss all of the pertinent issues and acted improperly in approving the applications . Of serious concern to staff is the proposed Parking for the ,project . The applicant has proposed parking at a ratio or one space for each 5, 000 Square Meet of warehouse building area for a total of 17 warehouse related parking spaces. The relocated office building would require the additional 15 spaces the applicant has proposed. 'fit* City' s Larking Code , Article 979 , however , requires warehouse parking at a ratio of one space for each 1 , 000 Square Feet of warehouse building area . Including the office building, this would result in a requirement for 105 parking spacesr 73 more than the applicant has proposed . This parking deficiency is excessive and should not be overlooked . For comparison purposes , Staff hna assembled a table (Figure 1 ) indicating haw other cities assign parking to mini-warehouses . Ae shown by the table , no city has a standard' s low as 1/5, 000. Staff Report - 8/•20/85 -2- ( 3091d ) ;: '�,#4��. ,* ,�`:� i �` � ' + may•, y/ c "Al ' z . lot the Mai- raxehau-a 1r1sO indicates `bst.Mo4Ai,Vroposad parking areas and building 4000099 The f' qat.:Fleor 1pl4o' whorl' analyred in coapaO ison with the $it* plan, shows that parallel parking spaces at the Southwest ' -r: sterner of ;k t ,'beildinq -ate, located in front cf the elev+atot access �pi�t y , It r sr ilkel . that picked cars will feequently block access i io• anA. oxit1tom the uliding. FlArther , Commissioner porter , in his letter appealing the, Board of z6o4n1: Aofust hts ' approvil. 'o ro e t ointa out that the aed sN . aFs.e�Sf paraq,k h u lea it�g and ditivewAy access .dot tro.�r�� y traf tic is not adequ ete adjacent to the weotorly , and eoutti t stotlV Vgtkfofla, 'of, tbi. b�, ;1 b r a ta.' the doors bhovn " `' aYra ait►ts oot that there is insdequate parking a Mjaut, �lg�a; p ad to, obi: wafehotiie �otfi�e fear ln4uittoip. visito•t�s laid , �a ;t "$f PtOf concurs with ' this aasessmrent. � •�g4 , F►lso 11es. p+oncotnlr with the Cvh'ditiohel Exce tiers wh.J.ch was raq Mted for tbb.! M to. : Th* appr itaftt•,hea regd4e Od permission to roosty �0034ea credit for areas within the public ri gfit-of--way, xqd� 'if 14n 60ape• lantar . wit1th, and an encrokchment into the 10 foot teem :yarO. netbaak tsar tho relocated affie* building. These hFee,ti� clobae. requests indicate that the applicant in proposing to overbuild the site. GOTHARD FREEW A OFF--DAMP: As tR i cate.d ' in staf f's augusti 5 , 1985, report to the planning Cemmiksignt Star ftt with City Traffic consultant, Donald fri•scher, ,tQ diacuas conpaptual designs for the Gothard Street �05 Freeway aftatnp. Those discussions indica::ed that it is a'till tao early to X precisely identify the properties which may be necessary to acquire ' in the •event the off-ramp is determined feasible. ttt�EitdNS: Staff 's research has pointed to the fact that the applicant is attempting to significantly overbuild the site. Parking, vehicle *cook** landscaping, area notbacks are all inadequately provided by the proposed project , In view of this situation , Staff is rocogmen&erg that the Planning, Commission deny Adminlat'rative Review No. 05"22/Conditional Exception No. 85-32 and overturn the board of coning Adjustments ' approval cf these applications with the following findings: FINDINGS PON DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIOV N0.85 32: 1 . Because of the size a6d lack of unique topographic features of the subject propertyt there is no e2traordinary circumstance justifying a use of public right-of-way for landscaping purposes, i Staff Repert - 8/20/85 =3= (3091d ) ••+, . A+'rr+:n';„1' a ----- _ —_�"'"-' � � '' « M, • r Jc 001 1+e' 30 _,400#04de : ' the 4Lae dBd lack of unique topographic features of �,:.k•,, ° 4coJoe% ptQlpottyr . there, is no extraordinary eircumatance Y reduction in width of the landscape planter . dt4d• ,off the nit• and lack of unique topographic features of 1� god: p op9. + ,thera in no extraordinary eircumeLance � # ttifft .pnq encroachment into the . roqui. red 10 foot front yard setbac 000 in i9e of the proposed mini-warehouse would allow ';�' ��.•,�, f� p dd, '#go jest to meet all aspects- of - the toning Cade. N fiLVN �t trL NQ+ 85-�22 s 31'' 't •r ' 71,(i�"h( !1 �' � r�'. '� :1{''�r A,' r ,M .�;�' F .t'+' i � . not meet the requirements of the Ile r. . 3ri�t Beach t 1Nante Code for landsc* in or setbacks . g p 9 ArU h*. Xape ,+ 1pzo +sct in not adequate for tba type ' OL-4 r-o'Oo p;o$tot wh ch , !n proposed o 'an - �cculutlon . for tho propoped•,project pill iwhibit gAng d0 to, h•4g axlt' from the ro$ , Posed building idooewa�ys and' have � ,:po�:.enti,, of .creating o congestion and circulation hazard . ' ALTIRI ATIVB ACTION: 1, The, Planning Cammis�rion may upphold the Board of $onin , �ttmen td app r�v4l of Adm ,nistrativi NevieW ' No: 85- / 6414 t4ona,l„ g�teeptiou No. i85-32 with the rthdthgs a hd r,. . c4ndWe"p contained: in the attached July '16.1 1985, Planning r,�'is�inn ta�f f Repoct• 2. The planning C91t.icsion may continue and diroot -Stiff - to work }/ with the applicant in redesigning a scaled down version of the project which vill meet the standards of the toning Code and which will not Cause parking or access problems . . r 'f, Ae .ct 4a,�ed August 5 , 1985 ' r a• .. S . it i4port dated July 16 , 1985 jwp Na 41h i •r ,k ' 9 )1 Staff Report 8/20/65 (3091d ) 1 ,• y�h 41t���`� " � t� t k11 r1,v '{rJ y{X � 4�4'1�� �, 4 '�\' } � � ,A ' SS•• 3 a} 1� � � 1 I I �S A„ '�.Y� �r,,t t ,t.i c°!� 'rC � '{' � „•'�, a Jc,• "' SU tiF.�tttrl i,. >, �'"I�i�}ywrPr" SM V. r7� • y•!y' Stif!k � ,� r �ya,yx„•br•.lL,• .i't J.nf, ' � ;N• ',�� •.!1re4`t' • C+r ,yh.` •J�'*4 NI u , Ure '+1Y�!'`S••, ` r f,', Frli if �� VXNG ST,ANM ���Y�Y, : ' , ;' .ice, � . �'�p'"�n.,' •ti��,,,�� 91 P. , '•'y7rTVi"hv 1 ';'t' .�� ,\ .}.,,•l:�tW!` y '}1•r� tip'' 1 sp./150 cubicles z eoidud as o by; a&*4 basis • �.. a t '' ,� .m1 provisions for. W41t -story �t#.nf�rt�e��uas�t r to �� r s r, �i' • ti .I• f •1� d%wtHOM N, , i •'' ►_7 i�' .WP 41. "*0- for o ..fie Minlatrative UNIOR at its JU1�r 1i, 1995 meeting sensidettd• aY by Jk*V1ew No. 85-22 and Conditional XxOg ip,t19A ,. .2 At whieh tire* the item was continued arutofttic ally bet'" f. of "' 0) tie vats on the applications . The stiff had recommended at tie July lot of the, Vrr.o:Jsot pesding a ArOf +e•..aansal,tarnt analysinj# the traffla:'&nd f lirtion pr i*knt w thin the Huntington Canter Xedpv@14mont area ' ON JRly Zi, 1065 City staff, mart with Donald -prischer , tht COOSMltant, at' wb1ch time he reviewed a recommendation for an off-reop South and an on-warp north of the 405 freeway* : lie Andicated that he felt the conceptual das,ign so submitted vas the best chance ,of Obtaining &ppr,aVal from Cal-Trans on the dn-and•-of f tMlop d. Oguratio"O' Ile also reviewed several alternatives for the other hoovot, inter- tie from 1lcPadden to golsaK Streets . We thOn ' overclay*d the conceptual off-ramp onto the property upon which the Woe story mint-warehouse is proposed to be located to detetm1he. the effect of the off-ramp on the subject property. At this paint In •ti we . are not sure if we have properly" interpreted the 4AI ' draving and have a desire to discuss with the trtaffic n FApt said overlay on the property. Stott sot *' ith Donald : G iirdner , r*preesentative of the applicant, on AM 'st . 1 to discuss the progress to date from our traffic Ultant* Staff indicated to bilk that we would be recommending to the F14nnI,n;g , Cararission continuance of the subject applications to t44 bt ' 2H, 1905 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for dt#fig t; aevi*w with Donald trrischer the overlay as well as : itt report to tho Redovelo nt Agency for their review and "i4'gtitioa at th* Augurrt Igo, 19'a grating to obtain the agencies iaion opt .Wbich• direction they would wa,t.t to move on the subject pcopetty. A 10.934 3 i TT Xe \ 4 - Ck4 overlay Indicates that there is an alternatl.ve plan which 111 , sa yaq*• mob of the mini-warehouser however, thoto' are issues that - t lM ''uhw�! prior to any City action . The' applicant i ' icotad that a $00 atom sever is existing through the property, ° , Which had not been submitted to us previously , and may have some etraints on the property. I. indicated that he would provide the City with survey information for our use In analyzing a locatigo of w 610- f i, ding op subject property. It MOO Id be noted that the F . Got ban beep able to extend his escrow, to i►ugoat 25; 1909 • p*' ' City the opportunist to revJii0 Lions oil the Attrobed for the 9lannino C'ommission•a information is the traffic mmeoltant's recommendation of the location of the freeway off-ramp OlkC. b 'Property* . ::�i nds that thelant�ing CQrmnission 'continue 1 l rakotxro * ,'pevlev :93-yf and conditional Exception 85-32 to the ;ilu �IIts m 4stleg i Oaf *sport dated July If., 1905 prop"awl •",#49fic constiltant's recommended off-ramp location t�ernative developmat h h 1 • 1 r s itepotr', c 3003d v, L h—I M b eh s i planning CO ►iseLon 1 t D"Olopsent 8e�rvi ra A duly 160 19d riftbTION 1*4 63-32 _ John Qray/. 034. Sarl Corp. VAIJ. A�E �I 1 3, Sudarm ava, u f 19 0 Rimy- ,f Nate*$ Porter u uiIA r . �►laan`ing ��L�:caner 1 To aonstiruct a 90,OOG ;',. atee ► , 3 otory• s Oxtive. so and te• mate 4190 sgaaxa ILI : mixed bul'ldloj* on the Property with Var'ianoes. ACREAGIS: 1 . 4 ' t 7931 marten Ave. north 'silde of' ttt'adoen approx. 3.190 teat west of $40toto the r8• of idainq Mju tmohtm •a proval 4L IVI 88nri8M.,91o. 85^21' and CandittO441 -We ' �ti" o. ,,;, . • ;, tha• •revlaaa aite .pir�r aAd i#eaia8'r aaq'-8 '�tt��na �! r#t$vo a a � �r ��►,. �����! Ls a request to aQnatCact a 9Q,add ' rol t• * 400Mt or toot , of an `i: �► , p = � rlo , r' ' te 'I : xCepiion � �. : � : �� labr � � � �iok e►f :; ;t�l'�r�t�i �8uil�inq tb 'o8aemu io" Late th* requited trout yard (S.N530. 0f ) Otto pormit a giv"60 loon !a planterwidth adjac0t'..,;t� ,� �+�r�,�oaped dank i► # t wlt to ps Aw*nu* t8.9793. 31. Planning Commisaboate Itais Owroval by tha #scam! Of 900inor +� ul appeal to tie itfinins •CotM aissio n. ' A••M 3oO SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL FLAN DESIGNATIONS: dub ect Ptropar tY : GINORAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Development ZONE: M1 , Light Industrial LAND USE: Industrial . North f Subject Prupe_ c t•y. 6803RAL PLAN DENICNATION: Fan Diego Freeway $GNL: LAND USE: East of Subject property: wwr-■ •n rrnr GSPERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: San Diego Freeway SCOS t LAND USkl: South_ of Spbjett Pr.gerty : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Development BONE: North Uuntington center Specific Plan LAND USE: One Pacific Plaza Ifes of Subject Property_: _ %N.r GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Development � ZONE: Ml , Light Industrial LAND 119P: Industrial 1, 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at: this time , the Department of Development services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85- 25 for ten days , and no comments, either verbal or written were roceivedo The staff , in ita initial study of the project , has recQaftended that a negative declaration be issued on June 26 , 1985, the Board of Zoning Adjustments . adopted Negative Declaration No. 85-25. No further action is necessary. 5. 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The project area is within the Huntington Center Rede%selopment Plan . Redovolopment ,Office has concerns regarding the use of thi't site and w l+ subrai,t comments and recommendation under stparate cover . `4aiAQ WXYDUES.AND ANALi618• in an effort to conform to Commissioner Porter 's concerns , the appl Acrnt, has subiuitted a revised plan which depicts a recessed area f, adjacent to the mini-warehouse office for the purpose of accommodati• ,.. .Ntaff Report, - 7/16/08 '" "' ' ( 2879d ) 1 two visitor parking spaces . The low traffic generated by mini- warehouse users would only have a minimal adverse impact on-site circulation . The minimum driveway width between buildings is consistent with other mini -warehouse approvals within the City . Redevelopment staff has concerns that this use is not the highest and boat use for the site under the redevelopment plan. Otheruses may tend to maximize tax revenues for tax increment: financing . 7 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning commission uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustments ' action and deny the appeal based on the following findings and conditions of approval . FINDZMGS - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-32 : 1 . Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject oropertyr including size, shape , topography , location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning ordinance in found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone cia°sifications . ' 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-32 will not be materially detrimental to the public, welfare, or injurious tc,� i.- ropetty in the .same xonc classifications . 4 . The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-32 : 1 . The site plan , floor, planar and elevations received and dated July 12 , 1985 shall be the conceptual layout . A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described below. %,he revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services and shall be the approved plain. a . Trash Areas b . harking shares 4 ,5, 8, and 7 labeled and signed "Loading Area On 1 y • . co Additional landscaping provided adjacent to the relocated bui.ldimg (eastern most point of site ) . 2 . The building shall comply with all fire Department standards and standard number 414 . Staff Report - 7/16/85 -3- (2879d ) - uw�d ar.arfyl.1�►:J I� woo I I 3 . The property owner will be required to maintain the interior shubbery area and the City will maintain the outside . a . The property owner will be responsible for keeping all trash and debris out of all landscaped areas public and private . 4 . Underground tank removal will be to the Fire Department regulations . 5 . Aisle ways to be two way and posted as fire lines per the Fire Department Regulat iins . 6 . Gates to be designed per the Fire Department Regulations . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL --ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-22: 1 . The site plan , floor plans , and elevations received and dated June: 12, 1965 shall be the conceptual layout. A revi6 ed site pIan shall bar submitted depicting the modifications described below. The revised site plan shall be , reviewed and approved by the director of Development Services and shall be the approved plan . , a . Track Areas b . Parking graces 4 , 506, and 7 labeled and signed " Loading Area Only* c. Additional landscaping provided a1jacent to the relocated building (eastern most point of the site. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a . Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development services and Public Works tor, review and approval . b. kooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan . Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3 . The development shall ^omply with all ,applicable provisions of the Ordinance Coda, Building Division, and Fire Department . C prior to the issuance of building permits , the applicant shall subunit pr6of of reciprocal driveway use or shall enter into irrevocable driveway easevo'at between the subject site ��d �td�a�tn�t e�ropatrk�t. Staff Report 7/16/85 4 ( 2879d ) I� 5 . prior to issuance of building permits for the relocated building, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Development Services fluor plans and elevations for review and approval . 6. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and f inntalled purauarnt to Fire Department regulations . 7 . There shall be no outside storage. i 8. All signs shall comply with article and 9,76 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9 . Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures; . 10. proposed project to be in accordance with Fire Department Standard No* 416. 11 . LoV-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and ,rater faucets . ll. All building spoils , such as unusable lumber , wire , pipe , and rather aurpiuse or unusable material , shall be disposed. of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 13. In the event an on-site manager 's quarLers is proposed , the structure on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the Sta:e acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNE'L contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acousti^a?, engineering, with the .Ppl ication for building permit ( s ) . 14. if lighting is included in the parking lot , high-pressure sgoeium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings, All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent *spillage' onto adjacent properties. 15. A detailed *oils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils Engineer . This analysis shall include on-site soil eampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill pra rtiess, foundations , retaslning wallop streets , and utilities. If. xi foll-type insulation to to be used, a fire retardant type Shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. ftAt,9 Report - 7/1 S/85 r i 1 174 The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent property. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of development Sorvicen. ATTACHMENTS: .1 . Area Map 2. Site Plan , Floor Plan and Elevations received July 1. 2 , 198.6i j J . Letter of Appeal SP :kla 'i 1 I I ,y LL� r,;Q 1tgPO t - 7/16/85 ( 28 79d ) 11�' Ir A' M wlww■iY f•�i1Y�W1�i�wrr•.r.+a■ .rr�• gm 15 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 04-5-11 n+li�� baTI l Y.W.MM.• .-1 ...111 CITY Oru►t10 +ua� /u,1�06 ' 111• LWIMfU urle�w.y1 110 f 1 f t 1'.I hit toatimml real rlrllr: I./lb �. N11 N( r I�,� )N BEAC4 AY/ 1� 8 NV 4Y!MYLI MV t�It.n■�r...W itw I■I r . 1 A.•I rll tl.).wm/r mwm■.q .wl.c. 11�fM IN wl41114141 11N V II► ON �It�■1M■I.I+tea•1�1 4....•,...�.•r.. �� H A Nti� M`, • COUNTY , �; AllII11OHNIA 1 N•. t.:;■,�,.r,•t....t,..,.., �1�y y� noi •.11 I/SI flYt wlw".Ol-Wcll.•tw+v r�.+rr.�ww.� ma IN,r/,fallfN,yV,lh1 H2Or ON G.".61,44 it. 1.5.76 :m lif•is." 41-1-m lk11•ti# v1 1 J L-.r.'�,■■. - 1 i . - - - j L Lr h G . y ' a ■ � fA i I ■ I t i p►1 h M.l u w 411 At.1 R t w R1 t 1 a 1� t rtl ill RI L f . �d di 1 I ° PtY a� �------} COTT W.M R! 1 �10 iarllw�ffe K x%ft om"W"I M �{{ C ft rtWRR Mom0 M r I- 1�1•St w0.'I �rJ,t �l .. . ROS J� I .r.ri-IYr>tYt.•Mw ;...1 taw AWIt r I 1 v IlONtiIVIN Beath PIANNINg crmmissioN P.O. D*X in CAL.IVO'MCIASUM j un4 28, 1985 Jut Masses W. Paling director 11940 � Development 5er-� ices City of Hunting on Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Subject : Admin lstxative review No. 85-22 and Conditional Exception No. 95-32 Dear Mr . Falin : In accordance with section 9615. 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Hungington Beach , I hereby challenge and appeal the decision of the Board of toning Adjustments for approval of Adrinistrative %w.. Review No. 85 -72 and Conditional Exception No . 85-32 . Applicant: John S. Gray/n. K. Earl Corporation 199 south Hudson Avenue Pasadena # California 91101 Conditional Exception Requeatt To permit use of surplus land for landscape purposes between property line and back of sidewalk $ redlic;ti,on in planter width adjacent to landscaped bank adjacent to McFadden Avenue, and encroacbment into ten Foot ( 101 ) front setback Administrative Review Request: Relocate 4 , 400 Square Foot building and construct a mini--warehouse of 90 , 000 Square Feet Location: 7531 McFadden Avenue ( North side of McFad,,:an Avenue approximately 2 #190 feet west of Beach Boulevard Date of Approval : June 26 , 1985 I have the following concerns with the ptoject: 1 . The access lanes for parking, loading and unloading and driveway access for two wary traffic is not adequate on the westerly estid Southw6sterly portions of the building adjacent. to the doors shown ow the plane. I FAge Two "At at. less 2 . There is inadequate parking provided adjacent to the office in front of the gates to allow parking for inquiries, visitors and customers to the office mini-stogy-sge warehouse . Sincerely, , Nero us porter Planning Commissioner i ' , numb 00, o r 1 • • i II IV) vie - r �r�1 ArC4eA4MoqT opium ' IL lop .. .......... �. M•rr r � v-r r w� W , � r 4 . Tae lucet�on.*r site layout, and design of the propos. motel use does' -pboperly adapt the prop�oeed three-story el ' struc�tuFe- 'tb• streets , driveways , and uses in a monious n rl • • . parking for the proposed :nat will"' 5 . XCCe ' to and A�7t create undue 4f.fic problems. CONDITIC bF A, OVAL CON I� TIONA�E PER N0. 8_ S 32 : 1 . The sate plan , oor plana , and a vations darted• Auguat 1 , 1985 •e6.1all 'be the proved layo axcept as may be, modified by the foll6X hq condx n : a . The ' klevations of t tructure shall be uubjett 'to the rivi.ew. anid approval he Design Review SoaYd in order to et�s4re that all ides the building presents -arr ahtaGt#ve appea nee to a surrounding properties . 2 . Prior' 'to'f•inal , an repair or replac ent needed 'tp 'the sideva�lk or .:othee mprovements in the p lic right-of-why shall �e:;.ccmple d to the satisfaction o tie Department of Publi,& WOrka. 3 . The propos 19 unit motel shall comply with al. pplicable provisio ,. of the City 's ordinance Code and builds division. . ,,, 4 . All b ld ng spoils such as unusable lumber , wire, pip and othe surplus or unusable material sha11 he disposed of an • of site area equipped to handle their.. 5. he Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional -use permit- if any violation of these conditiins or � the Huntington •Beach Ordinance Code . C•-6 ADIMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85 -22/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTI'OI] NO. 85-32 (APpEAP OF BZA A.PPROVAL) Aeplicant': • John_GrayL0. K . Earle Cori . rr�.w•,a• ..�. rrra� r Administxative '.Re.view No. 85-22 is a request to construct .a 90 , 000 square foot mini -wprehuuse and relocate 4 ,400 square foot existing building. con4�itibnal Exception No. 85-32 is a reol:est -to allow a portion of the relocated building to encroach 8 F ,;t into .the required Eront yard (S. 9530 . 06 ) and to permit a reduction in planter width adjacent to"•a landscaped bank adjacent to McFadden Avenue (6. 9702. 3 ) . . Planrring Commissioner porter has challenged tnis approval by the' Board of zoning Adjustments initiating an appeal to the PlannAng• Commission . , ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to the environmentarl regulations in effect at this time, the Departmor4t of Development Services posted draft Nega0ve Declaration Uo. 85-25 for ten days , and no comments, either verbal • b. P.C. Minutes +( 31 6d ) -16- 8/5/85 . s • ti . 1 . rr^ r r, 1 , f , or written were received . The ,,4aff , in its initial study of the ptoject ;' has recommended that a negative declagation be issued ;Oh-ijune 26 , 1985, the Bo�azd of Zoning Adjustments adapted Negative bee.lara- ion No . 85- 25 . No further action is necessary . . . ' The Planni Commission at its July 1.6 , 1985 meeting cofWdei;ed the appeal on t9ministratiV6 R`view No . 75-22 and Conditional Exception 85-32 at whi'cW rime the item wa, continued automatically because of the ( 3/3 ) t�e '•vdt'e on the applications . The staff had recommended at the July :lf , 1985 -meeting a continuance of the project pending a meeting whir our 'traffic , C"onsultant analyzing the traffic anO circulatiot•,pat+•tetns within thn Huntington Center Redevelopment Area . A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ROWE TO COiVTINUE ADMINIS'TRATIVES g-EVIEW N0. 85.-22/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO:' 85-32 TO THE - AUGUST 201., •Y185 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9Y THEIFOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES : : owe • 9iinchell Schumacher , Livenqood Por `;er I ,. i . NOES : None ABSENT: Erskine, Mir jahengir ABSTAIN: None • MOTIori-P ASgriD C-7 CnNDITIONAL, USE. PERMIT NO. 84-24/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0. 84-45 w �N A1% ••lican,k j ' Shell Oil_ Company Condi tyal use Permit No. 54-24 is a request to establish a convenie maekt combined with gasoline station Nureuan o S. 9430. 8 (b) . •fond tio►�al Exception No . 84-45, a requ to permit a reduction in p ng, is no longer necessary, base n a revised dev�:lopment nropo ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaiat,I'on No. 84-2 S proved July 16, 1985 in conjunction with Zone Change No -14 . No additional environmental processing is required . THE PUBLIC HEARING WA.S ENED Chuck DefarkAs.*S a in support of the project an Concurred with staff 's recoln aatidna . There ire no dthef, persons to speak for or against the p osal and the pu c hearin4 was closed . +' P.C. Minures ' ( 3156d ) -17- $/5/85 1 fir' �i file N4.E �AP '•fir Corn inner ARowe felt ,.hp use was too dense . AMOTION WAS E BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY FR TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE T NO. 95•-32/CUND1 ' AL EXCEPTION NO. 85--31/COASTAi, DEVELOP PFPM77' 0 5-9 110 THE AUGUST 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MF'ETIN 11: F(A.1,0WING VOTE: AYES: r Rowe Sc cher , Livengo� ` .Erskine j touter , MiirlaF+a�ngir NOES: Nome .� ' ABSENT: ell AEIS'EAINI: one ON PAS FD O•-24 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. A5- 22/CONDITIOtiAL EXCEPTION N0. I 05-32 (APPEAL OF BSA APPROVAL ) Allicant • John Craylo.K. Earl Cer . Administrative Review No. 85-22 is a request to construct a 90 , 000 square toot mini.-warehouse and relocate 4 , 400 3auare feet of an existing building pursuant to Article 953 located at 7!�31 McFadden Ave . Conditional Exception No. 85-32 is a request to allow a portion of tht relocated building to encroach 8 feet into the required front yard (S. 9530. 06 ) and to permit a reductior: in planter width adjacent to a landscaped bank adjacent to NcFadders Avenue ( 8.9792 .3 ) . PlanningCommissioner Porter has challcn ed this 9 approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments initiating an appeal to the Planning Commission. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time.. the Deportment of Development Services pasted draft Negative Dec?aratidn No. 85-25 for ten days, and no comments , either verbal or written were r%.„eived. the staff , in its initial study of the j project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued on June 26, 1985, the Board of 2oning Adjustments adopted Negative Declaration No. 95-25, No further action is necesaary . I Florence Webb of staff stated that Redevelopment staff requested � that this item bra continued until August 5 , 1985 for further investigation, Commispioner Porter ached ataff if this property was located within the Runtington Canter R*development project area , Florence Webb indicated yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAO 0PEN9D bon Gardner, Developer , Mated that during t% ia project he has agr**4 to reduce his pre j*vt due to easement ,;roblem,s . He stated ; that slnce then the pity has required him to supply two drivewaye: it viouie crept a hardship to reduce his buildings further Charles Noble, broker representing thu Seller Don Gardner , stated I thatt the tralluactiona Mr . Gardner outlined in hie public testimony has caused a great 6-sal of lose . A%V--H MEW. zw P. C. 7-16-85 •-14- (2947d) Tbivre war* no other persona to speak for o- againat the proposal and the public hearing was closed . commissioner tarter questioned the applicant, about the use of the westerly portion cif the property . Mr . Gardner answered that 'he did not own thig portion and did not propose to buy 4-t . Commissioner Schumacher staters that she would be voting no because the project was too premature in relation to efforts in realigning Gothard Street and in light of the Traffic Engineer 's report on the subject . Chairman Livengood stated that he way going to vote against the project &s he was very concerned about the traffic. A POTION WAS MADE BY ERSKTNE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE ]REVIEW NO. 85-22/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-32 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Iky9s.. Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: Rowed Schi- macher , Livengoo' d ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: MOTION FAILED Due to tne tie vote, Administrative Review No. 85-22/Conditional Exception No . 85-32 was automatically continued to the August 5, 1985 PlanninQ. Commission Meeting. C-11 CODE AMENDMtNT NO. 85-1/NEGATXVE DECLARATION NO. 85-13 hEp3icant.- City ofHuntington Beach Code endment No. 85-1 proposes to establish a new de,,I WtLon and add pro rions to regulate the installation of SaLlel , dish antennas , t the present Ume, any rooftop satell dish antenna e pro 0 end M'e o antennas . n t t t N t 0 h re gulate g pres ent 1 a p en rooftop f to n p r a a t e a t e'L e d is subject Section 9730.20 which requires so ning from the h].L ' 1 13 public right-o . ay and to Section 9730 whir overne maximum ',- ., tght for rooftop mecha al equipment . As a de rtment policy , wh..: ' installed detached a building , sat ite dish antennas ir - C t Ces2 ure considered to be ac es2 LL structure nd are limited to setbacks and height of accessory at ture Some zoning districts do not have separate standards for ad sory structureal therefore , 'an these comes the base zone he t setbacks apply. The proposed code amend t has been >dra �dca to an integrated commercla r industrial center only one satellite dish antenna per c er* a i n Recently, the ty received a communication advising # (Federal communLeat 8 Commission ) intOnt to preempt local xonin authoti From the text of the memo, the City may be exem since the C- nity 's cable system was permitted by conditional use rmit PU ant to 8.9332(m) p Unclassified use to allow radio or television P.G. 7-16-85 (2947d) ?ir''.�. [A4 e 3 I rntlettle Bench Planning Cammienion June 28, J.985 D &iVTIfjO ,,, nr�p��hr "r.,�I�y JuC t s ►� James W. Falin , nicectcr No De velopment Huntington mre ' CA it �� • y Beach 2000 Main Street. OUritington Beacl, , Ca 91111 Subject : Aftinistristivo xaviea No. 85-•22 and Conditional Exception .. Is*. 85- 32 Dear Mr . Palin : In aacotdance with Section 9815. 2 of the ordinance cede of the City of Hungington Beach , I hereby challenge and appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments for approval of Administrative Review No. 85-22 and Conditional Exception No . 85-32 . Applicant : John S . Gray/O. K . Earl Corporation 199 South Hudson Avenue Pasadena , California 91101 Conditional Exception Request : To permit use of surplus land for landscape purposes between property line and back of sidewalk , reduction U planter width adjacent to landscaped bank adjacent to McFadden Avenuer and encroachment into ten foot ( 101 ) front setback Admi,nist_-ati.ve Review Request : Relocate 41400 Square Foot building and construct a mini-warehouse of 90 , 000 Square Peet Location: 7531 McFadden Avenue (North side of McFadden Avenue approximately 21190 feet West of Beach Boulevard Date of Approval : June 26 , 1985 I have the following concerns with the project : 1 + The access lanes For parking, loading and unloading and driveway access for two way traffic is not adequate on the westerly and southveaterly portions of the building adjacent to the doors shown on the plans. Op 71, e TWO . no Is$ 19�� Z. There is Inadequate perking provided adjacent to the office in front of the gates to parking for inquiriesi visitors and customets to the office ir ' ni-storage warehouse , Sinceeverlyr# r r �r Marcus Porter PlannJ rg Commi.esicger i zzr L Ail 411 i anTS 0 BOARD of zonim; ADJUSTME CIT7 OF HUNTINGTON SEACM•CALIFORNiA i P. O. 50 PHONE(114)334-5271 , COIND: TIow,- EXCEPTION 85-32 (AR 85--22 ) ( ND r8r85-•25 ) .. ter...+.. ..,......�...r..._.r �,�.� ._� .....,..,r,.. . Applicant . John S . Cray/ O. K . Earl Corporation 199 South Hudson Avenue Pasadena , California 91101 Request : 7o permit use of surplus land for landscape purposes .betwaen property line and hack of sidewalk , reduction in planter width adjacent to landscaped bank adjacent to McFadden Avenue , and enercachment into ten foot ( 10 ' ) front setback Location : 7531 McFadden Avenue (North side - of McFadden Avenue approximately 2 , 190 feet West of Beach Boulevard Date of Approval : June 26, 1985 tear Applicanjt : Your application was acted upon by the Hun�ingtun Beach Board of zoning Ad ustmenta on June 26 , 1985 and your request was Conditionally Approved . Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Cade , the action taken by the Beard of zoning �•djustme►;ts is final unless an � appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you oe by an interested parry . Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the' action and grounds bl which the applicant or interested party deems himself. aggrieved. Said appeal must• be accompanied by a filing fee of One Hundred and Sixty-five Dollars 4165 . 00 ) and submitted to the Secretary of the Planfting Commission within ten ( 1-0 ) days of the diite of the Beard ' s decision . Th !� last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee for the above noted Application is July 8 , 1985 . Provisions of the Buntington Beach Ordinance Code ara such that any application becomes null and void one ( 1 ) year after the- . anal approval, unjoss actual construction has begun . 44F %e ,Y • r r p4CJ@ , Conditional- 1ICOpkiOn No . 85-32 ,June 2 7 ,• 1986 F NPINGS FRf .0PPROVAL: 1 . Becauge of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, is cludi�ng size, shapa , topography , * 1ovation or surroundings , the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance it found to deprive the subject property of privilegg-s enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under ident-fcal zone c:lasgi.f. ication,-, . 2 . The granting of a cond.itior.al exception is necessary- in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights . 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No , 85-32 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or. injurious to property in the same zone classifications . 4 . The gilfnting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . The site plan , floor plans , and elevations received and dated June 5 , 1985 shall be the approved layout a revised site plan being • submitted depicting the modifications d^srribed herein : •a . Trash Areas b . parking spaces 4 , 5 , 6 , and 7 labeled and signed " Loading Area Only" . ter . C . Additional landscaping provided adjacent . to the relocated building (eastern most point of site ) . 2 . The building shall comply with all Fire Department standards and standard number 4.14 . 3 . The pr•bperty owner will be required to maintain the interior shubbery area and the City will maintain the outside . a. T a property owner will, be responsible for keeping all , trash and debris cut of all landscaped areas public and private. 4 . Under:gjound tank removal will be to the Eire Department requl'sWions. S. Aiele' gays to be two ray and posted as fire lanes 'per the Fire Department Regulations. i 71P , 4. + Page 3 Conditional Exceptlell No. 85-32 -June 270, Y :� 6. Gates .to be designed per the Fire Department l egu.lation:i . The Department of Develop►,+ent Services will perform a comprehensive plan check relating to all Ordinance Code requirements upon: submittal oit, , you_ completed ,itructiira.l drawings . Please be adl.rised that the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments reviews the •- conceptual prXan as a basic request for entitlement of ' thti use applied for in re3arion to the vicinity in which it is proposed . The conceptuhl plan should not be construed as a precise plan reflecting conformance to all Ordivar►ce Code requirements . It is recommended that you immediately purstie completion o'f . t:he Conditions 614. Approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Bewch Ordinance Code in order to expedi, t3 the Processing of your total application . I hereby certify that Conditional Excnpt'.on No . 85-32 was conditionally approved by the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Huntington Beach , California , on June 26 , 1985, upon the foregoing conditions and citations . � .w Ve ruly ;y s , � Glen K . Godfrey, Secretary Hoard of Zoning Adjustments GKG�jr ( 27d9 ) • � y 4, ,,^'�i.•.y, V rein. 1 y./ 4a or c ' } P (Alt FJ - Ffiblish 9/5/3.5 NOTICE -IF PUBLIC ffURINC "PUL TO PLA.NIN124C COHMSSION'r APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL IMCf nION NO. 05-12 NOTICE aS HEREBY GIVIN that a public Nearing will be held by the City COU0CU, of tale Uty of KVntin&tor! SeaCh, iu Lhe Council Chamber of the Civic. Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 700 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible or. MowjAy the 16th day oc September, 1985, for the pLrpose of cnna'dering an appeal filed by :Councilman Jack Kelly to the Planning Cosrsiani.on's approval of a request ro construct a 90,000 ,square foot, three-story alni-warehouse aad relocate 4,400 square feet of au anrieting building rya the property with the following vrartances: (1.) to allay► portion of the relocated building to encroach 8 feet into the , -quired 10 foot front yard setback; and (2) to permit a re6uetl.on, in planter width ud,jucent to a laud Rcaped 'bank adjacent to McFadden Avenue, within the ICU, (Light Manufacturing) District on a triangular-shaped lot on the north side of McFadden hr=ue approximately 2,200 feet crest of React. Boulevard (7531 McFadden Avenue). The City Council will, also consider. Negative Declaration 85-25 assessing the environmental effects of said project. A legal description is on file in the Developmeat Set-vices Department. AU interested perno:- are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal and Negative Declaration No. 85-25. Further inforeatIc- may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Maln Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (;14 ) 536-5227. Dated! September 3, 1985 CITY OF HUNTIhCTON BFACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark F N , 1t�4ii 1 IK l wk NOTICE TO CLERK TO FCHEGUI.E PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TO: C 11' f CLERK' S OFFICE DATE : r PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF An ' S are attached ^— AP 's will follow No AP' s Initiated ty: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition - � .... { * Appeal ....�- � Other Adoption of Environmental Status x F � ) I ND NOT- .� Has City Attorney ' s Office been YES NO nformed of forthcoming public nearing? W_ j Refer t4 � ; W _ P1anning Department - Extension L5 for additional information. If appeal please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . i Publish IAIa NGTIGE OF PUBLIC HEARING i e�c '�� w th NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public heari:-iy will be held by the City Council of' the City nf Huntington Beach , in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beath, at thp. hour of �� ' ?� P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on i the day of for the purpose of consider' Vti �• � -� ls, , ,r��' �) (. C n • appeal �� � ,� =hew" s request to --construct a 90, 000 square foo'k , three--story mini.--warehouse anti relocate. 4 , 400 square ,feet or- an; existing building on the property with -the 1_011owin� va*ri-angel : 1 ) to allow a portion of,,. th reloccited building to encroa-ch 8 feet into the required 10 foot front, yard letbach j and. 2 ) tp .permit a reduction in planter width adjacent to a ' landscaped bank adjacent to 14cFadden Avenue , ,within the M1 ( Light Manufacturing ) Rio-tr1ot on a triangular -shaped 10-t on the aor th side'' of McFadden .'Avende'- approximotely 212CO feet west of Aea�h Boulevard ( 7531 McFadd ''n Apanue ) . J.yy ;,{r.,' ,y�,� (w1!� ' (,�yrt� 1.:.1+•4.°�y /YR�I. ,�y !�� '7- ►1.•1 Jrr'J I. '�I,tr. .J'. I 1, r ' TLA J All interested persons are invited to ,;attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Further information may be obtained from the Offire of -the City Clerk , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beath , California. 92648 - (714) $36-5227 DATED CITY OF HUNTI NGTDN REACH By: Alfcia M. Wentworth City Clerk rs, Ot •r1 � � � 1 •r., ' '�•u .., ,rI �,�'4'r�1.•..If. .•1 4 r r• ., it • • •_ ' ' 4 ' John S . Gray Ono Paci'C.ic Plaza *Two Tb'e ILK . i;arl Corp. Michael Peterson cfo Jerwe,i Entrer, p Lso.,; 199 S. Hudson Ave . - 753 L McFadden Ave . 7406 Center Dr . Ste!*. Pasadena , CA 9110f 11 , Beach, CA 926,17 .:. 1-1 . Doachi CA 92647 142-271-05 Frank H . Hoffman Jr. 1.� —�• �(f µ . Indian Wells , CA92?60 rOF WORM fV W' ' 1 • 1 tol r�`�;M4• q� ...•7�yv�.�,�/�^�' i�•1►"� r��•+ M:��'fs,+Ml��l,�;'il`�yV'.�'�� �'r �w�, ,,,I+ Of,...,t,.'`.-�•.iY�:. ' r _ ••..•,..,r � �,ti•..,,� r, • _ +' '� �yti.;f"Ir7�1'�M1•N':�Jy *�:�` � �h SS ..,�I� .� �, .f��� � � , , nb .. � •. .r� � � • � fy � •rl.�Mr r- :'.rF I� �14.'r'+r'•'fi1� �T.. '; �"10C h�j� .'�'+•��/. +'r•� •��' ��' r• .r ,, ;Jr,••r. ter;• .?,�,f',,'sl4�.'• �. 'I,r �' • ,' . _ , � 4�'r / y �', ' .' ►r ir►• t' '� '��t��j'S ��� I�l•7;'J��IW�`A�ya��l.'!�;,.�•'ti� �r�� 1 �• `+. � ;'•'' '`�"�`j•,.F��Y�,�`!�,hi1',�wr; /ti���'��.I���'.r��r,..J V..�y•,�,Si."•� ofwoolop top sms -pm 71'1 �.i'yrM , ,`. 1 . •1' ' • ,•• ' �i �*02A/,� F� ��� •+At'F ��•.r I) i ������r{ li *���J:�' j�'•..•1. �1,• I •� 1 • . • '' 4r Superior Court lD N 12D OrTHX BY cuu,=L , STATIC OF CALIFORNIA In and far dw County of Orate L .,. ... .p........;„• ,., .........,. CITY OF HUNT;:NGTON BEACH CITY CLERK �iS�"r.I-9Z PUBLICATION PLANNING COMMISSIONIS DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION b4•-70 *3w*of California ) County of Oraryge )i'• DARLENE H. CLMERLAN37 � 4 'brat I am and at All tium herein mentioned Was a citi"n of Ow Vultwd Stabs,over the age of twenty-one'years, and that I am not a party to,nor ir:torested in the above entitled matter, that I am tba prindpal clerk of the printer of the HU14TINGTON BEACH IND. REVIEW f a fbsarep"m of goneral cimukti m,published in the City of HUNTINGTON BEACH Cowft of Orange and which newnpaptr le published for the } dissed"tka►of kcal news and intelligence of a general oharac- ter, sad whicr wrepaper at all times herein mentioned had and still Im a bone fide subacription list of paying subscribers, i and which newspaper bas been eetahlished, printed and pub. Ibbed at regular intervals in the r+tid County of Orange for a l� I POW escowding one year; 0. the notice, of which the aadwssid Is a printed copy, has n publishod in the regular and extift game of said en"p" sad not in any supplement "` therm,am the following dot A.t( .t; January 24t 1985 � , I earrtify tn* declare) -ender penalty or perjury that the fore`o- kq in tru,. and cotr+_t hated at. . .. .•...•. ....BAIM.GROV.E. ............ C,.Iitart,ta,dale .•.0. ,day .J ..I ...... . . DARLEM H. CU KR D .. tun 1 r I k .L F } .1«r• JAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FOR NIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Fenri.!ary b, 1.965 Mr. & Mrs, Frank J. Hill 6442 Jersey Circle Huntington Brach, CA 92647 fhe City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its reqular meeting held Monday, February k , 1985 upheld the decision of Lhe Planning Commission and denied your appeal relative to Conditional Exception No. 84-70. This is a final decision. You area hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from Febr.tiarY 6e 1985 to apply to they courts for judicial review. __ Please; contact this office it you have any questions - 536-5405. Alicia M. Wentowrth City Clerk AtrW;CB:Js Enclosure cc: Gail Hutton, City Attorney .lames Palrin, Development Services Department i IT@iwbMi 71 mill s Ya I publish 1/24/85 NOTICF OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMI;STON'S DENIAL OF C0gDITt0NAL EXCEPTION #84-70 NOTICE, IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will he held by the City h Council of. the City of Huntington Beach, in tl,e Council Chamber of the Civic f! Center, Huntington Peach, at tFe hoar of 7 :30 P.M. , or ac anon thereafter an P ' possible on Monday the 4th day of February, 1985, for the purpose of consideriatig an appeal to the planning Coaania� iou'c denial of Conditional gxca, t_iOn #84-70, a request to permit : 1. The north side of a single family residence to encroach five feet (51 ) into the regtired five foot (5 ' ) setback from the twenty-five foot (25' ) wide view corridor easement; and 2. A portion (108 sq. ft) of the residence to encroach five feet. (5' ) into the required five foot (5' ) ==•!e yard setback cf an irregularly shaped lot encumbered with view corridor restrictions located at 17191 Marina View Place (vest side of mtreec approximately 200 feet mouth of Warner Avenue) vithia the R1 , single Family Residential District. A legal description and playas art on file with the Department of j Development Services. 1 All interested persona are invited to attend said nearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 93648 (714) 536-5227. Dated: January 21 , 1985 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BBACm By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark ` prig. ivry Harza l•ti [lcti+l'ild S. n',t l tr:tr• 4441 Loa Pints Drive 110.21 1 Sandrr Lop inp duntington Reach " 1 92649 • , ; Huntington Heash,,S A 92649 178-285-14 110-•0?1)-.0,,? Cra1$ R. Rosenberg Cary D. Pottier 17171 Mar Ina View Place 17232- Mav-i na View Place Huntington Beach, CA 926/49 iountingtor, Beach, CA 92649 117-024- 07 Mr. 6 Mrs. Frank Hill F l,:)yd O'corp 6442 .Jersey Circle 17212 Me,rina View Place Huntington ImcN, CA 92644 Huntington Bleach, CA 92640 ' ti iti»c124-(lfi etcmael J. Tebrich I Chawl� a, ttel.nc:e � 172'02 Mariiis View Place 17211 Morris View Place • = Huntir4t= f4acht CA 92649 Hunt�,n t.on Beach, CA 92b49 ' 179-�2$5� ; 110-Q2�e-09 Robert V. 3t Ln William R. Winn � %Oeorlp A. Artastrang 17192 Marina Viers Place 9780 800=0 Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Fopntain Valley, CA 912708 i 110-024-10 Fitness Pronotion, Inc. ' Robert, J. Conway 17142 Cnurtney PAane � 17172 Marine View Place Huntington Reach, CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i 178-•284-•05 110-024-12 , r John B. DaumJohn H. Westermeyer 17150 Courtney bane t 17162 Marina View Place Huntimgton Reach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 1 8-28+4-ty6 ; 110-024-13 n R. Gabriel 1�-M-15i drtoaville Road Abraham Henderson ` MI 48a 1 Clanl� to ,, �i 17142 Marina View Lane 178-2�-C9 � Nuntington Leach, CA 92649 110-024-15 Bruce C. HalLter = 17186 Courtney Lane 3 Rohert Knox Huntington Oeaeh,' ,CA 92649 1719 i SA.an6a Lee Lane 178-284-11 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 110-024-18 1._...,...1- vi11LM A. ski • 1T198 � LAMI t.� Burton L. Nilbac�n ' l�tit�lgton Bch, CA 92649 = 1'�171 Sandra Lea Street Huntington- 27i 0 Bch, CA 92649 M 718- 1 3 ' - ' 1 Robert N . Hanson , 1( 1'fi f:c���rtrley Lane Wern,!r� Freund ' 177U2 0a1 nat'ccd i.ar I Hurit,tngton Heacn, CA 0!649 Nunlr.is►gto[: Beach, W' 92649 1 110-024-21 Y 171b* Art M. Norio �Y..y�� �CA 92649 17122 Marina View Place Y+F .� r"i•y i 17g_ gy.kp$ ; Huntin4ton Beech, CA 92649 110-024r-220 23 a�+r�--_• � u urn ,,��,r...w..w_..+..... �� �ri�r R. Oioe� 17178 Court t;ell Limns 1 Joseph L. f,xenan Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17141 Sandra Lee ► ane 178- 4�-10 HuntInStsn Reach, CA 92649 1 '0-OP4-24 Stephen Zalriarurc:r Cluerles P. Haber 17192 Courtney Lan. EW►t>tLiugton i�Gh4 `� 92649 17161 Sandra. Lee Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 17$- '84*12 c 1 1 0-024-25 Wi112a.z Halpin Donal i L. 'obsor. 17162 Marina view puce � 23ZO a rgo1;r, Huntington beach, CA 92649 (; � Long 1?R�c�ch, GA !108 t5 ii0-U24w11 , 110-024-26 I Robert Cor?wa,y Glen A . Wilson 17172 Ms►rima View Place 17231 Sandra Lee i.an:? I. llurrtingtor. seach, (-A 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 � 110-024-12 110-024-2'1 fRobert Her-ore ` 171,91 Merir-W View Place I Cathttrf.ne C. Kark Hu,t7 t ington Beach, CA 92649 �� I 1'12c�1 andra I..r,e St rest .r i rT t� ;� t�ly Pea!'!, CA 926' y - � `j 17201 Wrina View Plac,,-. Huntingtua bmcn•R CA. 92649 ' +78-285--08 1 t Gomge grmstroAg 97m 90mLe Circle ftunte.it1 Valiry, CA 92706 1 78-285.11 $12/ 1 U h R x .raw" r, i w i is tr I Publish 1/2085 NOTICE OF PU;-,IC R.,6RING APPEAT. TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION #84-70 NOTICE I9 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Reach, at the hour of 7: 30 P.M. , or as scion thereafter as possible on Monday the 4Ch day of February, 1985 ; for the purpose of cousiderinS to appeal to the Planning Commission 's denial of Conditional Exception 094-70, a request to permit : 1. The north side of a singles family residence to encroach five feet (5 ' ) ' into the required five Root (5' ) setback from the twenty-five foot (759 wide view corridor easement , End 2. A portion ( 108 sq. tt) of the residence to encroach five feet (5' ) into the required five foot (S ' ) side yard setback of an :irregularly shaped lot encumbered with view 'corridor restrictions located at 17191 Marina View Placa (west side of street approximately 200 feet south of Warner Avenue) within the R1, Single Family Residential District . A legal description and plans ate on f! IE with the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and exprovs their opinions for or against said appeal. Further information may be obtained from the Office: of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 ( 714) 535-5227. Dated: January 21, 1985 CITY OF HVWINGTDN BEACH City Clerk n 1 i af11lLArn Na1�i� ; Arslreny 11art91a �� verger Fftund 1trM 111ft" Plum Plug 61 Lam Patem Wive 17102 a.ln.fbrd Lawn NMY4 vem", 49 odattmtem% BAtath. CA ! "Mt:srqtan Beach, CA 92649 1 11; �, �T��-Id 11G•dZA-Zt _ ; f soon VAMW Grt,6 R. NOMO 11 Art M. Werlo riM IMAr1A11a ruv time 17111 ly ift vtdw two 17122 hunine vie, Flagg NmtL'1111�1 Raaaft. CA !!iN aim►ttlttan beear, CA 9M49 23 MItMy Mr. A 111'B. Prima nil j Joe*" L. alOrrot► Met wr'1-w #AM 1'La" 6442 J1 me, Circle 17141 Sandra Las Lana Munt4a4M &*U# CA 99669 MWtln,ttm Brash) Q ORW Nmtlr%tan Perch, CA 4264() c ttelam 0. ffeu%& GSaria�a P. Hatfr 1! rias VIOLA Ptiw 17161 Sandra in Lane 17211 Owtow rarer tint♦ iNrlltAtlrtns MGM. CA % mttopm Math. Cl 9MO : fhMtinrsta beach, CA 426ec 11R ✓' 17�t -0! V,- ! 110-424-2+5 *"VIlr ammwtwq w>Mcpart 18. &Iwmn 1?nxtald L. Jacebaon — VM momm rfr-;• VA*orhl A. APMetrW4 �' 232n Rrgmm a+oeit IR 1a11JJ, :.A 9270e 17" 16waMi Circle 2 fxnR f►tach, CA 9oH15 d7ArZA'�-11�1Z. re4itta10 valley, CA 927ra 110-0?4-26 rtInwer prowtIan, Inc. = Cl" A. Y.1130.1 17;fit Cownur fait 17231 Sandra Lew Lane Rmtl%gUm ` .h, CA 92649 1%mUngton Reach, CA 72649 1Ta-tM-0S I: 110-024-27 Roba1't I "WASS Jam 2. 1 MWO 11 t 14 grar" Lae. 1711,n r.-Alorttu., t.ana • tNeltllplea subm '«A !►tM! 11wtlnat" "a", CA W6410 1 T�iIM-�f 1ib-21ta-t',A C1r 1" C. Mrrwtt r+ a! it. Orbrlal 111 f 4 (+>•111r•taw/ torte 'Owl -w 1!) OmmVille B f Mentittatae f]M1a+th, Cl 9�hN Cl arltrivl. f12 aAotA 17a1-�'M�M .� 1TB-tM.tlq rl+haalr f✓r• � Br=* C. al t"I III" Oft*%W7 W" 11,186 Cayrt rry Law �att1�M1 bm", Cl ""t Runttedt" Broth„ 3v"fto mown atelier, a. gr�oirrhi 1111W Gltrrtwo LMa 17108 Cok"n" Lwe 1ftwumumIR Mae11r C.A w ms 5 0 Wit) t t Nis N- Wmk, CA l" r C. �Jy �P1�..� W.I.M 1 j ���� M�iflti � hini Mrtvl! � 1►4nald D, Ilsltet 11 r M 1 f---r 17131 LOMAr■ L� LAne 11IMI 1 9Huntington 11+Ach• CA 42644 110-0 4-02 NOW% Omm + Crtiate = Oar'! D, Potter iliw "IT1teico 1723? %rlra Viww Place 11r Co + 1Wtington lleact,, CA 9264n 110-024-07 1 � wtr.Mtr . }rorrar Iltl>r � rlaye ofaree - -_--• i�1*1 JMu IFU" 64W C1rr1e : 17212 Mgrlrltt view P:aca R a CA W"g %oil Ca Nuntingtan beach, CA 926V Ili � 1111.•OZv-Ob . • GWO1 low" H104*1 J. Tebrith t"hrrlee p. t 1TD01 deal 17211 17202 Mrrinn I%tn, Plnch MT2II�� low 1st•97A4! Huntington (leach, CA Wlk4? Onro A 1 Robert W. I%tn William R. Winn cs 97" t+ele 70"C A.-Ihyhre 17102 marinte View Place Pror.aM! alp$ CA 4a70!! 97AO 1!re;atia Cl i Huntington 11'ach CA 92f14c IN 11071 10 re"tt+ln tall A 127nd' t1t)-Q24_1(1 a 17h4�..►R-1 /ttnehe 011. at. �; rpb�krt J. Conway 1T14Z Cower* tine 17172'ltarjrw Vt ace ohm t:nRtra. h, r4 4?049 t: Huntif+tst CA ?7n4n $now1 11. Aae� J{NI11 John W. WebtJrmeyer li 1 171;+1 Cat .a,re = 17162 Marina VLaw Plate ~ t , q 11►w+tlARt+a1!WAth, CA M4 ltuntingtorl PmAch, CA 97641 1 1r'J--:RA.1 11t1-(1�y-1J 1 Char CrI -lt gmest a Gain-lot - 171 tw" 1P0,1t •M is � rn tai:li n l�br'eha� Hmdersn tlratt JhW a- Ii q :larlcit 1--' to l 17142 F%rin. View Laneun i7 11;}.2 9 Htln4t*n beach, CA W64a :4 /'MMCu llrtru te"t—tv" 171'lr LMW#o 171111irtm" L&%, 1: Robert A. Kmx i Rent! it �CA 92 t 17191 3jndra Lane 17�•r i 1171.'iut,11 HuntLnr;tm ttrath, CA 926e,1i 11b-024-18 wit 11 A. - gyrtarl H11tx+rn I T LOW 171 A .20 CA am.1 CA ! ' 17171 Danrirn Lee Sere.t T1b 11 tl lift Balch, CA 9?icaq ! 7a OAUNWUW C. tort M' vml *Aver. 1•rr Sure' I bm", CS 9� i + t s + ' A J d w • NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARINf �,.. TO: CITY CLERK' S OFFICE DATE : . . _ . FROM: PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING 1HE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE SAY OF AP 's are attached AP 's will follow No AP' s Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal Other _ ---- Adoption of Environmental States ( x C t R— WO f�ON E Has City Attorney' s Office been YES ENO informed of forthcoming public i hearing? Refer to ,_. _ Planning Department - Cxtension fnr additional information . * If appea1y, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . r 5Y. 1 . 991 , imp a Pub fISh NOTILE OF PUBLIC HEARIN &J �� 0 q -70 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Nointington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of :L P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on the —44 day of - - - .- -- , 91ES for the pu pos of considering ,M a - � .E { 1 , the north side of a single family reE- .. dence to encroach five feet ( 5 ' ) into the required five foot - ( 51 ) setback From th,& twenty-five foot ( 25 ' ) wick: view corridor eas.ement ; and _......... 2 , a-portion ( 108 sq . ft . ) of the ces id c� e'��•�,c-:r h five feet ( 51 ) into the reuuir.-ed f ive foot ( 5 ' ) side yard setb-a--c-P.Or t ateir regular ly shaped lot encumbered with view corri.0clr . 0striction, looted at 17191. Marina View Place ( west side of street approximately 200. feet south of Warner Ave , ) within; the R1 , Single Family Residential District . A le(* al description and plans are on file with the Department of Development Services . Ail interested persons are invited to attend said nearing and express their opinions for or against said Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California . 92648 - (714) 636-5227 GATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk • I.YI 4„y 'YID � •' ` •r u 1p P d,471' ' .i T.ai'•, J t REQUES'I FOR CITY COUNCILWACTION f abr ua,g y 4,, 1985 bmktidto: honorable Mayor and City council �,, ee11 Stawnittadlh/: Charles Thompson , City Administrator James F� 1 in Director , Development Services �� W. a , � , p � Subject: APPEAL GCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAI. EXCEPTION NO . 84-70 ' tent with Council Policy? ] ya ( ] New Policy or Fxeeption Shtenwnt of imp, Ru mrnouWon, Anslytis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Att djments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : i Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commiarion ' s denial on Conditional Exception No . 84-70 , a request to permit : 1 . The north side of a single family residence to encroach five ( 5 ) feet into the required five 1 I ) foot setback from the twenty-five ( 25 ) foot wide view corridor easements and 2. A portion ( 108 square feet ) of the residence to encroach five ( 5 ) feet into the required live ( 5) foot sides yard setback ; of an irregularly shaped lot encumbered with view corridor restrictions within the Rl , Single Family Resident_al District . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommend that the City Council upheld the action of the Planning Commission and deny Conditional Exception No. b4-70 . ANALYSIS* Applicant • Frank J . aill 6442 Jersey Circle Huntington Beach, CA )2647 llppellartt: It . and Ctrs . Frank kill , 6442 Jersey Cr . , Huntington Beach (west side of street approximately 200 feet south of warner Avenue ) Location: 17191 Marina Vezw Pl . loquest: To permit a portion of a single family residence to encroach 5 ' into the required 5 ' side yard setback from a 25 ' aide view corridor easement and another portion to encroach 5 ' into the required 5' sideyard setback . f L_ , U AUN±NG CONNISSION ACTION ON JANUARY blYY�19b5 : � i iu.��ili r i u.��� rrr��i I�.lrYY1 I ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER, THE APPEAL TO CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. b4-70 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY ThE FOLLOWING VOTE : AY$8: Rowe, Winche) J. , Livengood, Porter , Erskine, Mirjahangir ` NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: I 1 . Because of the size , configuration ano shape of tLe subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land which do not apply generally to property in the same district . Tract No . 7743 was approved in 1976 creating the II subject property in its current unique size, configuration and I shape in order to accommodate develcpment similar in size to that perr,•itted on surrounding properties . 2 . Exceptional circumstances do not apply that derive the F riP Y p subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification because the lot is approximately 110200 square feet in size and the buildable area excluding setbacks is 3 , 250 square feet . 3 . Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks , such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation rind en joyinent of substantial property rights . 4' . Granting of Conditional E:,ception No . b4- 70 would constitute a grant of special privilege incons isterit with limitations upon properties in the vicinity , 5 . The grant.L,rg of Condition Lxception No . 84-/70 would be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General plan. 6 . The planning Commission, in its action of March i, 1976 pertaining to Tentative Tract No. 7743, imposed a condition of ` approval requiring all structures exceeding forty-two ( 42 ) inches in height shall set Lack a minimum of five ( 5 ) feet from the 25 foot view corridor easer,ent which is located on i I.ot No. b. The height measurement of such structures shall be from the finished grade of Marina View Drive. HOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS ACTION ON DECEMBER 1:, 1984 : I OIL NOTION BY EVANj AND SECOND BY GODFREY, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-70 WAS DENIED WITH ME FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: i" r' P. ? . M •ti ' M AYES: fvansp Godfrey , smith, Vincent M0118I Cramner ASSENT: None ABSTAIN : None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The applicant was unable to demonstrate a hardship. 7. The granting of an encroachment into this five toot ( 50 ) setback and into the open apace ( view ) corridor would constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity . 3. The planning Comniiesion , in its action of March 2r 1976 , contained a discussion concerning this five foot (51 ) setback and view corridor, and imposed a condition of approval requiring this setback . I P'YSCUSSION : In September 1964 , plans to construct a two-level , 5261 square foot residence with three--car garage were submitted for building permit plan check . During this procese , staff reviewed s,,veral documents pertaining to the applicant ' s property which impacted their plans . one such document revealed that a previous property owner had Faltered a private unrecorded agreement with tour adjacent owners east of the subject property imposing a 2U' kront building setback on the subject property . At that point , it was suggested that the applicant comply with the agreement in order to avoid legal entanglements in the future. This necessitated shifting the building back 5 ' placing a portion of the building on the side property limp not in :onf.ormancc with the zoning code. rib applicant was informed to reduce the building size by 5 ' at, this location in order to conform to the zoning code. Since the proposed size of the residence was critical �o them , the applicant decided to file a conditional exception to deviate iron the code. Staff recommended that the atpplica ,it have their architect revise only the site plan to satisfy the application requirements and to withold further revised architectural and engineering drawings until the Board of Zoning Adjuetment ' s decision and final plan check review . however , the applicant: opted to completely revise all drawings to facilitate expedition of the development process . During analysis of the variance request , a condition of Tentative Tract No; 7743 requiring a 5 ' setback from the 25 ' view corridor was brought to the attention of the Board of Zoning Adjustments and the applicant . A synopsis of the various documents on file Aftecting the subject property have been included (see attachment number 4 ) . After analysing the site and reviewing existing easemEnts , the Hoard of Boning Ad3u,atments on December 11 , 1964 benieb Conditional Exception No. 84-70 because there were insukficient grounds to gram_. a variance. The Board 's action was appealed by Mr .. and Mrs. Prank bill, owners of the subject property. 3 'X1 mom 1 1 .I'l' Q� On Jan2ary 81 1985, the Planning Commission upheld the Noard'i6 denial of Conditional Exception No. 84-70 based on the findings noted herein. Ves1lowing the Commission's meeting, staff met with the applicants &ad worke4 with them in an attempt to develop a revised floor plan that accommodated their needs and complied with the zoning code . 'Fhe revised flour Haan prepared by staff resulted It, minimal loss of square footage and reoriented the garage towards the street , Ovtra►ll, the plan revealed that a house of comparable size could be constructed on the site within the limitations of the code and existing easaments . The appl .ce.nt however , was not receptive to the revised floor plan . On January 16, 1965 the applicant appealed the Commission 's decision f to the City Council. included in their appeal letter were several points of contention. Staff has reviewed this letter and has ptovi+ded responses on each point (attachment 61 ) . SNVIRONUNTAL STATUS: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section; 15305 of the ' corn ' a E vi ro men , ' .••a t Act Gall i n n cw� �u 1.� y FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable ALTERNATIVE AC1'IO14 : 1 . Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and deny Conditional Exception Nu. 64--70 with findings as deemed appropriate , 2. Approve Conditional Exception No . 64--70 on the basil; of the appeal with the following findings and conditions ol.- approval : FINDINGS* 1 . Because of the size, configuration, shape and topography of the subject property, there does appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land which do not apply generally to property in the same district* The lot is 11 , 200 square feet in size and encumbered by a 4r625 ,square font open apace view corridor easement, thus reducing the site to 6 ,375 aq-aare feet . There is a grade difference of 14 ' from the street level elevation to the rear (Warner Avenue ) property line elevation. 2. Since the subject property can not be fully developed within regular established setbacks, Conditional Exception No. 64-70 in necessary for the precervaition and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Because of the easements and teguired setba►cksr the net buildable area of the site is 3, 250 ; this is only 304 of the entire lot . Typical buildabla area of a lot Is 500. 19 04 ( 1753d) »4- February 4 , 1965 u ��y' s r 10 i li,�1:, 1. With the conditions imposed, 1 , 600 square feet of the view corridor easement at the rear of the property will fulfill the T, 1,204 square foot open 4pace requirement. �i . Granting of Conditional Exception No. 04-70 will not'. constitute a grant of special privilege incon4istent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity . Can�itionaRl xaeptior� No,. S4-70 will be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan . 6 . Condition No. 16 of r s3quir inn a minimum S ' setback from the view corridor of Tentative Tract No. 7743 dated March 21 1976 is hereby amended to read: A minimum of V 6' from the view corridor shard be provided for all structures, however , architectural features may encroach up to the vertical plane of the view corridor easement . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAA.: 1 . The plans dated December 24 , 1984 shall be the approved layout with the following required modifications . a The structure Shall be setback a minimum ' t 1 c of Z 6 from he 25 ' wide open r;pace view corridor easement in order Lo accommodate projecting architectural features . In no case shall any structure or architectural feature encroach into the easement , b. The outside stairs may abut the open space view corridor easement, but. shall not Encroach inl-a the easement . C. The rear parking court from the house to the rear property line shall he eliminated and maintained as a I andscaped open space area . 2 . No vehicles shall be parked on the street grade level ariveway at any time. i 3. The street grade level garage shall contain a roll-up type � garage door . 4. The proposed structure shall conform to all requirements of the Building Division. 11753d) February 4 , 1965 'S r ..war � tirrt 6•y, + Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 19b5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 8, 1905 . <, Petition against Conditional Exception No. 84-70 dated January 7, loss. 40 Lotter of appeal by Mr . and Mrs . .rank kill dated January 16, V. 1985. S. Inter-department communication regarding easements on the subject property and hhe Los Patoe Water Tower Property, 6,. Section drawing shoving existing grade elevation and easements . 70 Responses to appeal letter . JWP:sn :lcp ! ( 1753d ) i i r" r, V t17�1d) -6- February 60 1985 �S . i k s. ORAL COMiKUNICATIONS► : None k ? ULAR AGWA ITEMS t COUDI'i'IONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84--70, APPEAL and i cants Frank, J . Hill l l e, Conditional Exception No . 84-70 is a requezt to permit a portion of a single family residence to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 feet side yard setback from a 25 feet wide view corridor easement and another portion to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 feet sidayard oetback . 'i'he request was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The applicant, appealed to. the Planning commission . r Scott Bess of the Planning Staff , at:ated that the applicant is ` proposing to construct zwo-level single family residence with a throes car garage . The noL th side of the single family residence will encroach five feet ( 5 feet ) into the required five foot: 15 feet ) setback from the twenty--five foot ( 25 feet ) wide view corridor easement . A portion (108 square feet ) of the residence will, encroach five feet ( 5 feet ) Into the r,equiied five foot ( 5 feet ) side yard setback of this irreyularly shaped lot encumbered with view corridor restrictions . The a;.,�licant ' s objective and justification for the conditional ex:-ention i : tYe property is ( lot number S. Tract 7743 ) leaving only 30% of the lot buildaOle . The variance will allow a lar �er single bevel living unit which is more � 9 5 desirable by the applicants since they are an oluer couple who dry not wish to contend with interior stairways . The grade difference from front to rear of the lot is 14 feet . Conditional Exception Ne-i . 84-'. 0, was reviewed and denied by the board of Zoning Adjustments of December 12 , 1984 based on the following findings : 1 . The applicant was unable to demonstrate a hardship , 2 . The granting of an encroachment into this five foot ( 5 ' ) setback and into the open space (view ) corridor would constitute rho granting of a special privilege inconsistent Frith limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 3. The Planning Commiselon, in its action of march 21 1976, contained a discussion concerning this five foot ( 5 ' ) setback and view corridor, and imposed a Conditton of. Approval requiring this setback . 4. Staff recommended upholding the Board of 2oniny Adjustments decision based on the findings contained within the report . Coanin sinner Porter asked staff to indicate the setback of the structure on adjacent lot no . g as it relates to the view corridor . Mr. Ness staged it- was not bark 5 feet from the south property line of lot number 9. Commissioner Porter que stionied if that was the some requirement, imposed or the property as imposed on the .ict to tb@ Louth. Mr . Hess stated that it was also incorporated isms a standard 5 foot setback from any side property line and whether the easement was there or not it would still require a 5 foot ,setback. � the view corridor easement is accually on lot ne) . 8, which is 80 foot In width. fit$ Sd� ATP^4kVAT MAMS {{ r ':�•i r ' V i 1 n' :�yy 1• Co missioner Hirjahanger questioned if there was a conditional use �. permit attached to the tentative tract map do the time of mutual processing '. Mr . Hags stated that there was nnt . Commissioner Porter asked if the 5 foot setback frotr, the view corridor was also part of the recordation: Mr . Hasa ,stated it was a condition of the tentative tract but was not indicated can the map nor record*d iri any documents as far as staff could determine . Coamissioner Porter stated that the condition was im -iosed because the approval of the tentative map included that requ1&tt,u0:4- . Mr . NeNw stated that this was one of the reasons, and the other r6ason was that the toning code stipulates a 5 foot setback from any easements . Commissioner tarter stated that there was a letter from the City Attorne that indicated -':hat unless such setback eonditiona had been appealex within appropriate amount of time then it stood as stated in the approval. . THr PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Rita mill, applicant , stated that in March of 1984 she and her husband contemplated buying this lat . She stated that before doing so, they went to the building department of mintington beach and were informed preliminarily that there were restrictions imposed � upon this lot which included a 15 foot front yard setback, a view corridor easement of 25 feet and a 5 toot sideyard setback on the other aide of the :got; allowing a tront.age of 50 feet upon which to build a house . She said on July 5, the plans for the ,Property were epproved, with corrections . She said they were later informed of a private Covenant of a 20 fact set bac'K requireemenL - an %greement: between this property and adjacent properties , Floyd G: Belsitor Atturney representing Mr . and Mrs . fiill , stated that he had In his posseza ot_ the Policy of Title Insurance which does make reference to the. 25 foot view corr;tdor easement but does not stake reference at All to the condition of appro.,d1 no. 18 regarding the 5 foot netback . He stated his concern for the rational behind this 5 foot setback . He inquired at the city Attorneys office if there was an ordinance or code provision that mandated a 5 foot: setback from the view corridor easement arid was advised by a metsorandum that they see no ratioral basis for the cede revision that is referred to S . 9960. 2 (c ) . The City Attorney. in their memorandum; stated that the view corridor easement was :,ot necesearily inclusive of thy. a pattir_ular section of the code and therefore, without it being explicitly painted out as being included was not included; howeiver, they died raise the: ather issue which was the Statute of Limitaticns had run out . The only one who could have objected would stave titan the owner of the property at the time this particular condition was imposed . Mr . Belaito acid the only alternative for his client would be to seek regress through tr.e variance pxocedure which io why they appealed. Now that the Statute of Limitations has run, the real issue: is if the 5 f,,ot setback requireawnt for the view corridor easement is �Palid and reasonable or is the taking an additional 5 feet from his cliet,tp property i�ithout just compensation, Mr . Belsito pleaded for the Planning J# Commission to lcxvk at the intent of writ}* his client+o are attempting to accomplish. Thev acquired the property knowing there was an 165 y . . 3 aaeivary 8, 1985 h .n r . r 4 s WAlb r try k incumberance on it for a view easement of 25 loot : Theybad their , structure designed, alter they 'had contacted the City and were �r assured that the site plans they had purcb4sed along with the property had been laved out to accommodate a 15 foot setback; They ;.' Mader the taproosian they could build right up to the 25 toot views � easement but without any architectural features encroaching into that 25 foot view easement . They went ahead and had their detailed Tane drawn; Later they found out that there was a 20 toot setback private agreonent ; Mr . belsito asked the planning Commission to " t6ko kAto cassideration the fact that his client has every Intention of do,$rig everything that is required by the city but they have really encountered considerable expeneses twice based upon, information given to therm at the tine of prelimin,o y plan check Which turned out not to be complete. They are anxious to get moving ahead with what would be a very important asset to the area. commissioner Porter questioned ter . Belsito; asking had he at any time discussed this subject with Mr . Armettong . Mr : Belsito stated that he had not with him while in Development Services listening to the Planning Commission tape. Mr . Belsito stated that -he' suggested to Mr . Araetrong that he attend the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to explain to them what had transpired and what he represented to the Planning Commission at the time the view o*sem►ents were entered into. Mr . Belsito also stated that in the t Planning Commission meeting, it was clearly indicated that there was to be a 5 foot setback from the view corridor easement. Felicia S. � iCaseeeel , Attorney representing Carolyn Young who is owner of lot no. 7, spoke in support for deenial. of Conditional Exception i' 84-70. She stated that the Title Deport would have shown and does show that the easement was recorded. She stated that her client 4 parabasod her house, then submitted her Yids and in building her home she made certain adjustments so she could have a viei'4 that would show out of the northern east corner '. She stated that the applicant ' s variance request will. Beet the home all the wait' up to the I; property line ligating they 5 foot easement that is there: She stated that her client thought she had a 20 foot easement whereas there is only a 5 foot easement and if this is taken it will I' restrict the view. I Robert Conway, 17172 Marina View, stated that he was not trying to Infringe on Mr. and Mrs .' Hill 's rights, but felt that peoples should live up to their agree:mente. Robert Conway stated that the I' neighborhood people paid $15; 000 for L"ne>r height limitations and the view corridor eaaaements . He f olt that if there was a view easement there which the deveelopesr , neighbors , and the City agreed to it good faith that it should be kept that way. i TH2 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED CCormissioneer Erskine stated that it is clear that the condition was imposed for a specific reason . He stated that he felt they had I heard enough testimony to uphold BZA' es denial of this conditional exception and made a motion for approval of the suggested conditions by staff which was seconded by Porter. I q 1�58d) -4- January 5, 1985 ��' � 1'. �r.„Y ; �r��r 'r•Jl J r:J ` ..' �. . . f Air. fr r t' J r r y y Ja 'tit i Ctaaissioner Pouter also felt that the Coanission should uphold the BSA desiol: Ne commontad that it would be am act in bad faith to that Agreement which all three parties were sign*tory to at that time . ,. Comiss iceer Sohm aeber stated that she was in aqa;aemont with Coawissicoor Porter as far as the 3 foot setback do the one section that is ad jacent to Carolyn Young 's groperty sie�ply because it is a pro rty lne but +char felt that on te other sida i! it waa actually % 3 t view corridor that that Cosolosion wanted or the deal was ±r out oh Why didn't they say it was a 35 foot view corridor . Commissioner Vinchell stated that she wanted to support Commissioner grakine and Commissioner Porter : She stated that to discuss , *^@*sent@ ■Ian i•years later was irrelevant . : The intent, the clarity o f settinv th forth is in our conditions and It is on Tentative Tract 7743 and she stated that she would be supporting the motign. J commissioner Erskine wanted to clarify the action by the Commission to be barred upon the findings for denial . Commission discusied the revisloa of findings and addled a new finding no. 6 . ON NOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY CONDITXONAL EXCRPTION NO. g4-70 WITH FINDINGS OF DENIAL -BY THE ROLLOWING VOTES FINDING •T0lt DENIAL t Y 1 . Because of the sire, configuration and shape of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land which do not apply generally to property in the game district: Tract No. 7743 was approved in 1976 creating the subject property in its current unique ,size, configuration and shape in order to accommodate development similar in size to that petaitted on surrounding properties : 2 . Exceptional c i rcums tancen do not apply the t deprive the *ub j ec t property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same none classification because the lot in approximately 11; 200 square feet in size and the buildable area excluding setbacks is 3, 250 square feet . 3 . Since the subject property can be fully developed within established setbacks# muck a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 04 . Granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-70 would constitute a giant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 5 . 'i'he granting of Condition Exception No. 84-70 would be into-is i stent with the goals and policies of the General Plan . ( 1658d ) January 8, 1985 . r 1.;`jy �. t+',y�'. ,.. ? Y A.�YAr ._... .... _. _ r •' ; ,,, ._.-.; ;; .•; . " P *d. w : 1"1N•�, I.h' yS �/ or r • ArF•'• i 9' 1.7 rr. The fZmaing Ocamission, in its eo;tion of Match 2r 1916, �� a 00041tice of approval xequirinV that all structures , fm ty-two (43) ncbes in height be set back a minimum i e m t 5 f view rider easemerst Which +� ,•, . �► � .v���) � *! lira he � rot corridor M 141 4 an G. The height measurement of such err*,Wture'6 shall be frog the finished grade of Marina View vihaOell ; LiveagoQd, arskine, porter , Mir jahangir r<x 4MAIMI won* slow 051011 AO IF TeNsWincUrporation 4 eia►l gn permit No. 84-9 is a request to permit three 2. 5 ' X 15 ' t :5 fiq a lest) "Texaco', signs with a 219" diameter (8:6 square feet) star oyo on three sides of a canopy. In addition, the a plicant is roposing a 5 ' X 10 ' (50 aqua-.e . foot ) , 5 ' high monument stgn to be pl ad at the corner of Edinger and ooldenwest . 3 ; . CommIssioner Po or commented that on the, east elevation there is a picture and a sly showing an existing pole sign to remain: He asked if staff 's c dition was basically saying there won't be any signs other than th ones specifically approved. Mike Adams stated that that was correat Camaissioner Rowe state that he parses this corner everyday on his Nor.r) way to wow k and feels th roposal will. make the corner more f attractive. nLPUBLIC 'StARING WAS ORENE n1�1+.A..�ras•ra�Y�� r�+w r �� r+r Mark Murphy, agent for Texaco C ny for sign modifications , stated that staff proposed ba all, v a Texaco wanted . He pointed out bast signs thay had done ox 7Caaa He questioned the `ody sign that stands on the corner of the To co property as to who would be responsible for removing it . Mike Uaws stated that Zodys have submi tad a special sign request to the City and they will not be taking vantage of the existing le they will be locating the sign in a fferent location with a different design: The financing of taking a existing sign down can be warred out between the Texaco applica and the Home Depot, but this condition states that prior to Texaco etting Building psrwite, the Zody sign must come dawn. , Chairman Livengood asked if this condition also at od for the Home Depo. Mike Adams stated yes . i\ (1656d ) -6- January 8, 1985 / v � / ,l4a , y 4 ✓,h r fit.' *. , "YTf ,.' 1`1h, , 1 . ' n.. •,' 4 rig' / .5Q'1 '�.a 4 Olt 4 IF v ! 1 W J., ..,..� huntkmton beach development sorvioes department IEPORI •I }Y�1 1 J : . . plemning Colmissica 4 i Ja►numvy 8, 1065 � • '' �`' �'t C+OMITIOXAL EXCBL' PION 610* , 84-70. APPEAL UNT'E ACCEPTED s + , ften* is; Mill 12/24/84 044; ,derI*k Circle MmtinytAm Beach, CA 92647 ' e MMDATORY- FROCESSINC OAT& Vr. t a portion, of a single family 2/24/85 TOX Onne to oncroacb 5 ' into the 1 J r*4 51 old* yard setback from a1 ' , wide view corridor easement and ah6thek portion to encroach 5 ' into the s. reg0t re4 5 ' sidayard setback. E)c ZONE: s 3-7191 "tina view Place (west side R1, .. of street approximately 200 ' south of Warner) GMERAL FLhN s Low Density Aesiden' tial EXISTING USE: Vacant ,i tr'f�1�,.AC7 YON �.; �I ILN+ sir�rrYnl aiu✓, Vpmld the Board of Zoning Adjustments denial of conditional Uception eta. 84-70 based on the findings outlined in Section 7. 0. O Mh INVORMATION: Conditional, Exception No. 84-701 is a request to permits 11 The north side of a single family residence to encroach five feet (51 ) into the required ve foot (5 ' ) setback from the twenty-five foot ( 25 ' ) wid corridor easement (Section 9103 . 2 . 1) . A•F M-938 �v r o' �: ' '''i, '�' "•�yn it 1�y 0 r, r i fop portion (los square feet ) of the residence to encroach five rs ., test ($ I ). into the requi yred' five foot (51 ) side yard setback ' (I trot 91039' 2 :1) of an irreyularly shaped lot encumbered witn view 6orridor restrictions. it tree reviewed and denied by the beard of Zoning Adjustments on 12/12/'94. bas*4 on the following findings: s :r• x* The applicant was unable to demonstrate a hardship. 2: The granting of an encroachment into this five f"t (V ) setback and into the open space' (view) corridor would i oftatituts the granting of a special privilege inconsistent btitb limitations upon properties i-n the vicinity: s.. 3: They Planning Commission in its action of March Z; 1976, contained a discussion concerning this five foot (51 ) setback and view corridor; and imposed a Condition of Approval ,r requiring this setback; A s 3 .0 SURR=DING LAND UbE; ZONING AND Ca=RAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS t jaigal .Plo r t : GJMZXAL PLW DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential : R.1-CZ Law ON Vacant SC i ''o1 Subject PrMr tyl 64ftltAL PLO DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential } WAS# -RI-CZ "y O Ug$: Single-Family Residence et of-subject . .�?raprty: (across Marina View Pl . ) .�. �Atee,.,,,■� G8NTMkL PLAN IDESIGHATIONs Low Density Residential LOD USZ: Single-Family Residents r:•r Btuth of subject Fro eFys GN ICUL PLAN DgSIGNATIONs Low Density Residential . R1-CZ Tab USE: Single�F'ami ly Residence A Sst of �5uriject Pr2Mrty: +M s t . o r.Air��anuA.rrrr+�.�Aw�� Q2nRAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential LAND USES Single-Family Residence ' -x- January So 1964 Js f dt *O " 4.0 XWV1RONHXHTAL STATUS: This pro oct is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15305 of the aaiifo nia Environmental Quality Act . S.0 •Ct3ASTAL STATUS s The described lot and proposed sin le family residence meets the reaquira:menta of Section 30610,1 (c? of the Public Resources Cod* .and is there b, exempt from the "coastal development perani t requiroments of the coastal Act 6+si HISTORY: Prior to analysing t'her ' applicant ' s request , it in neeeet vary to present general background data pertinent to the subject property, Lot. Woo' 19 of Tract Mb. 7743+ This information is deciphered from various documea:ntas. 'un; file with the City of Huntington Beach. A. an march 31 1976, the planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 7743 , see attached ) creating a standard 10- lot subdivi#ion w'hiah Included a view corridor easement on Lot No. 8 in order to reserve 1 the view existing for the residents to the east, across' Maerfaas View " P1 .' Among they conditions imposed were two which addressed the view corridor easement. They are a:►pplicaole to the subject property and are as follows : 17: A copy of the CC&R' s cn the subject property sha'.1 be submf ttaed to the Planning DMal rtment for review and approval prior to submittal of the map to the City Council for acceptance: Specific provisions which will ;prohibit any structure ( including landscaping) from exceeding thirty-six (36) inches µ in height in the designated view corridor and open sp►uce areas shall be provided. The height measurement of such structures and landscaping shall be from the finished grade of Marinas View Drive. 19. All structures exceeding forty-two- (42) inches in height shall abet back a minimum of five (5 ) feet from the 25 foot view corridor easement which is located on Lot No. 8. The height measurement of such structures shall be from the finished -gra►46 of Marine View Drive. According to th* minutes, the staff planner at tha March 2, 1976 Planning Cosniassion meeting indicated that Although the code requires aa► 5 ' asetbare It for all structures from a view corridor easement (because it is coneido red as sAde property line ) a condition Not' 18 (above ) was included in- the Tentative Tract conditions as a point of clarification. The approved tract map depicted 10- lots with building pads to repres3nt future development patterns ( see a►ttachvd ) . Lot No. 8 shows a building paid setback 5 ' from the 25 ' wide view corridor easement (see attached) .. In assence, a 30 ' 'wide view corridor was perceived . This clearly was the intent of the Planning Commission . when Tentative Tract No. 7743 was approved. ( 16 38d) -i - :i a nuary 8, 1984 i'� 4 iAC •i` ` t _F 1 .l. Sy�;i' IN 1' ' V•'Y 1 r; 8. On -Mardlh r, 19761, the property owner at that time entered into an agreement with the adjacent property owners to the east creating, easements which furtbar restricted the buildable space of Lot No•. Thee%* included a light and air easement across tb* ,prcpe;ty1 and arestriction that no to#nce or other structure of any sort may be allowed within 20 ' of the front property line (Marina View P1: ). This document was signed by all parties involved* but not, ree:ordeed. Co t Mitch 76; 1g76; a Grant of taseament was racotderfd with County r 8ecor4er which incorporated the following: 1*' An open space view easement designated as Lot "A" on Lai Dio. 8 of Tract Na. 77436' 3. A light and air and unobstructed view easement over the remaining portion of Lot No.; 8 prohibiting structures ;and vegetation from exceeding an average height of 12 ' from the 9 , grade level at Marina view P1: . T'he open space view easement satisfied, Condition No: 17 of Tentative Tract Noo 7.743: the second easement fulfilled a portion of the Mardh, 5 agreement. Do , ' On August 3. 1976, a Declaration of Aestrictions was recorded with the County Recorder which stipulated the following : 1. No structure or building more than three- feet above Marina View P1. grade level Uhall be erected within the open space view easement designated as Lot "A" ( "C. I" supersedes this 1+, condition) . 3. The minimum livable ground floor area of all reeideential buildings shall not be less than 1200 square foot . 3 . - No fence may be erected within 201 of the front property linen. 5: X. in February 1977 .' a revision to the open space view easement was recorded which reduced the amount of the easement by 1 , 425 square feet an lot too: 8: The overall sLzee of the easement was increased and shifted in order to provide additional building spaco on Lot No* 8: Written approval from five affected property owners wan received. lt. In November 1984, the applicant submitted plans for preliminary review for a two story single family residence with• a three car garage* The first floor at grade level contained the entire three bedrooes residence ( 3473 square feet ) with a► single car garage (316 square foot) and the bottom floor consisted of a two car garage with a large: storage area (2188 square feet) *' Access 'between the two floors was via outside stairway: There were two mane problems with the houaeea 1 ) the front setback was only 15 ' . 20 ' is required ; and x) the house abutted the 25 ' wide view corridor easement to the • north-a minimum setback of 5 ' is required in .order to -provide adequate space between the house and easement to accommodate typical architectural features ( i .e. eave overhangs ) . ( 1638d) .� ' -4- January a, 1984 r ` • r i .�,„k�r�+� �• yr{• e r. 'M r a h bsegL%nt:ly a oonditional exception was submitted with plane as noted Dow* excepk that the house has been shifted batik 5 ' from the front to aecoowAste, the 30 ' setback but resulted in placing a portion of the residence on an indented side property line. JA.-AW-Ugs AND ANRMYS 1,,m s, ,',,• 2n ogder to grant a variance to the Huntington Beach Ordinan,.:e Code# therip oust b* OPreial circumstances applicable to the property that deprIvelp the Pr rt of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vidiAfk =d under t a R1 zoning district . staff feels that fipaci4l , airags neos do not exist because: 14 Tho aforementioned restrictions We .' open space view easement, 20 ' i rcint setback and 12 ' high building height limit ) were known at the time of the subdivision and taken into consideration- when the 10•-lot subdivision was designed., 3. The, Buildable area of the lot incve+ased by 1, 425 square feet as a F res4lt of open space view easement changes in 1977. 3. The : lot is approximately 11 ' 20C ,square feet in size which is eoniliderabhy largar than the five other later of the subdivision fronting Marina View P1 : . 4. grunting a conditional exception to allow the requestod 5 ' � encroachments would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and R1 district . � I After reviewing the proposed site plan, other elements of the project could pose problems* * I . The driveway, sl.ope is approximately 30% and does not include curved vertical breaks as requited by Public forks. The maximum percent slope recommenAed by staff is 12%. 3. Sinks the driveway is within the open space view corridor easement#' no vehicles may be parkod can that driveway because they would violate the conditions of the easement : 3. If the door, for the grade level garage is not a roll-'up type, it will continually encroach into the open space view corridor easement . 4'. Twelve hundred square feet of open space is not provide" behind the front setback area on the portion of land unencumbered by the open space vl ew corridor e Staff hau reviewed! the 10' 200 square foot open space requirement and, deterainsd that there is justi :icatfon to grant a variance to the open &pace requirement if revised plans conforming to the side yard setback requiremenLa are received. ( 1.639d) -5- (January S, 3.984 .�,1 r y, rY" r. a.,. '��, „�+ ��r�►fi=opt� Staff recommends the Planningg Commission uphold the board of Zoning A ustme�nt's denial of Conditional Exception No. 84-70 based on the { ,;, to wlowing findings s 1 . ' Seeaus* of the mixes configuration and shape of the subject property*' therer doele not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ox conditions applicable 6., the land which do not %pp►ly generally to property in the same district . Tract No. 7743 was approved in 1976 creating the subject property in its current tutique size; configuration and shape in order to accommodate development similar in size to that permitted on surrounding properties . 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subjact property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification because the lot is approximately 1100200 square feat In size and the buildable area excluding setbacks is 3, 350 square feet* 3. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular establi4hed setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights: 4. Granting of Conditional Exception No: 84-70 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties In the vicinity. S. The granting of Condition Exception No. 844D would be inconsistent with the goals and poi i ciee of the General Flan. • 1�T'�A+��EWTB s • 10 Alternative Action-( to be distributed at the meeting) 2 . Letter of Appeal 3 . Board Action +4. 'Approved Tentative Tract No: 7743 Conditions of Approval 5. Aporoved Tentative Tract flap No. 7743, Lot No. 8 6. Final Tract Map No . 7743, Lot No. 8 7 . Existing Lot with current easements 8. Area Map 9. Letter from Gail Mutton regarding this Conditional Exception 10* Site Plan, Floor •Plan, and Elevations JWP I GNU t lcjp . ( 1638d) ..�� -6- January 8, 1,984 dEVJW ��7 w '• 'FNN.ruMM'n r;. i ern;, �• ��, .4 y (ATTACHMENT ]NO. 1 ) Ca1ibl�l' O�iAr. E CXF11ON Nei, 84-70, APPEAL t' I ,h AT?jjjAT�VX ACT ION i , 0provm conditional Exception No. 84-70 based on the following endings and conditions of approval i • f'IlRaIDiOE: r 1. 99cause of the sins, confinuration, shape and tojgraphy of the subject roperty, there does appear to be except oval or extraordfnarry circumstances or conditions applicable to the land 'which do n•':t afs ply generally to property in the same . district. The lot 11, 200 square feet in sire and encumbered by a 4,925 square foot open apace view corridor easement , thus reducing the site to 6075 square feet ' There is a grade di f ferrence of 14 ' from the street level elevation to tht rear (Wittier Avenue) property line elevation. Z. since the subject property can not be fully developed within regular established setbacks, Conditional Exception No: 84-70 in necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Because of the easements and requirod setbacks; the net buildable are of tho site is 3, 250; this is only 309 of the entire lot. Typical buildable area of a lot in Sot. 3 . with the conditions imposed, 1 # 600 square feet of the view k corridor easement at the rear of the property will fulfill the lo200 square foot open space requirement . 4. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-70 will not r.onstitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. s. Conditional Exception No '. . 84-70 will be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plats . 6. Condition Ncp. 18 requiring a minimum 5 ' setback from the viers corridor of Tentative Tract No. 7743 dated March 2, 1976 a' is hereby amended to read : A minimum of 2 ' 6" from the view corridor shall be provided for all structures , however, architectural features may encroach up to the view corridor easement CONDITIONS OF APPROVALt I. The plans dated December 24, 1984 shall be the approved layout with the following .requires] modifications : IL •.. ,�Y, i,�- ,/�P•�v� ,, �Fi' •9';'Y 6 Fur I.ji',h• 't ; �i r . �. r'�, r ,�• .r :1' •� 1V n' • r ,i � a • r1 i P • � yam., A '. 1►: The structure $hall be setback a ainlau u of 3 ' 6" from the 251 wide open space view corridor eas men t in order to . 4000600ftto projecting architectural, features :. In no aa$e �• , sbalt any structures or architectu-al futures encroach into the $see*► nt. h: The outside stairs may abut the ornto n. a 'y paca� view corridor idos easomont, but shall not encroach the eamo%ent . a. The rear parking court ttom the house to the rear property :? liae shall be eliminate,i and maintained as a landscaped n space area. 21 ffio vehicles nhall be p*rked on the street guide level driveway at &AY t i re. 4 3. The street grade level garage shall contain a roll ' up type garage door. C The proposed r;tructure shall conform to all requirements of the Building Division. , I. (1.647d) r� i 1 I '. I .•__ • J. 1. off' 5 1 F' ", ! ' "w" " �� '•' K:' 4 yip Ji vl. ,w l• •�� ` \ ! .f t'fi'fr,, , •, •. .r��art ` c � f J ,i Ae •J.r �1 . y}�, 4 Aki. guwl-J, lvece�e) Xly 4.0 eAl dts.4�47ezjo .00 sit J*I 40 wo f �� ������� � � �� �++ �'i�+i�I++Lr �Lr� f� � ... ''�1L��,•b�� �i� '�+�J!�•d�-�.+1►'�4 r y .I Y � ` � r a n P J.' / M � i bo :. BOARD of ZOnRnG ADJUSTMEnTS CITY-OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-CALIFORNIA " s P.0: N+OK 190 9260 tD T �rriA Zx+C pTY4N N0. 84 40 , Applicant r Frank a . iiiii , ;. 6442 Jersey Circle Huntington Search , California 92647 Request: ;TO' -permit a portion of the main buAding (101 !Square Feet ) to encroach five feet ( 51 ) into the '•r five foot (5 ' ) side yard setback (0 ' ) and to r:. encroach five feet (5 1 ) into five foot ( 5 ' ) setback from the twenty-five foot (25 ' ) view corridor of an irregularly configured site encumbered •with view corridor restrictions LOcationr 17191 Marina View Place (West side of street approximately 200 feet South of Warner Avenue; 'Date of Daniel z December' 12 , 1984 PINDYNGE FOR MENIAL: 1 . The applicant was unable to demonstrate a hardship. s l' 2. "o granting of an encroachment into this five foot (5 ' ) setback and into- the open apace (view ) corx-iclor would 00hatitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent w1th lii tations upon properties, in the vicinity. 3. The planning Commission, in its action of March 2, 1976 , contained a discussion concerning this five foot (5 ' ) setback dndC vl:*w corridor , and imposed a Condition of Approval requiring thi.a setback. 2' horeby certify that Conditional Exception No. 84--70 was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on peeember 12, 1984 , upon, the foregoing reasons. Ver tru ur elan K. 6odfre , Secretary Bard Of Zbni,ng Adjustments 1427d) �. r ti•�� r/'�'y� '41d'qi6,ckM ..�171r"' 't r` r •r �,'?r.�"^ \ ., � 7r," * r5 "�.: i RS r! � ?► x, i' I ft Woo' '�d�,'i Ian•, ,, � w; Nu tl��t.o Belch P181NI g COMMISSIN y P.D. SOX lot CALIFORNIA *9649 4 r 'liftwi C! mmoVAL r �'::;• T81�1�'flVlC T0�' NO. 7743 ; George A. Armstrong 3481 Gilbert Drive ' �r Hunt•itigton Beach, California xP1BR: Raab And Boyer 4` 14482 Beach Boulevard • Westminster, California USSIT s 8 lots, 2. 163 acres Sk' LOCAT10Nt West of Maritsa View Drive, north of Los Patosd and southeast of Warner 609 ' APPROVAL: March 2 , 1976 r �, F'rNDiNGS • 1. The propno6d subdivision is consistent with the policies and objectives of the adopted General Pian Land Use El ment. 2 . The design, layout, and proposed improvements axe in � conformance with the state . Map Act, City Subdivision ordina hcc, ano applicable standard plans and spe+cifi•� cations on file with the City. Ct]WJ,tTONS Of APPROVAL s I'h 1 1 ��N Y iliYY i � •11i.Y..�1_+T7�.�w1.' 1 . 1 I . The: tentative map received and dated February 24, 1976 <,� •; "�f`'-?,' shall be the approved layout. 2.. The sewer and water and fire hydrant system shall be z, designed to City standards rr: >• 3. The ova,ter system shall be through the City of Huntington k. I Beach water system. 4. The sewage disposal shall be through the city of Huntington - Beach sewage system . S. The property shall be subject to the local drainage assessment district' s requi'zements and fees. r J , y T' ��' y►�'R�3k•.. :. pia �VW 40 + `1 pT �,. 'fE'tfTATIVS TX �' wo. .-4 Page 3 6. Otalnage for the subdivision shall be approved -by the *Department of Public 'Norks prior to the tisoordation of a final map. This system shall be designed t:o provide, for siltation and erosion control both durinCt and after construction of the project , 7 . StrdOt sections shall be determined by the soil ' s R value and by the traffic index. e . ' All required improvements sh3l l be constructed under the inspection And to the approval of the "it:y Engineer. 1 • Three and One-half percent (3-1/21 ) of the ukaunt of the improvement: bond shall be pont:ed with the City Engineer t for inspection coats . 9. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration for eairth movement: for the subject property. The report �. shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Special Studies Act. 10. All structures proposed for construction 4ithin this subdivision shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist ' s report_ 11. Calculations on footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-f arc tors shall be submitted to the City for review. 12 . h chemical analysis as well as tests for physical .properties of *the soil on subject property shall be +aubmitte6 to the City for review prior to the issuance of buil a ng permits. ' ' 13. The dE'veloper shall participate in the Orange. County Sanitfition District applicable to subject property . � 14 . A six (i6) foot high decorative masonrx� wall incorp- � orating- a combination of landscape planting to miti-- 4p atte:-the irn ac;- of the wall along Warner Avenue' shall �. be a natructed f n : a five (5) foot landscape easement albho 'Warner Avenue. The plats for such screening wall and landscaping method shall be submitted to the Plan- +�` nin'g Department~ a; ;d the Department of Public ,Works for k ' review and atppkovkl prior to . submitt:ind the final map , �, {:• to the City Co4na i l • for acceptance. Measurement of the height of said wall shall be from finished grade of t:h* property lines m.long Wagner Avenue. . • � I .0 Y ! 5 .i •yy IVP"W low ry.�rYn k r 5', WO i , h• * r 1 j TSUTATiVR TRRCT NO* 7743 pa9 15 . 1f the developer proposes to provide air conditioning# the insulatibn in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-19 and R•-111 respectively. If no air conditioning is to be provided , the insu14%ion in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-•13 and R-7j respectively. The CC&R ' s on the subject . property shall reflect such an insulation provision. s . 26. Natural gas and 220V electrical shah, be stubbed in at the locations of clothes dryers . Natural gas shah. be stubbed in at the locations ol . cooking 'facilities, water heaters , and central heating 'units The CC6R' s ' onIthe subject property shall indicate such an energy source provision . 17 . A copy of the CC&R' s on the subject property shall be submitted to the Planning- Department for review and approval. prior to submittal of the final map to the City Cjuncil for acceptance. Specific previsions which will 6rohi.bit any structure (including landscaping) from exceediny thirty-six (36) inches in height in tho designated view corridor and open space areas shall be provided. The height measurement of such structures and landscaping shall be from the finished grade of Marina View Drive . 18. Ali structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the 25 foot view corridor easement which is located on lot number S. The height measurement of such structures shall be from the finished grade of Marina View Drive. j 1 7 hereby certify that Tentative Tract No. 7743 was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on March 2, 1976 upon they foregoing conditions . ibhard A., Harlow Sertoratory RAN:jr i•, r r� a •rti1' � � r �%4 = I 74 ' M � � r I ' �k / • TO, lop ••� r � 10 1000 dw yt ,;,, r• • N 6 p►! OTC 95'AER C l /B ► +► r, ' ' t r,r r, 1 4i y%Vf q �a th `A�'` . . .yamLLI $9►•BP' �''. � g 131 i dJ�• .� .ob 'o � . v q4, J< 100 WV 90 � . wl T •� fi '~ w 1 1 # � � '+'•'•' ' � � N$9'Sl 5�'E /D5 nl ' iM h , o 7�1 1 3C 'R��lip, �. I M i I'b6 1V r `4; Fyn sit ?r ss tO 1-1 it `• • o o bo ao 00 ocr 1 . Iv . / 5 3 91/ 17 d ' �11J w1 4 ► �1 '��l�MIIM4.• wrs�•. .�.-....�----�-�- .•art• .�. � '.t M ■• ` �'-0 OL 00 ip / • I •� 62. 1 ./ .• 1 1 �•• •• •••••r• • •••ra•r• • •t�••. * �� / I► / JeA low ~ � � 00. lea . ' � '}.•'A• l 1 •j; 1, •. ,• f� � is + .� .�l "� (,,• « � . ,., ,i • Aj C`•PPP�'S7 , •fit t�. ..,� dop 1, ,7. ..-�,.�' ;,y `• rG� A � ''+����,1. -- - �r g : - yam: -'` - N R3 R3 "� Rs-CZ v 3 f -_ R 2 R3 13 = . i '> � a.f�r fw ~ N � 1• RI � - _ R� ELIO C M.CZ RI Z Rl RE RI-C2 iV►>i V R AVE FCZ RI-CZ- Ri_ \Rt-cz I � Wol .c.0 y qt I 1 v •, t CE,84----70 •• I 7-•�•_ r a i — J1 g HUII *GTCEH d#ACH PLANMiNG DIVISKM dOW - a.` ! AO .'tiff' 6 INTER-DEPARTMENT- COMMUNICATION .7AHX8 W. PALIN GATT• HUTTON r —' �� ~ ��•••~ a . To )aeva joyment Services Director From City Attorney ' Applicatioonjor CS 84-70 Date 31 December 1984 Irrank J# Hill 17191 Marina View Place We have been asked to review the validity of condition 18 of Tentative 'Parcel Map No. 7743. This condition imposes at minimum fiv. e-foot setback front an existing twmnty-five foot view coftidor easement . This condition was apparently based upon this authority of Huntington Beach Ordinance Cade Section 9960 , Z tc) which requires a five foot setback from easements for "public utility, sanitary sewer and drainage purposes. " We are of -the ,opinion that the condition, was of doubtful validity,, but that the statute of limitations bars a challenge to J to validity , The power of a local agency to impose conditions or exactionm as a prerequisite to approval of a subdivision map ie geheral.ly limited in four ways: 1 . A condition must be within the scope of the Agency's authority to imposes The exaction must be authorized by a valid � n ' existing cirdinancel HUNTINGTON SEACN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES , } !�•..' , 3 . It mush Gear some rational relationship to the publin needs created by the proposed ` dwelo seat and 4. xt must be capable of performance by that P,O, x 49Q . . subditridsr, Huntingtrorr BeNch, CA 9260 The requir*nent of an underlying ordinance fails in this case. Government Code Section 66475 permits imposition of dedication conk t ono "by local ordinance. " Likewise, the legislative body may establish and Maintain building ,•4 setback lines "by ordinance." The relevant ordinance in this instance !toes not apply to view easements = it apacifically applies only to utility easements . V-0 y ; ' t r � • Memorandum to James W. pal i n 31 December 1964 � ly*Velopm*nt Services Director page Two Application for CS 64-70 ' to addition, a number of cases have invalidated conditions not ressonbly related to the impact of the;, development. H Condition of public parking unrelated to the use of the ro art was struck dowry n Lib rt• v. ; p i e California Coastal • ,° o s tin t196Uy lx� C:A. 3d"`�3 ,, An easemen. FORMER was e ovaltd in C,eor is-�Paci 'ic Cox oration v Cal rocnia Coastal Coop 678 t where � �� by arts wars no rational re at onship between the easements ` .and, the project In this case , adjoining landowners purchased a twenty-five ' foot view easement. There does not appear, to be a sound lrgAl basis for requiring the developer to provide an additional five foot view corridor as a condition of use of they property. l . Thua, tie five foot setback condition was vulnerable in Sicking both ordinance support and a rational relationship to the public needs created by the development. Nonetheless, the - statute of limitations for challenging such conditions is ninety (90) days and has long since run. . tGovernment Code Section 66499 . 31) . No timely chatllerngo was made. In our opinion , relief at this time is beer addressed through the conditional exception process. It the parcel owner is denied a variance (conditional rr'�,•.' . ; ,;.. t/a�lc lion} :, then he may be gable to contest the original - lion 3n court The hardship requitement for the � ',: vaclance may be satisfied in tfiis case by the fact that the reel property is already, burdened with an easement for 119ht and lair not shared by other lots in the area. On the > other. hand, the ebutrt aright consider (properly) that the r*gv*st for a variance is merely an attempted subterfuge s , ,1 `t • around the barred appeal on the original imposition of the (illegal) condition+ rn any event, this makes for an :M . o*ecesti qurfetian. , •i. r)1 GAT to SgTR Y . City Attorney � 1, M dal. lz PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL FXCSP"`1 NO. 84- 70 ax 4- t- ,.; Name Address gigilatkire r /A � + f 1 , C' [, ,- I ()Ct V 1 l?uu p! w Lv V�rv.r- Name Adaress3 Signature Of 3. �..1._ AddreQg siV#ture r.A` game Address Signatu re P/0 vd L-7 y ma a�fa 6 pw 'e- w Signature Name Address Si 9 Name '.ls.�...�.t.. Signature ' "�!'�' '' ' .•c 1 c r��,� Mai r��-���- V;�u�'.--- '- , �! �� �"'���.. , Name Address Sicr,, e J r' l Name Address ignature ff r r! 'M'fi Name Address Signature Name Address Signature A4 'Wille Address �., gfyneture fesi natu Me L+�.-`-•�-�-�•-�/ Name Address Signtatlee 1 Address Signature me ., NaTae ddce s Signature � 1 a dwa + ` a`•Sj,!'. yl:' 1►f. ti.y;: t r ..• •�•. yy ?i3TI'PjoW AGAINST CONDITIONAL EXCEPTI NO. B4-70 _Ze1.,4 Lv.,) Vo 0 JU fj�_- 11-od 9 Address Signature ' N�1�e a It r I WS" 61 Uj i NOW Addreus � Signature A IUA VYC- LV A&I- 4'.;� 3 ...W......./'Y'— �` , � Adder _ . Si �ture '. IiMtNt lye,#K . r .� r '' ' I1, r�1 l .Jl/1 .V Lag'. w11MY�rYwr. + / 10 ;`r • el Name Addrf:aa Signature ` .I Name Address Signature Name - Address Signature 172.11 tl�ra%!,. (A(Aple-S, 'ecl.�(acje' Name Address SI. e i Z12 Z, Name Address ignature �, ,�. ���w / r _ ,fit-�.�� �1�j� ' •ter � •'� ;��; �� Name Address Signature k)1A M fi!=� Name Address Signature 1/J Ll Vowme Address Signature if/ —�, •� �' tu atu ame 1, Name Addrenv •Signat e 21 . j I / } ame Addresu Signature IName ddrs a Signature �1 A1" _ f Ito �• '�•+ r •~'' • r r�� ++yr f .Y• INTEil-bEPAR TMENT .COMMUNICATION r�r a, To JAMS N. PoLin , Director FM Scott Hess �,`':•` c , �• Development services +. $000 CONDITIONAL XXCEPTYON 84-70 17191 XWVA V1= PLO y4,4 The following is , a chronological history of various documents on ` "I�'r .? file ,affecting the subject property, Tract-'No. 7743 and Los Patos �• 1 �/ voter": Property. rT ,•t, 8/6/73 City Council initiated surplus real property (Los Patos Water Tower) for sale (resolution 3743) . 12/3/75 City Council communications Armstrong to pay p8 ,300 fo,c Los Patos Water Tower property with condition that he keop property as open spacer. (map 61) 2/9/76 City Council authorized retmoval of the open space testric+tiotn and considered a comparable open space easement elsewhere within Tentative Tract No. 7743. ' 3/3/76 planning Commission approved revised Tentative Tract No. 7743 which provided for a 28 ' wide view corridor easement. to be granted in farms to the City (map 63) . This easement was a relocation on a 'square foot per square foot basis of the open space restriction placed an the water tower property acquired by Armstrong. It was determined by . the Planning Commission that open space rarlocation eras more desirable and useable as a �'Nt,Vkr publ i 3' vieio' area (3/31/76 City Council Cbmmunicart ion) . 3/6Yy6 private unrecorded agreement between Armstrong and T 10 ad *cent property owner.s s Conwa y p Halpin, Ntestermeyet, '1IIk r «. ► . atr Winn (map 63) assuring theta that certain easements ," ,��, ;;� '� ;•, aAd restrict ions will be included in the CCCtts by the 1,-� �. � - ;. ��' � . •�a :. developer . The four owners paid a combined total of { S15000 ' for the easements and rest"iretions described as tip•' 1h,'�" t;�, ��, . •h' 110 Light and air easements granted by developer affect parcels 8 , 9, 10 , and portion of 4 (no set height restriction r,'oted at this time) to be rl in CCaRs. r ' A - ,'. ,fir ;' • x, '0 `,� NO. ,,f''r�y;l• w 4 (2) Twenty foot setback for any fence or structure on parcels Be 9, and 10 to be in CCARs. (3) Developer will include easements in deeds of- the affected parcels. (4) Adjacent lend owners will not oppose any futurt development. If, in the Euture , ell ownern of Tract 7743 mutually agree to modify the CC4Rsp written ` consent of the adjacent. owners at successors in interest is necessary prior to any such change. : (6) Cost of Any legal action shall be boated by' the adverse party M 'r ' M 3/23/78 City grants Los Paton water tower property to Armstrong. ' 3/26/76 GRANT of EASENUT - to each of the four property ownerel recorded with the following facts: (A) - Girantor (Armstronng) r owner of parcel 1 end 3 ,`;,�:` ,•;� of Exhibit *A* * (map #3) r (R) Grantor is owner of Tract No. 7743 as shown on Exhibit OB" . (map 04) (C) Copy of grant of open space view easement in favor of City of Huntington Beach executed 3/4/76. This grant mNy affect the easement granted to grantees herein. Rights of city may t not conflict- with grant to grantees herein, but shall supercetde any grant of easement made herein . if any controversy arises, easene' nt to city shall prevail. (map #Z) s • .`. ;+ ,,�' ,• (n) Grantees are owners of a lot in Tract 475. ;:; •`�" .,�� Easements na shown on Exhibit "A" (map #5) ehali be subject to the appurtenant servitude i �`'•� of the owners of lots 7#, 9 , Ile and 13 O "• ,.. E Tract ��: •- 47S with the eexce?4ion that no rights created ;. shall inter-fere with or supercedo the eaarsM*n � !y;;;t •., to the city, ' ` 4.. Witnesseth that an easement for light and air ' ,, ° and unobstructed view over and across : E V w�. .M 11) Exhibit "AO , (lots 6 , 9, 10 and part of 4 s of map f5) . (2) Perpetual easement for light and air over } parcels 8 , 9 , 10 and part of 4 . , (3) Easement includes height restriction four ;��1;,� ,`, �. chfmneyar antennas, etc. J r ' 1 N Y �1 ..t'J �5� .1�1'�411' ,• .J/ y: P1ti 1 ,�'�,I MM.�C\.I.cY1 nYfR'RYF�'./ 141 OP DRC1LARATION' CF RtSTRICTIONS (C 08) recorded on all ten parcels included the follows rig s „ (1) All plans must be approved by Armstrong. 0 (2) Height restriction easement is deeded to four adjacent property owners. r (3) No structure or building shall exceed 3 feet �+ above grade level. (Marina View) within open space easement desi nAtod on Lot No. 8. (me ' #2) Minimum living ,floor area: 1 , 200 square' feet ' ' r! - (s► No projection permitted above roof other than 1 one or more chimneys. Any building ,additions must be approved by Armstrong. (7) All construction must be continuous and completed in a timely manner . , (8) Lots 6, 9, and 10 on Marina View F1 . may not erect a fence of any sort with 20 feet of the front property line (map #3) . This does not il:clude "structure" as required by the unrecordee document dated 3/5/76. (8) All property owners of lets S . 9 , 10 shall. acknowledge that the stnbdivider has granted certain easements to adjacent owners (four) for - light and air. 1 (18) Mandatory insulation if any structure has aiiC ` �� rq� �, oonditioni�ng. 1 `11•� � r ti a 141 (11) Clothes dryer gas and electric stubbing +;? ,•, required. (12) CC&Rs are to run with the land. 1 g An changes to CCsBs must be approved by 700 of the owners and , by four adjacent own--rs east of Marina View �,� ' ; �•: r, Place. 1. (13) Enforcement condition. (14) Invalidation condition . :,(a ` (151 Breach of restrictions . v 1 1 A, a• h`, �.�'r,,; •yi;, •, vim. , � ^ limp give property owners agree to an easement change (map - TM #6) . They are Conway# Halpin, eartoli , Young and. Winn. .2/7/77 Agreement by the City and Armstrong to release open apace view easement (Recol4tion ho. 4410) which includerd r ':,,,. (1) City &' g,room to rolease Open space view Easement ,r as shown on Mai+ 6. (2) Armstrong mgrees zo convey now Open $pace View? Hasome nt, no shown on Map 7. ( ) The now .open Space View Easement must be r recorded sage day. are city releases Open Space �;, ��►. ��. view Easement (4) New Open Space View Easement shall prohibit any structures from exceeding 36 inches in height. } /8/�'7 Reaq'rdatian of City releasing Open Space View Easement 4y to Armstrong and Armstrong creating new Open Space Yield fteemont, (Map #.$I) • . (16774) f r 1 fA 47 1 1` r 1 I 3 ai ry7 f/Ax . k Mir . and Mrs. Frank J . Hill request to go before City Coun a.1 . We will be represented by Mr. (Bud) Bels,ito . Sub ject x 17191 Marina 'View Drive View Corridor -- and -- easement Planning Commission denial #84-70 In March, 1984 prior to purchase of Lot #8 in Tract Wo 7743 in the City of Huntington Beach, Mr. and Mrs . Frank J . Hill inquired of the City Building Department as to exactly ,, where can said lot a residence could be built. . A senior staff _ member of the City Building Department gave the Hill ' s the following informations k 1. Although the frontage of said Lot #8 is 80 feet, the residence would have to he limited to a width of 50 feet. 180- 0+23) 1 • 2 . The set.-back from sidewalk for front of residence is 15 feet. Subsequently, in April , 1984, the Hill ' s purchased said Lot 08 in Tract Wo. 7743 . The architect prepared preliminary plans for -the residence based upon the above city information. i These plans were given preliminary approval by a senior staff member of the Building Department. Thx Hill ' s then proceeded with plans with the architect and engineergr. Early in September of 19840 these plans were submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Building Department for final ap- prbval. Within two weeks the plans had been approved, requir- ing minor, detailed changes only. These detailed changes were being made by the engineers, hired by the Hills, when a senior staff member of the Building Department oalled and wanted to see the Hill ' s immediately. It god that, ' the person who had just recently purchased LQt #2 iri 'the riaree tract had brought in some documents that Could dffeft the plans that tho Huntington Beach Building Department had just approved for the gill 's on Lot #8. There two dCMrt Atit, that the Cit!,- had never seen before, implied that the Nill 's would have to move the front of their proposed d*114 back 5 feet ( from 15 feet to 20 feet) . At this time tho hill ' s were approached by Mr . Armstrong, the devol6per, wine another idea. Mr . AUmstrong proposed that the Hill 's could move the back of the, proposed dwelling to the property line and he would give an easement of Another five, vv r am ' NO :. ME* Mr. G Mrs . Frank J. Hill " ' Page 2 • Sub jest l 17191 Marina View Dr lve feet which had been reserved for a tennis court. The Hill ' s therefore applied for a variance with the City of Huntington Beach to move the bock of the proposed dwelling five feet. Time being of the essence and, according to the City, there being no further problems foreseen, the Hill ' s now directed their engineers to go ahead with plans based on all items catered above (essentially moving the proposed dwelling back five feet) . On the day of the first meeting with the Huntington Beach Board of Zoning Adjustment, the Hill ' s were told by the City Building Department that another document had been found that would affect the Hill ' s ' plans , Now, five feet on the r2orth ai'ie of the proposed dwelling would have to be cut off. On December 16, 1984, Mrs . Hill spent approximately two hours with a senior staff .member of the City Building Department. He indicated to Mrs . Hill that since there was some confusion regarding how far back to the rear of said lot a res-Idence could be built, time and money could be spved if the Hill ' s ' attorney would came in. The very next day, when Mrs . Hill was back 4n the City Build;'.ng Department again, she was told, "everything I told you yesterday, forget iti " There appears to be some vacillation within the City Building Department. For example% on one day the Hill ' s were told that ten sets of building plans and fifteen names of surrounding property owners were required; however, cn the very next day, they were told that now fifteen %ets of build- ing plans and thirty names of surrounding neighbors were re- i suited prior to the City Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting. SUNMART 1. The Hill ' s were told by the City Planning Commission at the hearing of 3anuary, 9 , 1985 that a 5 foot build- 1 ing set-back was required in addition to the 25 foot view corridor easement; however, Lot #9, immediately adjacent on the North side (assumingly approved by the City of Huntington Beach) was with only a 3 foot minimum set -bank from the property line. 2. Tie Hill ' s understand, from one of the documents, that they cannot build less than 20 feet from the sidewalk. Howeaverrp Lot #10 (to the north) has a completed build- ing (assuaingly approved by the city of Huntington Reach) with only approximately a 12 foot seat-back from the side- walk (riot 20 feet as required by the Kill ' s) . In. addition Lot #6, south of the Hill 's lot, has a completed building within approximately 15 feet, only, from the sidewalk. Al � "�'� •..,,�+-,. ,a�ry . . . „. ,. ,an � Mrs . 6 Mrs . ,rank J . .Hill page 3 subject : 17191 Marina View Drive 2. There has been much discussion on how far back from a view corridor easement a residential dwelling may be placed. I have heard arguments all the way from 0 feet to 5 feet. However, Lot #9, have portions of their building. within, not 5 feet, but only 3 feet from the Hill 's ' property linen . Since the tract map shows a 25 foot view corridor casement, I suggest than the City allow the Hill ' s to build up to the view corridor as long as no structure is built into the view corridor itself . (As I understand it, one of the Planning Commission members did vote in accordance with this request) . The Hill ' s have been constantly working on their plans from April of 1984 to the present--about 9 months . • Their original cost for lot, April 1984 : $183 , 000 . 00 e Interest lost oa the $183, 000 . 00 for approximately 9 months plus building plans, costs , etc . : 28, 000 , 00 • Their trouble, anxiety, loss of time , etc . : $211, 700 . 00 And it seems that very little, if anything, has been accomplished to date. k' f I ,a4 I •�i ti = 6 nc *-ad , jp Y I{ i 0'� 1��►�kl� '�'h•o+as w�� P l���� ION ti 1"RA(".)'T No. It111iE CITY OF HUNT IfIWON BEsC'H, ORANGE COUNT', CALI FOR 1111►, Lawny Jft++1110f4, A C i 1A111 HA51S rl' HEAR41115 r�1. �...tM•w...lw� •wl • a/I'N 11'1 ro11•Itlr'p•u•f rI rasa ntwr� • tll;Ipwlh 1.61 uilD a l 1•t i+11 to M+11ra l+tM ra•1 ly9f(ff JeOM11,1.1"lt.!1.SZT�..�._ f- sit ubt••34N rN lb•++Ya'�1 iy Yf /a ill lly lot•its 0 N!: '• ia•IIIlrfla•flf.aff0,a'�'V w4mou lra-i(r"prj I't rl r•W.awa+rl off 121 i ylrbal psi aui« ra irIuM71111a7•a1a it lr+to•afalw.few w•W 14f•it/ `f{rrlgaf••v*••e-a.rr 11 1 r••twill h •a b/,Wrnrfvf ll aalla I I • ilaa Mr il• raa { 0--••-e'I{la' ON fa►f 1,00 '^ t i yh,u,q{ ar r1{r 1r+r3 IiN++lrl tN9•lircr I I p Iwl [Irl if r•ewl:aab•+I3840 { q■•tw/•.ifff+/ a/aff N1f'R4efff ff I a i/•/ I1 Nc • � 1 11 • fi flI.�•fs ra(•fnr+.� toe M1 f ,a .�.. .._ �y�l � f may. afrw r � of • ; � i f f.`•t ,,� /•,���1�+�r+ �'�1''rr/`/K�lt... �nTiiF� �. � .�.� .,f. i • f� �•� ♦ �' . . � a19+a NT_... • maw r,wr w I it � ] r e t 6 ., a �• •y+'ti '�, a�'� t 1 �1 �e C � t a d �• ' r• , r 1`�•� S' ,ill 3 � • � 1� , � oil TO1 , • 1 = r to cl f ',a Y t N.of �' t �If'1•Nj a lai N -i • N^I 1 ti 1f11/ . l` lGS f{ rlri Avri-66pok 1F •�f.•r —� vfrawwaf o ON rot,a• •rf/ar .+.isrr •, • • i eEc g$j! • -he op r fM imm,III•1.6"l; Amol+r fa"m o/�Mr•/ Aw AN 04 1 Vwl l y 1r a--' i /r•1�.. �.� . •�.�. 1V 00 M•0 . .a 1.qr• fW M'1 6.r I � Y' 1 it f ?kACT 774S i It, THE CITY OFHUNTINWON EIEACH, 7HANOE COUNT), CAUFOR1414, jLANNY 1• jamb4stlw, I r. 4 1olgl FIE APiWile �•I ' t�1'MIt'//tr/rltfllNll.S'/.rrN•f,tN . h � wi viirit i:r + r:MI''�iwi ry jAcxIvNK'1LgQTJ .. MrIINYwI�twNYY�U•;21%'df100001Jerm,fl,I!Oweof ../../mavrr t�H .01, l Aty�rrf l�r//�t/w11p�tINY1' r•IYYar.htlfwrrnyFNT/A1t,7NmwMwAPw.,rry 1 @--Nwh. woof % ' r . I•• r it •II i +OVA Ir N A u N Jt N —M'•.tiw MI! �N' ws• (� •IYNtii 1 /� rw H.1� INWt•1 1{bu'i• I -� -•,,, � 1 /•off f ./ �r.Y► Ir n. /. n wl 4rf�Wr 04= IN oil, �' 7 in toll /rr��/� ��1 / M1� N•t.ry •/rMww a � .., 4�'?•f 7 W N •+y � e ,f r to 41 32 d 6 In WOO •1L=� ..� .. ' ,�-•a1'� -� �� �: F-.� ..�`!�......_„ _ ... _.......!' ,_!tit._ __.........,. ' vArrIr/ avrru�F v ��� 1/AAfl�h/ •h•tr rYr �. I+r•M rr.'nrr. `�•� r • ' /140 Im 6 Imp Iw W O b�tr/ 1W 010440 Y�, 1r � .�•.MwA w/Ow IA N Mt Ad•111 ./ • iY vi r so1.I.00, Mmwft w EMI•On mar 4 0•a.r/•t t■/tr rl YAM•.64m, /� • 1 , '1• e r rya r� M• . t No. 7743' AtACT If11HE CITY OFINNYIIICPON SE ACif, OrANGE rOUN11, CALIFORNIA. JO• MADOa, v C • to1p1 a'a�c,• ,Ivrr �r ld"'M U7 PNUyf irrlfl._I N I.a Ott Ilffrirfil,r q/4 IMO�Ircfla•rn, ff�r+Owr�MYff+11/rl U•lWM.,I M . 1..1 fLd I UVI'J"rMlflmlFwAdjV4,0fY►f'Uall ff.f►tf•Wn. •.1..411 riw f♦1/}Ilrl•r V"we,r•w•r w,Mr1 +rru 4rNiriwf rI.IM./MIMIi It,r.,.I r�r.♦�� f Y►1y YIr►I/i1fN 111uNIhtlYi'ffr„ICrt'dH101.rfr4sf9-1-611 A •iter flnj P-AV a•f.11 oft ff l 1 r • •�:rrrn :.Owwwrrlfxfu. ,i (y I l • l i aim If f1 Y .1 iY rf Of f r 1 Q}••-HIfto = •11• 111 i (�•ff'M or M r 1114 f 1.1 liver tow P W )IF it 000 it as Peof JOIN IF ® +rr•t•Jtl lM lry+I•arl I+IL+tr1 NfalaflY fr f'IR fI11 of 0, 1,. d4 1111lY I A•Ia.A IA rrzIN�j I i . :;ire«rl••1,In ff A.Mf I'll., rl.r I • Ifrwlrpi •f I r �a PIN • L•` t[F 1 I �,s.• •1. OFF .0e Ile I so y 1MNN 40IN In for AS* i I xx f: �+ ••fit r j�rl • • �rf+ ' \ \ Ipn k 7h�N11 rIf"l..j% Ni be •r+►H LO5 r >Iiet,!q 6vPr�il!' r •��f +ww.......w...na�..0 ,*vFI furs urr.•w .�r+a.��.nrr. � 1 l/r•rfArlwaLv1 "-Few. •• 06•11/ ifff+ary ;Alit 1/ I IN kip po to Memo i trr•.grlarrf itM1► 1. r ► '-me of wnA wr prwY f!r i M Mfw1 +!+ 1 aw ffuNrI PEA • �r r��f( G DEPT. r;c � • _. r4- • REVISED - TE14TATI .E TRA. �! T NO, � 77443 - p. o. 90 L r �Orr7SfJ S..AO+nypw qF ALxjrT rl 7• ft..4 Y.r+��rAG wc }1.g.n �on �W4ii1 C A ,r ti • .T Y Li ! . •� .jL- tK ,.vw-.•.i•3ti BfaC - _onti.� =,Yn'� - �a`:r'�i•;.♦ \\414 1 • i ,b• � Ll SECTION I_4 L CjCw' rwf f nr N r T _ ..Awl-as `�.nr-ter _a �� � `�� -Gqt � . ..r.•%.. we � �' � `_ � 4-,- ---.r=-��-.. - _,�_ _ :•^�„��a ate-� - • At A R / A/ A Vic w P E A c e , - ,cam _ -__�—_—__ . _ _�-----�- -�.- -�: _._ -�-�_-�--_ ._..._� •� �--L T 4 •� •� • r S RII#Rt#Ql'ER E11i►�MEL-tic Co. . • � - IW■Yrtr••+lYi.rr. yfrr..L rfr _.�":..�.._•.. - OIL .�^S.,fir: i - _ _ _ _ � � • f 1 ' tRACT No. 7741 Ifs THE CITYOPHUNTING'ON BE4CN, -DR4NOE rOUNT1, COW rC)Pfj1a, IMRRY I. .00N64f014,a G f lays! I b��IS Or �E+�p�IfGS ' f h'Y r'r No MO �,��,,f;RMI�A*Ii�•1y'N�fiA�M_ii �lwi1 . I *I !I Nf 0&.OA '01 pk'I r jig t Nlrr rww.ns. •�a •r r #we- NNM. tr"Pop,F TW to A ej j,,r *f##"wt M��+va rtv.ry. Ni r f.r e� rr IV i �tl*T•wrrr fraf ONAWNsl 1aw'dirau.tMrOIWr: a+ary a NryNwr A tWOPPSW r..A%rw.ri ��—Nrsrf+rff��wf.wtwgwi�ro G-t flf s�' Y W f f Ir M fY Q+ ,V-WN' WO M A too �-' 0 1 1" ki 11 ANJ0 !I ff fl w to of f1'ef A' Am r N off ' � t �y/�/�f iM MMf•�f A f/.Nli•tf� _ I I n fyi ins s.'wurl� MMa� '•``�M� . r1 rrr f/ I 1 IP r 44. t f /Kt rs 10 1f1 ►- r► r "e- t A 1 sM •M* Alt • ,• � , ,, 1� ofr my Aww I ~. " �"" psi .�,.. Wl f w. ...�._.. T.... �..•i!{— ..._. .....ram#. � `'"� ' LOS4 PoT05f,l� � A f 1 � r a.■...�a+ .�..r.y ' &*NNA"iarr Awr it MM/ it"oor Orr 1 Mf h'q r.1 i IY" a...•rt4r'1 �`f.1r/1ssr,r 'l 1� 'I L L. r"T'v"17W 1 i'vkACT No* . T743 114 THE CITY CWrHIJN11fIG•(1N BEA(-W1JRANGEC0001i1, CALIF091414, 1,n its v 1 J0"44004, t c i 10191 1 9&%IS r)F' B(4pi11Gi riY/.711ofild.��rfOrfolowtNorwlarN�M�sq�Iy�r ` 4i�l/rl0wy�wi 11 11114a aNlMMIr.KiJldM ` 1 k►Y/�wf1I�1rN/N.F�f/'f/Iry'iriu uu►low/H.(f � 0rr/Uw N.ffflhNlwwWvNo,w•o-rYtirl Agree •...��ww•ry �r.111.r.•.rM.IN I MrfOttwooss mdjuv ovifwo,ofor,1AIra.rrLry rr,MN FMn OwSetp►AIA MMwtiew.q ullr r f ♦�NrF/+YI AYWN�MfMr/)Jrru � �ANId•diri r Ni11rN Mr H N ItiA: 1 • r►'�IM• Mr rf I! j•i �}s•+IMy+1� w# Mw', MN Nti/r1' to >~p rMd +�JIIIf1 A4 wo/Mr/ I'N�+Iyf Qlea.r/t --,�• ►� r�i twI�.r�+rrrrF+w.r NKM .� Tows •11�71w�'Iri FIFO. ! . 1 If oft I bo to IS w WT • r fit: °�� � :J 1 :.•ti 1' •�� N� Y S1 � a ' .;�eta' 1rr �I` •t � � ri 1 to '•�, �� {,yam �1 � ry�y4 'NF�(y �.•r G;"1 �!- ,�� •� sA "�, i L 1r Y+y ��� -'►�� ` t r r Sri 1 %t D Los P,%I( A, Avrtfit* k'11MfMgwbr•1 h*'I r•M fMri/ tir/.w► �! ifit ` �K f�w.�.Y4i..�..�« SARk wi.rw:Frr++. M nw.�il 094dn iNA�r iM i i.hwi y '1 lJ�('3'�{ M1 it+*M.R + t."'RACT If)1HE CIIYtWNUNTIIIG'041 BE AC►4, NRANriECMJNII, CALIF OMtoIA, L•Rr*� R lc4•IIp+1,4t 1 tali{ • .+•r�!. ,+dry r8R ^ r.. ►I►'w•Ilr rPrrNn.n•r.rrM•rrr(I�.fw�I OVA Nl po"W,µ;+r� ff'11 tR(�IM11 M�Irfl flWh, I:lr r+O.w+,l rrl vY 1/(.(/+1+!r MII+.rf l/11 rn 1 kr 7.1 I lip y/Jyr/M too"Ir+M+vo'NID11'Irg1IllNfdwtlf, I ,r�Ir rlwl. "Ift�f/Y/xv Hint,wrlrr M r11 e{ r l rir/(ld Orr•rr of.r•v%l.•r.'#r Mr j rI r r rlir r•d i A►�y�'NJrNfl/rtl/I•(Ir1/Mrl vlp,IN(Ordp r+rwv 11 Aln4O t ar(fM•v.••ra•twrt rr nr I I + 1 f 1 i•-OtWorl AN" W I-OF WAIAW1.11 i r ' •I ' / ' f�.r1Ma iM r/re air. . �•�A 49 W fled 0d /J# } 4-0-am wet 1111 "R Irr•dlr tow fn Yidr -i•MN' /elm ►M bn Wa►.tl6 dM WW Irr* -%W1 elfl•f1d f I/ IY cow of W "0 gOAf11tf I r1 o to 1w** { r 1 rr fY l'A i tell • N9W A t*/i -r a0 M40 _ATI ! rzp e-41Y 14 t, W set •y`1 or— to Wv 04 All 5 (J +y 1 fit: i rl t a A It ux / r 44 41 t M' " .• .r •' :.�:' _•f•-_ � b. w.k..... .tells, __��u N �4fi.1�1++: ., .� __ .. ,�;�� .s! �..�I,nr.�.3r.ail h r;1 , .�-=i.n rI rr -- - -•-••••3• y r I',If 1+►rtr,M+�/d+fe /rlfrrlr/r N I.fri�/ iM.r.tr! �=7} � ,, fv /• r 61 Ono 4~I t w I 0.M mkn .i doomb r rUir.4mom t~ M.-i POP �! . _ f i MO~ Yo5w I MAPWA t{ ------------- tj }. a '# r ' - - -- - - ^11J F'I r I � 1 RMSPONSE TO APPEAL LETTER DATED JANUARY 1E, 1965 RESPONSE TO MAIN TEXT : Preliminary review is conducted as a courtesy measure prior to submitting plans for plan check . At this point, it is t-he responsibility of the applicant to supply information regarding easements and private restrictions on the property in addition to properly dimensioned plans for adPyuate review. Then at the time of plan check (after fees are paid ) a thorough review of the plans for conformance with the zoning code, building code, and conditions of any pertinent entitlements is made. When deficiencies with the plane anise, the applicant is notified and advised of necessary correctricno. In this particular case, preliminary review cf the applicant 's plans foz compliance with typical R1 zoning standards was conducted. At that time , the plans indicated a 15 ' front building setback and a 01 building setback from a 25 ' wide view corridor easement spanning the north side of the property. on the surface, the plans appeared to generally comply with the R1 zoning standards . The applicant proceeded to prapare architectural and engineering drawings for formal plan check . It was not until the initiation of the formal plan check process ; hac Private documents affecting the subject property were discovered and tract trap conditions identified. As for necessa:y filing requirements , the applicant was advised that a different number of plans and property mailing labels for public notification are required for the Huard of zoning Adjustments and the Planning Commission . A field inspection by staff , revealed the adjacent single family ::ecidence to the north ( lov: #9) has been built with a five foot building wall setback from the view corridor easement ( south side property line ) . There is a 2161 nave overhang into this setback which is permitted by code. This was one of the reasons for requiring a five foot setback from the view corridor easement on the subject- property; the setback allows for architectural features and cave overhangs. The city does not require nor enforce private agreements ; we can only recognize and make suggestions . RESPONSE TO SUMMARY NO. 2: One of the private agreements stipulates that no building shall encroach closer then 20 Feet to the front property line on the subject property. Thia document also pertains to Lot #10 ( 17171 Marina Vier P1 . ) to the north . That house has been built with a 13 foot front setback . The zoning code requires a minimum 15' setback . Building permits are on file, but no construction plans for that house. It appears there may gave boen a field error due to the grade difference between street level and the house foundation resulting in a reduced front building setback. . kegarding the 20 Loot setback requirement, there may have been an amendment to the ( 17534) -7- February 4, 19bb �� • I private document by that property ownter and the four adjacent property owners that the city is unaware of,, The house directly north Dn Lot #9 ( 17181 Marina view P1 . ) has been constructs•d with a 20 foot setback . Without knowledge of a private setback :restriction , the city may issue a permit if the development complies with minimum zoning regulations . A conditional exception was obtained by the owner of 17171 Marina View Pl. to construct a 64 high blc-A wall in the front setback:. It woe approved along the back edge of the public sidewalk along the front property line as a safety me&sure due to the slope of the property causing a hazardous situation and for privacy for a pool and Jacuzzi to be built in the side yard open space area . Again, this deviation from the private agreement may have been approved by affected parties without the city 's knowledge . otherwise , a civil matter will certainly ensue between the property owners . JWp.sb : lcp a; rXY S� V i r (175d) l�� -8- t�QbrUaty 4, 1'�85 I • i 1 ..r lo AvdWsakf to PubkM AdwrlrEeroINtft a all%ird-1 lncludiiq PubMe 11 Ww by Ducisr of the Superior Cowl of Oran,'I* ,aunty, GMlforoio, Number A-621I, dal*d i9 1twplombOr. 1061, rwd A-2463 1, doted 11 ,lure, 1W43. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Country of Orenge PuDri HPIKA0 AdVWVM" CO.000 r by Way mm"vt M Mt M r PGW,4 wM,, Ip PKA 6i UM wWW i i am a Citizen of the Unitbd Swes and a residont of the 0aunty aforesaid; .1 am over the age of eighteen years. and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coest DAILY PILOT, with wh►ch is combined thm NEWS-faRE$S, aA newspaper of ganaral circulation, printed and pubifshed in the City Of Costa Mesa, r'ounty of Orange, State r)f California, and that a Notkm of _ Publiu Hearing- _ of wtkh copy attached hereto is a true and complete Copy, was t;rint&d and published In the Costs Mesa, Newport Bach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine. the South Coast communities and La juna Sesh Issues of said ne"pa.per fur me— cow- WOON to fait the issue(s) of March 21 198 5 - -........ 198 198 198-- IDINIto 1 Blare, under still of Pei tY I�fur�, that the 1 � ....`.,�•.!':. -�--"�� foregoing Is true and E.ximted on M a r,c h 22 1 5 at Cast ne, Call ia. $f�tan� �' - PROW CW Mil"AMM e riffs r A 1 l 1r iy W a Y CITY OF HUNTIN TON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 3, 1985 E. Van Vlahakis 16727 Bolero lane Huntington Beach , CA 92647 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular rreeti ng held Monday , April 1 , 1985 denied your appeal filed to the decision of the Planning Comm ss i on denying Conditional Exception # 84-67 . This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Se:tion 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Prodedure of the State of California you have ninety days from, April 3, 1985 to apply to the courts for Judicial review. Please Contact the Department of Development Services for further information - 536-5271. ALICYA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk .41w:Ca: t CC: Gail Hutton , City Attorney Jim Palln , Development Services Director 1 �T ITM�ltMrN: 71411 REQUES , FOR CIT"t COUNCICACTION Data March s � lye Honoraule Mayor and City Council f SAMOW Charles W. Thompson , City Administratorao how by; Jaynes W. 12alin, Director ,, !)eve',,%-.-,)ment Services Sub*t: CONDITIONAL, EXCEPTION NO. a4-67 CGW~t w;tk% council Policy? bd Y" J I Now Policy or Exc*ption of Ima, RowmmwWaflon, Anslysiv, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: TT STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal to the Flanninq Commission's denial of 'Conditional Exception No . 84-67 , a request to allow a 6 toot high wall to encroach four ( 4 ) feet into the requiL:ed 15-toot front yard setbaoki a request for variance from S. 9103 . 1 of the Huntington Beach ordinanc? Coue. RECONNENDATIDN ; The ]PIanninq rolunission and staff recommend that the City Council uphold the cW;ision of the Planvinq Commission and deny Conditional 3xception No. 84-67. Planninq Commission Action on Y*L&uary 20, 1985: f)n motion by mirlahanqir and Secona by Winchell ,, caiiditicnal Exception No. 84-67 was denied vith Findings by the following votesi Ayes : Rowe, Ninchell , schumacner , Mirjahangir Noes: 'Uivenqood , 8rakine Absent : Porter Abstain: None Findings: 1 . because of the size , confiquration# shtirpe and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property , there cDes not appeu to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the land, buildinqs or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of usox in the Same district. Z. Sine* the subject property can be fully developed within regular established metbackst such a conditional exception In not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substanial property rights. R 3 . Tho subject property waFj legally subdivided and developed irl a manner consistent with applicable zoninq laws. 4 . Exceptional circumstances do not apNILy that deprive the subject property of privileges: enjoyed by ether properties in the same zonR Class itications . 5 . Encroachmerat into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks �stab.lished for properties in the vicinity and would conetit.ute a special privilege inconsistent with lin;itations upon t.hos properties . 6 . Bwimmir.; pool permit was issued in compliance with current City codee . Approved plan depicter] wall to t-e constructed on bond beam. ANALYSIS: Applicant/ E . Van Vlahakis Appellant : 16727 Bolero Lane Huntington Beach , CA 92649 Location: 16727 Bolero Lane Request : To permit a 6 foot high w&l], to encroach four ( 4 ) feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback . During the early 1960 ' s , the Huntington Harbour area was created . Use Variance 553 was approved by the Planninq Comirni.ssion on April 2 , 1963 . Among other items , this Use Variance rallowed for a reduction in frontyard eetbuck from 20 feet to 10 feet for lots not having a direct entry garage. The approved Variance ;requests were incorrectly joined with the development standards in er.tect at that time into a handbook for the Huntington Harbour area. Since beptember 3 , 1964 , the frontyard setback has remained at ld feet for ma',n buildings and fencing . However , maiiy building permits for fencinq or additions were inappropriately issued with a 10 toot setback based on the handbook . ;3ection 9838 of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code states that when the code changes to allow the use, the Conditional Exception ( formerly called Use Variances ) shall become null arc Void. Therefore, because the code now allows all of the Use Variance requests, a 10 root setback for aide entry garages , reduction of lot width and area, 10 feet rear yards , and architectural projections into the sideyardr Use Variance S53 is no longer valid . All requests for permits are subject to current standards . On Auqust 33, 1984 , a swimming pool permit was issued to the property owner . The required fencing for security purposes was to be built on th6 pool bond beam located at the current front setback line of 15 feet. Durinq construction , a request to locate the fence (wall) At a 11 foot setback was filed . WHO -2- cE 84-67 1 Xh t 1 on November 21 , 19b4 a pL.,blic hearing was held before the Board of Zoning Adjuntments , at. which time the property owner presented phot:ogrAphs of other structures that had been built ir) the area apparently based on the handbook requlations , The Board was reluctant to take action on the request due to the apparent number of code deviations that had been permitted in the past and referred the matter to the Planning Commission . The applicant was advised that submittal of additional plans and public notification labels were nceessary prior to scheduling the item before tho Planning Commission . An on-site inspection on January 16 , 1985 revealed that: the pool. had been completed without proper inspections and that the wall had been built without approval of the conditional exception and without a buildinj permit . in addition a permit from the Public Works Department is necessary for the increased driveway approach . Following the can-site inspection , the applicant contacted staff and was readvised of the necessary items needed to complete the j processinq of CE 84-57 . staff assisted the applicant in preparation of the public � notification. During the several contacts with the applicant he was advised of the hearinq date . Althouqh a notice of public hearing was mailed to him end a copy of the staff report was mailed Prior the hearinq , the applicant was not present to support his request before the Planning Commission. Environmental status Pursuant• to Section 153C5 of the California Environmental Quality Act , no environmental assesoment is required. ?ALTERNATE ACTIUN : I I Approve the Conditional Exception No . P-4 -67 based on the following tindinga : FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL; i 1 . There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the land due to the unique confiquration of the parcel that do not apply generally tc the property or class of uses in the same district . 2 . The grrantinq of the conditional exception is necen sary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property r1ghte, due to the granting of other frontyard setback reductions in the neighborhood. 3 . The granting of such conditional exceptions will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and weltare or Injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which cuch conditional exception is sought . The project will be consistent with the General plan for land use . -3• CE b4-0 1' yL r 4 . The applicant has indicated he Lb willing and able to carry out the !-)urposes for which the conditional exception iF suughti that he will proceed to do so witrou:. unnecessary delay . b. Because Utse Variance 553 was approvea with vague description of fronty&rd setback , the strict -iuplication of the Zoning I Ordinance is tound to deprive the �,:.:hject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in thc: vicinity and under identical cone c:lassitications . 6 . The granting of the c ondiLi•onal excepLion is in accordance I with Section 9630 and Article 966, of the Flunt ington Beach Ordinance Code and will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code . SUGGESTED C014DITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan received and dated January 30 , 1,385 shall be, the approved layout . 2 . A buildinq permit: shall he obtained for the wall across the front yard. 3. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from Public Works for driveway wicaening purposea . ATTACHMENTS: -��14, L4 r a4 ApdmL�. .l Area Map 2 . Site Plan 3 . Plannning Commission Minutes eebruary 20 , 1965 A . Statf Report to Planninq Commission � I CWT :JWP :SP : kla 4 i +■ �y a 6 �I i y/y 1995d' w4- CE b4�V I I (�1 MY CLIAK CITY or HUNTINGTON PEA,,, ItA "'t'w r w Fa Q I a tic 1.�.,1.Jr c .� '�--i.'`- 1 `''`•-e • ' F , V1 I i # Mai ��,� w...r..n.. �.r�ru --rw�,.w,�� rw,�w�..r- —rw_�=+„•���' C'IT ' i Ak -I r 0 HUN' .. ING f - N BFA O t1 Cr1 (.>. !!. , 011 IN `l' if , (. �1 ! i'' O [� IV A �/ 1b5� � 1�,5G1 �"� j A.•,�\ �� a'ra, `6 bti'ti �47 �� Ir IAv b' b J 1F54 101 ..p '~ Go 6b11 101 6'►0 1659.E I 302 1 tir 166 b �� 16d1 1b%7 c, �1' tib �'• 16Gg1 16(,y1. 1bb11 1661L 09 �� 1E6�? 1bb51 ,bbbZ 16611 Lb61 r ' rr1 jbs4 i 7 1�' 1b;hl. ibb.,1 1bb51 �� lb('r'1 lit. Q� 6A�RjJ � u ri `�8� 16��6Z �1 16iC7 lbb 1 57 02 � 16b Il � ti(,6'1� (! e• es,� �. lFsez:' i 16G4M 16i11 `66 Q' 1 �� �r1 16677 s 1664 ev�J � Q' �� � 1G611 �►'� 16111 �Z• �f��'` a 9, � ��1 � `ti/ ya'^ � !h r>ti Ca� '�� 16•• � 16�11 �P� ra, � , adD�J e' ,� ^'1 t Imo;,,, � ,, � .� Q> j •�� dTs lid � 16672 '15i01 wir��d ?, f A�o1 'F4;p 1f'�'• 16122 y +'d.ji 1615 try 1671 d, 1671 r r Lit IGM 16'191 16777 d } 'Jd. 1676 _ It '' 16?41 167V �r 16191 biC'1• 167gj dy 'y r°� 4• :67;. .) 1 _ I'y isi� 16gol1� lb 81 p 116�a1 1giB 1 16gp1 2 6j8� r�,���Df ` 1gti 167A; � 16Ga 1d0 js � lh + 16621 ,d 1G017. 1 b '�• lia'1 ib�+@ ' -Z 6a� 1 7 1 611 �� 'p 16911 1Gb7t 16a1� (t1 tilGeoi 1ba b 11 �` faWO Irl, 16a5 WIN 1b0A1 16g51 � lba1� 1691216$51 - 16 1be11 Ibtl� 16Cb 16Af�7 16C51 68b1 bq,gl bej116 Gyi1 16861 1 1 p 1 bU71 16871 16261 16911' 1610% 1bgi71 1G04 1b061 vlbgk1 16gy1 Y— PM'iK mq',. 16bgi 1G@91 1687E ^6002 7 dbh 1tigS bg61 � lbggl 16161 1641 1b901 b902 1bpe1 11bgg1 16ab711�71 ��0'i7 bsk7 6 ti 1[67. 1i011 bS 16891 � 69d1 1bgb1 ,6611 1b0111 1�a1 � 1b�7% DAW z i° A6S1 1G9 g�1 16p�1 1bgg7 1616 A 1691 .i 1bJ � � '. 11�'q##1��� 6S II 1� � 1 it 4406f, I M4 wow-% dp.-+ IP..W. dM�M—b A� AY '1aN db I I mom Lk 'r" r y � d" V C--3 COND.(TIDNAL EXCEPTION U0. 8467 & -lic•alit•" : '"t Van V?ah4ki, : Conditional Exception No . 84--J i is a reu_uesL- to allow •a h 1t high •, wall to encroach -tour ( 4 ) feet into the required 15 ft * trontyard setback f a request foz varianee f4om Section 9103 . 1 . :Jhiz application was referred by the BMard of Zoning Aujustment6 to +she Planning Co=06ion for action based on the Board ' s finding that there are trorA variances .in the neicjhborhooa than complia ,ces . There were no persons present to speak tor '.!or ayainst: the proposed project . Chairman Livengood questioned, staft it the applicant had been ' notified of the meeting . Mike Adama stated yes . Commissioner Winchell questioned staf t if the applicant was notified Lhat he needed the 15 foot setback . hike Adams stated yes . 014 MOTION BY MZrJAHANCIR. AND SECOND by WINCHUL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-67 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BY THE FOLLOWING MUTE: AYES: Rowe , Winchel). , Schumacher , Mir )ahangii NOES : Livengood, Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN : None FINUINGS F'GIt DLNIAL : 1. . because of the size , configuration , shape ana lack of unique topographic features of the subject ptopertx , there clots not appear to be excepl;ional or extraorainary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land , buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in `he same district . ' 2 . Since the subject property can be tully aevelopeu Within regular established setbacks ; such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation ana en )oymentr of substantial ,property rights . 3 . The subject property was legally subdiviaed and aevelopea in a manner consistent_ with applicable zoning laws. 4 . Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same 20ne claesifiGatians . 5 . Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties in the vicinity and would constitute a special privilege Inconsistent with limitations upon home proPert:ies , 1 6. Swimming pool permit wcs issued in compliance with current City * Codes . Approved plan depicted w611 to be constructed on bond beam and at the fifteen ( 15 ) foot setback .line. F.L. Minutes , A"A"04*5 - .. JL bRU huntington beech development services departm*nt ff REPORT .. TU: Planning commission FROM: Development Services DAM- FebrtAdry 70 , 1965 SUBJECT: Conditional exception ho . 64-67 ( referred icy the Boara Of Zoning Adjustments ) APPLICANT : DATE ACCEPTED : E. van Vlahakis January 30, 1985 16727 Bolero Ln. Huntington Beaich# CA 92647 REQUEST. MANDATORY PROCESSING TO permit a 6 ft . high wall to March 30 , 1985 encroach four ( 4 ) feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback LOCATION : ZONE 16727 Bolero Ln . RI-CZ ACREAGE: GENERAL PLAN: 0. 11 Low Density Residential EXIETINO USE : Single family residence 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Deny Conai'.ional rxceptlon No . 84-67 bated on the findings outlined in section 7 . 0 of thip report . 2 . 0 GENRRkL INFORMATION: Conditional Exception tiro. 84-67 is a request to allow a 6 f t high gall to encroach four ( 4 ) feet into the required 15 f t front.and setbaCk1 a request for variance from Section 9103. 1 . This a p1104tion was referred by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to the p snning Cderaission for action bared on the Board 's finding that there are *ore va►riatnce& in the neighborhood than. compliance&. W-..Ij ,". INAU r I r � C' r"F 3 . 6 SLRROUND` ING LAND USE, ZONING AND GLNLRAL„PLAN DLSXGNATIONG: r t: Subject Prp North, East , and Scuth Properties : Er GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE : Rl -CZ, Low Density Residential -Coastal Zone LAND USE : Szngle Family re=;idences West of Subject Pry rty : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space - Wager ZONE : WR--C f stater Recreation-Coastal Zone L&NID USE: short channR..l r4 . 0 LNVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15305 ot the California Environmental Quality Act , no environmental assessment is required , 5 . 0 COASTAL STATi!S : Pursuant to 6 . 989 . 5. 3 ( b) ( 2 ) ot. the Huntington Beach Ordinance code , the proposed project: is exempt from a Coastal Development Pe:mit . 6 . 0 ISSUES A.ND ,ANALYSIS : During the early 1960 ' s , the Huntington Harbour area was created . Use ' Variance 553 was approved by the Planning Commission on April, 2 , 1963 . Among other items , this Use Variance allowed for a reduction in frorityard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for lots not having a direct entry garage ( see attached Use Variance 553 minutes ) . The approved variance requests were incorrectly joined with the development standards in effect at that time into a handbook for the huntington Harbour area (see attached handbook exempt . Since September 3 , 1964 , the frontyard setback has remained at 15 feet � for main buildings and fencing . Iiowever , many building permits for fencing or additions were inappropriately issued with a 10 font setback based on the handbook . Section 9838 of the Huntington Peach Ordinance Cabe states that when the code changes to allow the use, the Conditional Exception ( formerly called Use Variances) shall become dull and void . Therefore, because the code now allows all of the use Variance requests, a 10 toot setback for side entry garage8 , reduction of lot width and area , 10 feet rear yards, and architectural projections into the sideyard, Use Variance 553 is no ,longer valid. All requests for permits are subject to current standards . On August 23, 1984, a swimming pool permit was icaued to the property owner . The required fencing for security purposes was to be built on the pool bond beam located at the current front setback line of 15 toot . During construction, a request to locate the tence (wall ) at a 11 toot setback was filed. �;:: ` C �(►DKd ) dft2- February 20, 1965 ;; t , 1 Y r� on November 21 , 1, 9b4 public hearing was held before the Board of Zoning :+djustments , at which time the property owner presented photographs of other structures that had been bui.it in ;:be Area apparently based can the handbook regulations . The Board was reluctant to take. action on the request due to the apparent, number of code dev..ations that had been permitted in the past anca reterred the matter to the Planning Commission. The applicant was auvised that submittal of additional plans and public notification labels were, necessary pri.ur, to r;cheduli.ng the item before the Planning Comrrdi .,sion . An on-.site inspection on January 16 , 1985 revealed that the pool had been completed without proper inspection& and that the wall had been built without approval of the conditional exception and without a building permit . In addition a permit from the Public Works Department_ is necessary for they increased driveway approach . �.-ollawing the on-site iinspection , the increased driveway contact:ea staff and was readvised of the necessary items needed to complete the processing of CE 84-67 . 9 . 0 RECOMMENDATION ; Staff recommends the planning Commission deny Conditional Exception No . 84-67 based on the following findings : FINUNOS FOR DENIAL: � 1 . Because of the size, configuration , shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property , there does not appear to tie exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land , buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of usos in the same district . z. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks , such a conditional exception is not necessary ter the preseirvution and enjoyment of substantial. property rights . 3. The subject property was legally subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with applicable runi.ng laws . 4. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications . S. Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties in the vicinity and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon these properties . b. bwimeaing pool permit was issued in compliance with, car-tnt City Codes . Approved plan depicted wall to be constructed on bond beam. y February 20, 1985 y, i 1 AL1114NATE ACTION : Approve the Conditiun&I RXCepLioo No . 84 -0 i based on ttji! following tindi,igs : FiNDIKS FOR APPROVAL: 1 There are excesptional circumstances applicable' to the land due to the unique configuration of the parcel that do not apply generally to the proporty or class of lases in the same district . 2 . The granting of the conditional exceptions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substr-intlal property rights , due to the granting of other frontyard setback reductions in the neighborhoodd . 3 . The granting of such conditional exceptions will riot be materially detrimental to the publil.: health , safety , and welfarh or injurious i to the contorming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which cJuch conditional exception is sought . The project will be consistent with the General Plan ;)r land use . 9 . The applicant has indicated hE i41 willing and able to carry out the purposes for, which the condit:orial exception is sought; that he will proceed to do so without unn,_.egsary delay . 5 . Because Use Variance 553 was approved with vague desc:riptioti o' frontyard setback , the strict application of the Zoning oraina. .� is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other Iroperties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications . 6 . rVie granting of the conditional exception is in accordance with Section 9830 and Article 986, of the Fiuntii%gton Beach ordinance code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code. SUGGESTED COND1 1IONS OF APPROVAL, 1 . The site plan received and dated Jar.uary 300 1985 shall be the approved layout . I 2. 4 building permit shall be obtained for the wall across the front yard, 3. An encraacl•Iment permit shall be obtained from Public works for driveway widening purposes . 4 . A building permit shall be obtained for the new driveway . ATTA C LINTS: 1 . Area Map 2 . Site plan � 3 . Board of zoning Adjustments minutes for the meeting of November 4 . Tract 5050 site plan 3. b ndbook excerpt Jae i cp tl di =oft _- Feb-uary 2C6 11195 _. S, ; r r ' jI ,� ���• � ♦; ¢ f HU Lap r,-1- N4 00 Jk 41* �* ma�yy,, .; �� . �� ,w..-^ .;�'�t,'•,. �'/ `.`'�`�4/ j`l��*�4� '`�—,.may M`�r�' r,/'-r.(',l'•__ �7,'�s 4`��� ' �` � r ` �,�. A`�_ /• Ott+�. Al / Jy� IPA .Q y Li to 4, X �� `.. ,-,} � ,`'rr\'`may ) /� .r•trr/ � /� �+`.�' / ' 14 Lv Lam-✓ � �•, ••`--,. ,�-. � ;�,� .,.;..,,� :��.• +,ram, � :�, I !, r• � r�y 1, " . 61 . VIZ rw J. + �, Y 9, oo /> r/'�. fir' �'' 'r •' St + J \JI W �VIA dr o lb le DI ♦ ' I' WPM v' . .N p-Pblish March 21 , 1985 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . y AL?FZAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL E7ignION 84--67 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at public hearing will be held by the Ci t y Counr Ll of the City of Huntington Beech, in the Council Chamber of the Civic G. Canter, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7 : 30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as i possible on Monday, tho 1st day of April, 1985, for the purpose of considering an appaal filed to denial by they Planning Commission of Conditional Exception No. 84-67. Conditional Exception No. 84-67 is a regueet to permit a 6 ft . high wall to encroach four (4) feet into the required 1.5 ft. front yard setback. Thp ,jbject property is located at 16727 Bolero Lane and is zoned Rl-^Z , Low Dersjty Resteential-Coastal ?.one . A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services . All interested perscns are Invited to attend said h,2ari.ng and express their opinions for or again,t said appeal. Further Informhtfnn may be obtained From the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 ESai.n gtreotj, Hutytinaton Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227. Dated: March 6, 1.965 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By. Alicia M. keatvorth I I City Clark 1 I 1 I •r LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HURING R0TICX IS HE dBY GIVEN that a public nearing will be held by the CiCy of the Cito�H itg�B* " California* for the purpose G considerin f; ono Exce tlon No. 84-67 _.... _.� Iy . t► Cond tional exception No. 84-67 Is a request to perm!t a 6 ft. high wall to encroach four (4) feet InfiW the required 15 fte front hard setback. The subject property is located at 16727 Bolero Lane and Is • zoned Rl--CZ, Low Drliislty Residential-Coastal Zone. A legal description is on file In ' the Del -trrent of Development Services. Said hearing will he held at the hour of 7:00 on February 202 1985 , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Center, 2000 plain Street, Huntington Beach , California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and *xpreas their opinions for or against the proposed Conditional Exception Further i.n�ormatian may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No. (714 ) 536-5I73, ]DATED this 7th day of February CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By James W. Pa l l n, Secretary amP J. M1 , h t2 r ramA •. MAUM piton ;Beach planl1q, ` '` '�, y,'r; �r'1'''r .t,r 'r' j','• 'i �•. ,�; tlF n`„, ',� � 5•,r,A� ``r• G'1.• Cip ear cV1,� 1 1985 NOTICE OF AN a , �. ' Y► licantt F.. Van Vldhakis, 16727 Bolero Ln. BB 9'024 �►:,. ;' .�,r,~ � ' �� t, I I.�• f..,. : F . ._ r Y ryF'1 �:�',t y Y y�.� I L • i! COM)ITIONXL EXCEPTION NO. 84- 67 Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach 'Planning Commission on February 20 , .1985 and your request •was : ; ti Wit1 drawn Approved Approved with Conditions (See Attached ) Disapproved XX Tabled IContinued until [ender the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Cade, the action taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to the City Council by You or an interested party. Said :appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and' gruunds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems hiwsrelf aggrieved . Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of one hundred and sixty-five ($165 ) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk ' s office within ten (10 ) days of the date of the Commission ' s action. " in your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing ' fee is March 21 1985 Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Ccd+e are such that any application becomes null and void one ( 1 ) year after final approval , unless actual construction has started . Very truly yours, Jameis W. Palin , Secretary "i• C-L T- i A - 1. •S'i' J ..r a.. Nrrr INVIN Black PisAais1 COMMItsilu P.O. box 10 CALIFORNIA INA .4, 1• Van V,labakis .W 16727 bolero Ln . Huntington Beach, CA 92647 6pe BTt f rm c� permit a b !t. high wall to encroach four (4 ) feet into the required 15 foL t front ya,ra setback LoOhrrom: 1 16727 Bolero Ln . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1 . Because of the size , configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property , there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land , buildings or premises involved that doers not apply generally to property or elas , of uses in the ,same district . 2 . Since the sub)ect property can be fully developed within regular I established setbacks , such a conditional exception is not rccessary Fot the preservation and enjoyment of substantial , property rights . 3 . The subject property was legally subd4vided and developed in a mariner consistent with z - plicable zoning laws . 4. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subs ect property of privileges enjoyed by other propertie:7 in the salve sore classifications . 1 �. EncroAchment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties in the vicinity and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitationa upon , . those properties . b. Swimming pool permit was issued in compliance with current City Codes. Apprevod plan depicted wall to be constructed on bond beam. n iJ 1 • �.; �;,;'• , I betaby certify that Conditional Exception No . 84-67 was denied by the Plonning Commission of the City of Huntington beach, California no I'tbruary 20, 1995, Upon the foregoing c,anditions and citations . Very truly yours, 1 r � �an�• �� pa 1 i n secretary , Planning Comi ss ion J"tUP (1905) kil. Eii 11 rl ti i FC+ •S i Jr' 1, n f iyM • M "1 r i" . - . r'x •� k" ` e JDAVIS - La r Bet for ftbi ie Hewn *vy of ietto r of appea1 attic 118M r t"r,switt .. logpl notice wd mailing last to Clerk for l"Al notice; r Fatter at exp1wwtion for My Council publ i e hearing for meting listed above by Alicia K. Wontworth r •fir};,r,,,�, r: 1AA11 i•: 'r Y u 1.h i r� t r1 � PrC R R�r 1. CITY tUAK CITY 0f NUOIT0407ON MWi1N,�1r1l� MAR 1 r1 pN ` 5 `V Lori.%. Jo%k %XX (6-72,-7 (LIW 1. i rr FibJQ�� frN "`}' 4L'c.-.1►.�: C.t..�„r arm +• 't"L'L-t Lo 7--L 'Vat,-, �--- . Ar i Tit j . a - 3 7 C'ri Y M Y1 i ' 170-372-13 14""O' +ein, 7►1rAtMit�n t 7t1-3 i1-c�i r 16771 104 jqjtAtom, Rnhilhnno. Armen N Aeacrh, er �)264f) ! IfUntiIvIt-A, 11:11, CA 9200410 c *1 tab � 179-171 n;o N 'MU"t f b� CA S!r►annn9, Ch"stnr C � 92fi4g ll�T1+2 tialern �u vti, . 5 ItUnttnytn bch, CA 92649 4M4 w *we UU1612unn our m"TH A" T6491 171-371-07 ►4i nA9.1 n e Jnhn K• t r,7r.7 bolero 1,n. , tlunttl►7tn nrh, M 92r. t'.1 1 i i1�rIC, iti�t F f;v.�rta, .•t.slter T: � 16671 PhAera Lrt. 1r,7 32 nol"ro t.n tt4mtLngtn lk- CA 97649 Hunt-tig lich, CA IM 41 � l ' I I .171-3 1 - 170-372--03 ` fain, 4011!o P Tr xvgy, :�Ovin .T ' 1fC,l3a Ivilf'ra #t;. 1002 Bolero J.n. Hutlt,illatn rich, CA IN2041 rP' 5 17n-372 04 I • 'aOtr 1 �266q 157. oloro ° ' !1►t„fi,1 tom• . n�►tn Nch, CA g?r'�Ary 176-381-2S Radw.p.3001* 1 171t-372-24 1aiQ fin. Calm , H� .hg�A BK,h+ +;� 91 , lC,7(*1 HI 1trUtnsitn Betio CA 92f)4) I. T 1 Ufa BOOM 1 W. rr;91 er . Glen it � w tach. �~� far ! 16711�bolero U1. t f f ftcher4 Allen ftleft tn. I 178-0.1-tq R"U"th ACh. CA 92649 I cranks Albert A � PabrirtA zntl. 0'0.40x 11A77 ' 5alnt4 hna , CA 9171.1 I r •����13 Sott'i ti�yAt`•r t ,rr it t� ,tomtro 16 i?x Bolero 92644 Hunter + . (A 92649 17A-39X 3i �dl.kAn. Awf�+iT J5751, polar* go, k?n- 3H2 •n2 FL ftuFktih7t.n �:h, r:,1 ^2�, 9'7 S:-hill.ew, iLich�rrx 167i,l Sea Mf.tch bM Flunti n-ttn Whi Ch U649 178-•381-29 ! rlebba 11, John T ' 16731. 8oleru I,n, HuntiiiMI Hch, CA 92649 1i,3-36Z••o� r Pon d Jr. 16701 SeD R;Itc*t Ln . rh�r�tir,-��•.n l��h, GA 'r2�Ao I � I I y 171p-311)-1H 'rf+tr fig nr. Corp. � .,�;��•� � �� r�r�n. C�rL.� 6 � ; tngi�rr+ grD3A1 1 b67Zter� 17flb sj%j,.-27 17 ,10;1-1.1 �Lk� Nt1►11`� Alotrl, LAjuj,% p 9 polat�1 'ty1� g2ri�'! 166�x I�, 1sr'� � tin�r-'" �tt�t t tvt�t n h ry CA i Sirs , virw w I 167JU I Runts ' 1 16751 am wit'0h tn. ' Kingex*ry, Richhrd Jamb 16732 Vandornr Ln. Ntt�►t�.regtl► Bch,, t"11 92C�49 I Huntington Bawoh� CA 142649 ,4 p Van Vlahekis 17H-A�3-1� 16727 $OlQro Lane nri mlGY, I3IPMr P Huntington 8080, CA 92647 16722 w$k"dorwr Ln. Huntington Anaah � . C11 925d9 r1.. 16712 17't3••�,�.r 7 ifun"rigtott ne�ch ` � CA 92649 , 1 t 21 Orldajr l6ay �m�er Tr 1. 1i1••�?r,a-xn �7lltra� aea ltiurhhln�ldc , JAY , ��.CA �2r4R 1 ;r7���� WAnderer t,n� , �tUntinytan F�et�c:t�.C1''- �?rA� 1 1.'1EI�f1,3r1� ' 1�i6�2 :�ancleteg= T'n' cl2ryd�3 1t�ntifrt�tc�n !�©rch,��!� i 17C ,3-20 ' Amle-L Son p Jahn a 16602 wanderer Ln. r, Huntington Rosch cit f'2549 . 4 1.78- 172-2G a W""Ilvl"Vo A RJwln ! 110;741 fig,k ttit h X.n. 1iunti nor!n rc!i, CA 92649 � �r ri 11 ;L AaINDA ROUTING BLIP fir,•,,,�;,re:J= ... Development Services CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 84-67 AGEMA MIMLINE oArE .-ftrsh L 2, 1985 5 Tr AdWolmr-em { , WIPING DATE April 1, 1985 ._____....,.... ( LEGAL DEPARTMEKT WITH 9XHIBIT3 tf ' •INITIAirmo dirAH RENT —REVIEW/APPROVAL By. YAL. M. t � #" 4rdlnerm ( Exhibits ( j fteeolutior. I 1 I!Ahiaits ( � Contract or Agreement ( ) Exhibit$ ) ) Financial Impact Statement -- Unbudgeted Itdmi ate* $1,000 I l INSURANCE REQUIRED i O BONDS HEUU1RED � ( ) RCA II ADMINISTRATION Vo''CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: b•, Y,r r { �A1111�r�rY�� arr..l��� rYI�� .w+w w_.-..r ♦w1.Y..�.. ' a i il� �yq 1 1/II � Ylii�� IYW1�� +mow f rv • •iiw t` CltA / !F •, 73 014 lK `I r la G14 L. 1, � •I'r 1 � �, + „� i 1^ • 1'y 1 pl r•�. ,'� � 1 � � r� � .w• I�1�' rw 1�y�(� , M y R Id� ri n y I' I' � t•�' f 1 /■I t1ii I Y '1 11 e • I 1"1JKi4-0 .4 ',M' 'IY', I �.�'C��'�y•�� r Air 1 ,, i sly ''•;b rti,: , �i• I.j, r,`• j1� 1 I 1. ryp: V14,ak, 1 J p': Y e I Y r r � *• r+ • nu +1• r y .Y t1 'wig\ Nd• _ � N 100( 1*900, M�t� WFA"Of CALIFORNIA land I*#AMr.AN*dtoftw 'Ita crTV OF City Clark PUBLIC WARM Appeal tv Planning Camissionts Approval of Condition We 5 � + 4( �� of Conditional Exceotian No. �-48 y� I AL ICE PORCHE Tbst I a�a and at ail tiMM hareitt anerrt3saed was a cidwo pf the UWW 8 wwW aw Uw ads of twnMy-ow yomm and that I that t am* pMipd t�ha winw afmthaWthd= tiM, Sm " a wssP Hof ��- in an City of HUMtlNffM KAM c4ulft d A� and *bkh rtiMrWAW b publMW far dw i djr oaf WW Hens aad inuftea a of M 0"tral ehmw. two and which n Awg mr st eli tlmss b"" nwritianed bad sad oO has a barns ftd s W%wi PUM list of payiad subwObm which a Wvsw bee bsn sdablMW, printed and pub- d At nwlat bwvsu w the acid City of Omw for a ptrld ozcwd%o one year; that the eotia, of whieb On ` munsd in a Pdntad amy. bar bow PubUd sd in NM TOWN aad enum bow or Mid netmpaon,and not In mr suppMMMrt i dm of.m do fWbwiay diMrr+to wK' AUMT 23w 2964 t 1 ar"* (or dadm) W&t wmdty of perjay&Mt the fWaso- �M ttw and aKr�ct. D&t4d•t...8 ..QRQW. ................ ............ cowerm".this .�*;l.day ..�►1jd�.i . . 4 .. ALIC4... . . . .. . ... .. ... �'11it1M►r I fltt NO.K y { t r 1+ y F 1. TM A V M ` i y� • Ic, v:.. M f REOUES4 FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 11 , Xonorable May and City Council Cb*rlea N. ThoMpson, City Adsinlstrotor&Ag Oil ►': fames N. Palin, Di.rector , Development Servioe ' AMAL OP CONDITION NO* 5 OF Q.'INDITIGN&L RXCB ICN HO. 84*-28 . tsponinivededon,,Annty*, Funding Source,Aftwnatkv Aaftwo AtteAMMIS: U&MI 91E 1110e 'fir iWttt*4 foie the Cit Council's consideration is are appeal of -'eaftaiii0ft to. 5 of Conditional Exception No, 84-28 which granted a oductL ft ' in tho required amount of parking for a proposed 56,772 ago t. ' ioal office building on property iocated on the south side of * Mp ik Avenue approxim4tely 200 feret east of Beach Blvd. Condition 5 requiredi that the Applicant file a parcel map and condominium i r4on if neoo8sary with the City. The Vlanning Commission and Planning staff recommend that the City •tmtuil delete condition 5 of Conditional Exception No. 84-18 as tegavated by the oppellaant. WWI Ms: Applicants 80th Street Architects Inc. 2811 Newport Boulevard I• Newport beach, CA A"61148to Latsof and Bwa n&on , Attorneya at Law (applicant 's attorney) Locattans South side of Newsmen Avenue approximately 200 feet *got of Beach Boulevard. Requests Appeal of Condition No. 5 of Conditional Exception No. 84-20. 71AUNING COHNI"IGN ACTION ON AUGUST 71 1984 : 0$ MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND B84'tOND BY WINCHELL, THE PLANNING CORKISSION =COMONDRD, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DELETE CONDITION NUMB29 5 OF 0019DITIOiAL ZXCSPTION 84-28 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE mew � A VS:r 1W } Nischall, Livengoode Porteer# Erskine, Mir jehangir . ' �► &"hornt/sp lant objects to Conditional Approval No. 9 of Conditional exoeption too. 64-28 whicri was approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 1984. The condition requires the applicant to WO at Parcel Mop anti Condominium Platt.....:,, if necessary, with the City. Subsequent to the Planning Coax iasion 'hearing on the project, the staff found that the Subdivision Slap Act (Government Code Section 8642.1) exempts the proposed project from the filing of the Paroel Slap, Staff requested the Planning Commission to reconsider their action and delete Condition go. S on August 7# 1984. The Commission concurred with tars staff fs recommendation , howeve"r, the reconsideration was not scheduled and the Planning Commission took no action* Stuff roocwaends that condition No. 5 be deleted during the Council's consideration of the appeal can Conditional Exception No. h4-28+ Th* appeal. is ex0vt from environmental r+evlew. VPY .fie Not arpplicable. Retain Condition No. 5 of Conditional Exception No. 64-28. Supporting Information: It better from appela►nt dated August 03 , 1984. 4wvernmwent CeAe Sections 66412. 1. 3, conditions d'•i Approval (10784) -2- August 21, 1964� `[h �'. y ► ' ,7! 14, + 1 d r •G• 1 / ' , f F + �,"�'''�'• 1 i'i'��ir a, ''ry ,�''� =' l>P`1� `r ' t''' i' , Ir+ MI.� . r 1.ti ,( „r ' , 1R I � � t+�' , ;J� '�I.•i. K 1 �� 4' �' ''J- I,Aa' ra�* , �„w. .i'Y.i4 ' y��� � y • �� �.A�,'� �• �• 0. rr. ��Y � h .�..� •y4r 1: 'o I +, .,. � ,,,« } ,1 +•, 'R #n. r r -y 1 r S I�ti If; '�IrV,�� �" A '' , I�v^ ���� • . ,,�'1 •+,' ''.„ly ,.,,.,na„'J ,'rw+ 7. ` LAZOP AN O SWANSON r�>y, • 1 Mp�All; d. ,�*� w slo�rw MiiwKr►srws� .. . • 4,. ., �rto�rw�crr� wt t,�w •u,�� slro k,p:,',, n" a•'• r A N11M94MIOMK COMOIOMN RIAM JOse, 4/nL/FOM►h1A "I'm 1400� �q�7M i11 Q. INOX 10714 403 NOIRTM 00LORN C11110419 DIIIVIC 14" AV00A00 IWAIP ►',: •CCONp Fi.00R 00voiYIRKR, 0461hDMM1iA 080" UNTA ANA, CALI MORN IA 92?05 foist •Ai 1000 OQ* TCL9C0P16M; (7141 07"0" ' •; ' Rhin#K 1./1M�M PLCASi IRCPkr TO "NTA.'ANA $161rt'Iw'A. kesigNMAHM Aucjust 3 , 1984 01011 rlLc NA 7419. 001 as r+. ir1•'NY10• • wt �. •Rim P964 A $, k^801916' MIRANKLIN MI0MAr6i. ./II. CLINAMCTN A. A001Ns am 011140204CK KI OM* 6AFk"T W. WIRAVIRM VIA MESSENGER It .; City Council oil City. 4f Huntington Beach 2000 gain St* ftntisigton 8eech, CA 92646 Roe Conditional, Exception No. 84-28 , A"e$x ' r.. Dear Council ftmbers t Thie shall notify you than this o fice .represents Harold E. Grahael, the real panty In intesrast and principal for Thirtieth , Otreet Architects# the applicant in the above-referenced matter. s plication was last acted upon by the Huntington Beach Co>eakfeaion on July 24 , 1984, and subsegtaently a Notice ef ' Action was issued. ;... . ,of fir. Graham, this shall serve ass ah appeal of thit &=1fof Acti,pn. Specifically, Mr. Graham objects to Comdltibn of Approval Umber rive which rewires that the appli- CAut tiler a parcel II aa. and condominium plan if necessary, with {: the Ci y, r ich snap shall be approved and be recorded prior to � s , of any building permits. This appeal is based an tho provisions of California Government Code 6664 3.2. 1 which pro- vides, in pertinent part, that the Subdivision kap Act is inap- plicable to the financinq or leasing of any parcel of land, or any portion thereof, in conjunction with the construction of a commercial building on a single parcel, unless the project 3,e not subject to review under ether local agency ordinances regulating design and improvement. The proposed project will involve the improvement of leased land with a commercial building, not in-- vrlving condominium vr•its. Therefore,. based on Government Code S65412. 1, a parcel map should not be required as a condition of the approval of the conditional exception. �� f 1M I y t +! ��.YyI � .41 ' �r �� •r E` h `` 0�' a ,� r ' � • ` ' � ,'��: 4 �r VAi a��.}F`. 1, a 1 r I,i+ •if� ��r' �IV i A ,�r Ir`• W y•1 M ���4,� '�M� 1 , 4 t r ill y", j•v i. r 1 ( y{w f •� `1 k i.;,�,4yy a: r r• �4 •rf, ii ���aC�� 'M'fl^1}•I 4� ��r� � r 1'�� r� t�1�P�lr .•f 1 � I �� I r �{Y .?. . qMev 14.5,• 'i.sf 4u��.�•' r t Ile :,jai',•. '.a• • �.. , 1 + r K I. 'ft*1086d please find our check in the mount of $165*00 for tbo filipg of this Appeal. Very truly yours, . Richard bt. Blumenthal For the l'i= r' AM t k 1 { MC• `> coat 1kr old Graham 'yd 1q G Y n 1 1�� ► W 7yJ1�r• x" < ,.: ,, rf r� � s yy vL"'1'"I, n r�l X4•`.r j_i ;,ik., '�. ' 'n N} r,1t ' ti' •- i •. r^4 r ! .,�f r r��� I r , liv '�.I f R` '��c, t Y y t ''• r - L. }riy�,y Y, ' {{,,.r /IYK" ° i(h 'JI, • � ' "�T�i �, r•. 4 0.r, . I+�' �}.' .� r. >�Ii' tkl�'•T i►,'°.0 rl { N.;. i yt,�y1" x l . . ,Y °+t �'4 ,tii•fUrr ° u i1rY ' ••..�,., vvM Mr•, y,.� ° e, �I1. '• e y ;i'' Itil 9 .'r1l Y x.j .} • Y', ii°°V rY rYi ' i. �, '•':y�a�:.2!�Jr °LjSh. L+' r M I c 1' ° 4 ,dry ° 4 r ,T? 4, way R61d. �i i I r M 1'h.f° y .•, A ' 'r' I. �LeiC+lyfN���'�pl '�I�^f��+:41iR.a' •.r'. 5 f'� }'U'd '['Y , ,c.N i .,. •''r h (3) This local agency certifies thet the Above regtlremaots Whfied It, the local agancy, by ordinance, provides J1W p4OWUlkation. dt UeWN a poriml or final .map wn approved by ft , 1"1616 be* of a local mercy, tho converelon of a stcN* aeapWativet of defined In iQrr 11003.2 of the Business 4t f WA Pnftadons Cam, to a t ondominlum, as rhefbtod 11, Sktlan 721 of the Civil Code, but only If all of the following iwquirements are mett , (1) At least 31 percent of the units In the cooperative r OCCWIed by stockholders p1 the cooperatives or%' Un-. VC00' PeratIVO 19g1,' or individually gwr►ed by .stockholders of an 3anuary 1, **'* 1081. As used In this pig*graph' a cooperative unit Is "individually owned'f If and ptrly If the stockholder of such unit owns or partially owns i;' en Intet+est � no more than one txitt in tt,e cooperetive , 1t2'1.NO mom tfiart :5 percent of the ages of the cooWar 1 tive wrote awned by any ono person, as defined in Section 170 1nclisdint an lacerporator or dlrWor of the cooperative, on (3) A Person renting . a unit 1n a co? ratIve shall be entitled at the time of'conversion to all tenant rights in $tote or, local law, including, but not limited .ta. rights I n rst refusal, notice, sn l displacement and re 4 MOO'n, } (4) "10 local agency certifies that the above requirements f.' wem satisfied If tl'rs local agency, by ordinance, provides for such certification. (Amended by -Stats. 10931 Ch. 1298. Effective Septem- ber j 29, 1933.) �I ty WILL This division shall also be Inapplicable to: !a) The. financing or leasing of any parcel of land, or any t portion thereof, in conjunction with the eonstrucrion of commercial or industrial buildings on a single parcel, unless the pro*-t is not subject to review under other local agency ordiannances' regulating design and improvement. i (b) he financing or leasing of existing separate commer. clal or Industrl al buildings on a -sinle parcel �r,,'.• (Amended by Stats. 112, Ch. 875 !r "412.L IWs division shall not aWy to the construction, ` fkwKkW at knoft of dwelling units pensuent to Sectim 6389M ar' Ltd malts pure ant to 5ectlon 65952.2. but tl" erri$ion doll be applteable to the sale or transfer, but rrat,ktAI , of time tests. i (Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1013. Effective September 21, 1983.) . f�ara 'ati�ar of re- 66012.3. in carrying out ,the provisions of this division, �ara1 l+ nbC needs each local agency shall consider the effect of ordinances and actions adopted pursuent to this division on the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction Is situated aM balance these needs against the public service needs 143 , . w+ XI �M.�11' AI' �', f ' �, n �,d w. /'�-',�F�k„�,4"4r'r1n'"• Y ! i 'r„ 11: � M r i V . LL jar r•I'.i: p; CONDITIONAL LEI MION NO. 84-21D A reVised site plan shoving the circulation and parking layout shall be submitted to and approved by the department of ' iOvels►PROnt Bervioes prior to issuance of building permitse 2. eses Witbin the proposed structure are limited to those as c!utlieed in the traffic demand study and as listed on the tionorptual site Alert. Any mod if i cat ion# en, pans ion or change Of use Mall rewire now entitlement and additional parking. 3. It review of the complex parking, as prepared by traffic i Consultant, shall be submitted to the Secretary of the board r . Aon vacancy factor reaches twenty (20) percent or less* ' C Pa['tkibq lot modifications for the 'subject site and adjacent r .: r6"tty owned by Humana shall be Completed prior to issuance"''' If building permits, ''iya� 11r'' r• �y r ' :f17L�',�Y,f}'qr r " �' ' «l r M\1 i ! . #� la�i',7r�'ya��l r'�' y �i ✓R yam'A }41l•!"r'Yti'w.r � fin•k d ,lZf"� i�f f 1 f (� L ' v,w� �"`l r. � ,` '4 " M "} �'.,, >V 'X 'w'�� '� l�1 ral .Y' i„���'�Y i� '74°q�l' � �•� � Y �I�,' ' ` A ,� � � •• ,1 .,�ry� r,� �'il• ,.'„. '�,Vrr Vr ( .�. .r,k`y ,'�T ,Y.: la';�YV `•, +1 '. �"1'. �'�",1'� rt,,fC �'4:�'�';' _ / , h �� •" '�� •t. ,, � � ''i r, i t „y dl' -S� 1�1.!'�t�• .1,,,1u � r n l'• ��, � t /. f f 1• / / ILr /IMerto d LAP ,'('; 'tic• ''�I�tl�;!;'i�,r; ' . 1 094 14. 4di .;jL ` CU Batch Ca. 02648 "�••: a .r.it iw•V. ,/ -of Cohdi'ite,nal Ritoeeott-at No,, ' 114-28 0. MMA'it+ Obwdirefon Weaving Dates' %Tuly 24 19104 ie oxf�ae "re * Vne�n i�r.. 06-111 Frieften xho is the Y, �X A AM thep Abbva WAttote At tha 'Jn1y 24'.# ION' r3h� 0 ' ter' fftmtiugton h6'rch V1annin r C6*M lseiibn,' the annU41 Coae desi n o+vairuled my ClIent 's a al +D ' ? tttWAI alicapti6n Be* 84-2 0 and grarnted to bettain conditions. please• -erccept this 1 ar etanoti,c+e 'on beh'ailf of my client to appeal the glcc►" of• the planning Commission to the Huntington rc 'C Lt y council l. der ands for the 'appeal can generally be stated as fO,,= 1 There Me Been no showing that a hardship will ! d can the' applicant if it 3n •c�oupelled to compl- M 't miniee m bode r uiremerits for arkin . '� p q i";'•, 2 Grunting a reduction of* 47 parking spaces below 1 code 'requirewhts will cause 'poisons that should park in applicant's lot to ark 'in Dr. Fri.e'►aan's lot . This has � this• effedt of shift ng to Dr. Friedman applicant' s parking problems and is imifettly unfair. It imposes i an unreasonable burden and hardship on Dr. Frieda . 3. There is a current existing shortage of parking when the entire medical "campus' is treated as a whole . To permit a reduction of 47 spaces of required parking would only aggravatte the existing perking problem that eASts on the medical campus . No valid reason has been stated for ignoring the minimum parking standards imposed by the code,, _ LIZA4f 4 , ti.jr. j 4. • 'hint applicant hAs failed to address the obvious qutstioan of the need for they construction. of a parking struet ., Th6 'sisal of applicant's building is simply too large 'for the 'lot on which the proposed building is to be built. Since 'the applicant cannot comply with bpi*= bode requirements , a parking structure 'should be 5, ' Ttio 'clonditions Imposed on the applicant by the pluming Comm+48ion*0 namely, that: after the proposed btild3ug I& 60t occupied, a now parking survey must be +subte ltted to City Staff for approval before the building can be furthot occupied 3s unworkable* At a 600 occupancy facter, t:hs *Parking pr6blaia 'will not be at its peak level of int hvity. Maximum ua• 'of the perking facilities will not occur until the•- building In fully occupied. It will only be 'at that tftae that the full magnitude of the problem will be 'raanifesrted,• 'and by then, it 'will be 'too late to correct the 'proMAn. The problem of {nadequate parking should be •addre s'ned and solved nowt not at some later date. I would reequeat than the hearing of this appeal to the ffuyntington beach 'City Council be *placed on the Council 's agenda for th4 date of Peptenber '4 , 1984 . 1 will be out of town on vacation on August 20, 1984 and unable to attend the Council Meting to bo held on than date if this matter were lacerd on' the 'agenda for theft date. I have discussed this ma►ttmar with both 'Mike 'Adama and Jim Barnes of the Planning bsoartrant staff, and they have both indicated o as that the 'September 4 , 19114 date would bo acceptable to them due 'to an overload of Work 'and shortage of staff . perewhel in tMir departxwht. I wauld appreciate receiving confirmation from yot%r office that the 8epte v"t 4 p 1984 dame in acceptable for placing this matter on the 'Council 's agenda. Very truly yours , THOMAS G. HARMAN TGH/'e tat �i . . � ; ,�wr�'?ti•� P rr . , ',� fit.• r 44 too ,.4 1 R . Publish Avaust 23iMA.I 1904 ■ fir/�■■•� 41■i��� y' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEMIhG ` APPEAL Tp PLANNING COMISS1041S IIPPFMAL OF COMITION NO 8 -Or COMITIOW .FkCEPTION NO. ,84=28 }' public Siearinq will be held by the City Council l�T rC� r� ���r ��v�N that � . of the City of Utington Beech. ;n the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, k Huntington Beech, at tht hour of ._7_.:�, P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Tuesday the 4th , day of 5ep�er 1$884,.. for the puirpo" of font i deri ng an appeal to the Planning Comi ssi on's approval of Condition Na,, B of +Conditional Exception No. 84-28 which requires the applicant to file a parcel wp and condominium plan if necessary prior to .the construction of A.- MAW squam foot aardicail office building on property zoned R5 (Office Professional) located on the south side of Newman Avenuar east of Beach Boulevard. A, legal description is on file in the Development Services Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said cppeal Further inforw won way be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,, 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED August 2if, 1984� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk 0_ r 1 lot L; �., L&GAL NOTICE H ICI OF PUbLIC HEARING V0fZCX 18- 99RUY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held . the City Pla inq Commission of the City of Hunt to Beach, � C011forniA, for the purpose of considering M % + l Pto 4 A,�, fA. I"t. J0441 flow Mir 6/0 �41kw� vow qb toc.&.44 o.,% zo - -�► ' s r' i - of +� o w� Said hearing will be held at the hour of � �i � P .M . , on in the Council Chambers building of the Cfvi Center, 2000 Mein Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons a►rs invited to attend slid hearing and express their opinions for or ..idinst the proposed • VLA& ` mows NUMMIN ww Further infomation may be obtained from the City Planning Uepartment. Telephone No . (714 ) $36-5271 DATED this day of .� CITY PLANNING CQMMUSION 8 J r- Wm �' Ir LY,�'��°r r��Y��{S � �"Il, � y,,� f��ly.r• a q l 'V�`�1��r*� � �1 � �•� � � Fri ,��� y ^''•�,r �� �AlI � r,' � ,Y '� �,9 `'.�r � h 7 + � ;4,� �• �,; !�.M ,�•r f.FJ�(`• /• �g �,,�� I ��'T� i�1 f•I',� � 1�� i,d��, V 1 1 r r' � •' y I � V,,w�t�}!•1rf( "i' Y71 ��,1�y,1 .}�T�*.t�� �+-u�;�,l• �! ,�,. I:i' V'n1h Y �..,,j 1,� „nl � �''� o, Y' Y 1! A�� �� ��,� �, , � „�r'yY'�+'S„�:n' ha.,,, r .�;'., ' , r..� '• .� � 'hR , ' 1`��' Ag .' + � ir ,�.. Y �,,h.. '� �' ?W�Y � '.. 0�/1 �{ • h 1, • r 1 .. : 1 Lob% ,��•• 1 ` 1 , P",r r'Is . rr. . . �''�. r '.«.I l• 1 ,1 .,:•;� ,� � ,� Y � , ,�rrz 1'�;; C � ups lUA�,I� 1�AIttN� , Z . 71 a VIA i J-1-u- dim y A NOW,A48416 9110 THK A"TACM LWAi 56jjCS FOR To V �r 11P�• +tti ACXr01 1 . A!'a will !allow No AP'a lttiated by; �" yYaaaiq,� rt�rt !'at3iS.e+N ,Pa1 - — MW Adoption of Invironortal Status (x) US � War to uvi•..��i. •ter � - Plarailta Departmant 8xtansion •w • �iOrC aiiitiaa�l in►�o�tial. a YR Opt".lr please troaftit Wmet wording to be required in the lop! v . „r. .. `,'�,�.�� �:i����" i� � � �l lr�l�r1�__._.;; :�'il�l��,'. ��r M • M��',':I�;A " ','�i •�`,1 r .��,;a,��' �M;'1.y,�.'�• .A.,lyfi}b I'r r �f 1.4�,�'S• .i� �^ !i `�, ,1�� b, '��I��t �r�}:�.n'q A•, ' 1 �n�• 1'�.. � �, �� �r'a rl� S��.•�W' �1 1�,h L�•,�. i�,,1 1! r•�I�` Ir `;' T � � �. �r i�f 1� �C ��k �� *q �� '1 ���' r�..�,':, SI�1rr���.��4 � V N, � i1t..' " n��r��.. �� 'r l�"E„� �� ''' ,� •';��" � •� � ••�„ i ��� �' � 'i;'L+ �', •'�;,� � � 1' i�y��M�41'�p* •� I � 1 r F/1 Y' .fit' 1 f•� 1 +� '• } � �Ir ii.G' � � iy•�Ar r°•�/�r 1 l'J rw i6 {I Y� 1�: k r � �� !`" it+� � • r •,r, ��ii� I ' •t A1!'1��! +� 1`,1�,� ^I, "rrr�• � � � �Y�� ,�,r I , a• � ����`'"� ;•,L• I p ' � 1 1 '• �1 �� �tl 1'�'•�9�'r�p'�'�,n iv ���+~'��lr.J..��,r�d,y�r�:•��.r1:M+�,":1',.Lr�.c.' ;,Tyyh r,b.r1Y'�'J.���,.. ��7, '�'PSi�.4.�,. . .,,.�.. •��, •��1`�1'��,I, ;,�,'��.��fy 10167-472- Anton '10"Stmente "..003 Blatt R�6 q � Y'2Q3 ftv"a "aoh F1444 • onold Tit 4031 pApuro Circle ;'A `. 3� 7. 6390 1111#hire s iL Vda 07 1a XUAt IngtOO 0R&doh o CA 911 �•F r 147-601-02 ftter dot. optaial nunts"ton Inter Mai , x�Mo. �O M I R 'r 937 0 177 nc. 2 Reoc HuRtlnRtanhd aah, C11 916�17 p 0' ft 1434 taoulovillgr ICY 603O1 � li7�da1�0, 13 ,10,OO Roman Catholle 8igho 107�0a1-M,t5,1O, 17 Humana,h f lea O�r�r R Humana, Inc, ICY' of nge RuAti to11 Inter . Romp. 3811 at �►il�►a Real fir. Pe 0. Sox 1036 Orangt, CA 92667 La1ti"11100 Ry 4O261 Ii • .1 it Y '1 1yy1r I .4 + j I ���;.��I ,�y,... 1*,.,»,,< KJ"• 3+�w'i••', .,y, y:r�. 1'. 7 '�t��j .�.'y..drs �"� p+. :��:" ^a "K '�•� ,�-3,!f'"t jrje J {; 1 ■ Yr �u�y,� r�' �� � �4�Y'� A� '" ^1Y 1�. .. x.,Fa1!��yf�^�rrLR�{� ,�''. .'����;'!'�. vn� r� •'"ram �� �. r•, ��'�• � �{61� �I� w 9 'i: Y' ''�' '����`7 ,7 `., ,,��,:rG y/' +I�• �r �p; ��r. Lk( ;^F < •14 '^�''+'i. ro�� �("14'! `rti., it I AbAll i � r,Y°,�"�Y :KL� 'K"' r�'l� �' _ ', '' � :y?'�,•';`.};Y � ,;•. ,�k ,��'������`'�, (7,'' 'A�'y. „ r I � 1 rid'(• .11,1.� T, 4f � Carl J"6 Thom" sa Iftwtod a taro Cal 92683 ' '� ► 167-4W27.39 a Iowa 446 Cal 92647 •:, * ' 840 Nnat"tall 8awhi, C41 924WT ' 167-463-31 �• Fitibla ter�►rtt ,, 3 138i Y 1 Ventura WO r,,,4•7�,,; i ftcinQ Cal 91436 1b7-48�-32 , Cater For special Sur f or` 8 + 0 17751 ftech IIvd �# ' "' Mvd 0714 Farr ttattoo Rohr Cal 98647000 iv%unstion Assotiatoo � a ?44, 1438 ' r ). Ky 41 �o um r . ra l� x�r Room 'it"6116, U' , 3811 g. Tau 'ftol i I ' ft Cal 92667 ' tiftesa7iM846 cal PU47 16�1 4m � 1 1 NSam& ISO PLO. FOY 1438 8 omam Cal 92683 t•a"Wila xr 40201 ��` � � CA!� �1 r 16�'-601•t5 lei 1 I � �, y�T'>oA+i KJ y ,�:!•'Y1 �. 1, f. S V i .Y/Ik'�r y.1 1r a . • ��, Y 1 r. V � , 'r Page 3 Counc i 1 Ag a da - 9/4/8 4 O-20* APP PL1ra NG COMMISSION APPROVAL Oit E 84-28 NAN i e can an appeal filed b Thomas 0. Harman 9 PP* Y t Attorney at Law, on behalf of be * [veil Friedman, t - to the Planning Commission's approval of Conditi•anal Exception No. 84-28 granting a 47 space reduction in the tequrired amount of perking fore a proposed 56 0 OQp+ square feat medical office buildint Pro, operty Qnal on plocate s et IP donhe5 (Office n s olNewan 6.• J" Avenuer e/o beach Boulevard. �_ • RA: The Planning Commission and Planning staff recommend that Council# after making 3-0 (L— J,6AWb0"%zzI findings of fact, sustain the decision of lthe Planning Commission and deny the appeal ri'r�►- and approve CE 84-2 8. "L9 , 0 40 D-2d. APPSAL TO PC APPROVAL OF CONDMON 5 OF C8 84-28 - i • HAM ee g. ox the purpose of considering an a II r..- filed b sof a Swanson* Attorneys at , on behalf o! N d E. Graham, to the F tying . ! Commission's app al of Conditia o. 5 of Conditional Excepti, o. 84- which requires thj applicant to file a map and condominiou plan if ne v4 prier to the construction of a 5 0+ squ foot madiaal office bijildi.ng property Sono (Office Professional +rested on the a/w of an Avenue, a each Boulevard. !: Planning Commission and Planning toff ' recommend that after making findings o fact# Council grant the appeal and delete Condition I5 of _CE 84r-281 as requested by 1� the erppef�ant. (9/4/04) (3 ) �IMI4.4 ••t t� I,M16 P* jh'i,•� �+ .fl� 001 A JI F •r• •QJl T ' At' % /,.•1 �'tl � ��74 t t ,� r t"�' fr'j ,.. Y ;r,• S• 's+ 'I, yaA, "ypp M'+ r +• ' ,,.}1'"a^� �; 'hP1.,lAI!'-"'/I, '4 tar•,?+Ys '' tY" t4�.� �, 1' • .,� , AI't!Q!vlv:� , rr•kr,tat .��+ ,:✓ ; ,!! �h• ,y,� 1 , I .. M ° e ,� r ,j i L� 4a •i4 { 1 , � %CH �p �•k y�t a�l � T74F• 1 •r ,a • L i v� � :1�•.' � i r 1 1 li 14�yn}fA(rs�'>>! y,A.yyh1� a.• (d:41 �7Y•nµ•� 9 '��V ',•/.T�•.ilt+ to I'�"1'Ai.fF ),,i. : '/ . 11' ti.;• .. . ! . w,..P. CITY OF HUNTING BMA i, r F MAIN STREET CA IPC.RNIA 92M OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK / A V*x tw6or ld= 1f+ /'� Lazof & Swantion, Attorneys at Law P. 0. Box 15113 5 Sants Arwa, CA 92705 F } Ire: CE W218 Harold E. Graham - Applicant The City Coil at its regular meeting held Tueaday, Uptember 4, 1984t overruled the Planning Co is©ion and denied CaMitional Exception 44-Zfi with fitndinga as follows: I. The parceling of the property with '.asss linen and the existing layout of building and circulation systeas do not crenate ftcap- tional circumstances that generally apply to pfit► arty with uses in the am* district. 2. Tho, granting of this Conditional Exception is not necessary fa* i ,. tW' -Oteesrvdtion and enjoyment of substantial property rights. , • r; �; 3. - Yhu #r iirg of this Conditional Exception &III be ,Notarially y ?' datrimntal to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land property or iaproveewartts .in Um neiohborhooc on the property for which such conditional exception Is caught have any further cpmtions an this matter, please contact Jamcs Win, Director of Developmeent Services, 536-5275. Alidis MI. Wentworth City Clerk, AMI J61 t5C°. Liw J. f. a,i 4, A ' Win trATROIcALOPWu >wmwswow atcam► ommo MY OF HLWINBTON BEACH City Cltrk PLOLIC HEARINI Apoeal to PI"Int Comieaiont6 At�oi~oval of Conditional 1ExCdatfon ��irC�r�ii[aetrirr ► No. W28 Co+inty of Orattpe Pa. 'flint 1 am and at aV timw Wwvin wintiomW ma■citiavn of tha l hAW 8tata%armor the,p of twaptp'•onR rate,nerd that i am at m parV 6%,par h*m=tad In dw above&Wtbd n wtft tba 1 mmr tha p dndpm dwb d tM nrPntm of the WJNTt1VY'dll WAN INDs RSV. a aowrpww o r"rr1 ckculmtioa,pommm im tba City of HWtNV TW WACN Ca+mttr of of nrM& new p&W it p�ublieW for the db"Mi>rm"of am and intellilgov or a penerrri olw+a - ter. mW w" mwgmgw as all titans brain mentioned had and*0 bran it bow lids sAwiptim lint al p kyim mbacribm mad mohair oerreprprr hr bm am biiahed. odmwd and pub- SAW a vag.44w bfat+Ab is As, said County of Or for a polo s one ym "I the setbn, of *kWh the �tttrrd to • 1liew =ff. has been pablitW in the r%Ww twrlw twtle of:Wd of pow,mud not io any awphownt t1�'r are 1b+e 1a�sr�iv�dair.'o wh: 1 aniy(at denMtw)sadrt pgakr of i t that the liotrtia- w M ww tad coils . Dated et. .. S#JM-GROW .. .. .. .. ...... ......... ... Cgifa"*',tbior "th,-day►Of •AlW i.,. 1p S�nawrr Form No.1+01r = w it r, N+4 a�' :• ��:•w' .' ' r'F1'✓7•�" ,�,'�,a4�Ihy'I.ifn �Y � �'' ,r�h,'V''.,y� !!7 �'•'d•"�'•: " •"},} s '.,' pAkv : 4. +I yh� r, f HUN ACH 3NO MAIN STAW CALIFORNIA*" OPFIN OF Tm CITY CLRAK 94p+l r x 319 190 aft Street Architects MI Neiport Blvd. port Bemaht CA 92"1 The City Caumil of the City of Huntington Beach at its lsr metirog fmId'ftmky, Sptw*e r 179 INK denied Conditional Exception -28 which would hoe mitted a ti,on in the r ired �� of ' 'for a Mb77Z .re r"t Baal oftf Wilding Immted t e mouth I side of Inca m Auer, mot of Beach Iloulevero. t This Is a final decieloh,. You are hereby notified that puxptpt* to � 1 of Section 1."4. of On Coda of Civil pr my of the stag of California you have ninety days from t,�2�g to apply to O 'courts for judicial reviva, S If you hewn any questions, 01eae►e contect this office + 53f"S - Micis M. litrt*teorth city Clerk Awls$ ,. r cc 3mee Palen - Developatrnt Services Director ! Qdl Mttan - City Attorney tfM n�s�t�s► r�i �: � • ► , # rPUM►r, rat 3 n,ralrwri lrnr r r 1VW W.0% Pr*"+Mt W. err"M ~41 %4 t*mo wia Us Mi4y" Mt IM, art AM W 4MItMw11r*""*A. Weft A1r 4iOM 13f :'rLR"t. SK of C.AiM A lAw* Im. r. 3116111 21 MI.alItr, 1"d fewty jakernt A-0 "I tr*N K Mk iRl ("AN ML *MWW a Is ` Mire t r of MxrMlri "" 110! 1W low ■olhano" 1O* W to 64 awM dlwlWMa rrtaLl" Wh1w. lot rl.•rk Is OMM K toftly Mork WOW Ory WVW rt Airarr/t 0" In WOW" 14 rlilt aW *IN Ml* W 01MVNI t Is rw pdw twr W Wea rer PW4 $W too ►r tarlaaK pow r wo* foam ito on SW .tAMr1tA to rtliri r+rM*t Wilk fNt MOM to "m4who ON4 " tkp Ibm n �Mt*s+tralM +owl to tlitw W tW 0OW4 r1 4t*r; Ini �i11MMrM1 +llrr� ft p w".W ptarhwy jo- t4r4 +MRON trrlraW " tvlito" W" iw N tall drrMri the K tKMhMeti a What 104 to M L �it1t. trrR a" of ff. 4" 10A tw"r n tM � �• i r. 1** twat at M�10 A wel MOM k* �f 11t1r1a1tn1to lah'lttl ><110 l�l. 1MMt altrw"ft r�wiw t�.1 r1♦rti atlt r/ Rah.M#,� t'•.A�t�t leA. VA"At% go" awwn&a lb- me I the wp"t �iMiN, ra. ri M WMrw b 91~g .0 "Miff t at rMhtMl h �� fr too 1emm6rw om tat r"•l111iblulft iw1.rMlrir N r, rrnrrbMn Of pMmir to *4404 di"O va i atrqft*a. K bob wr• r ""low a faf aNnr�iw*IFra ' w w I* = tb lot � ""ma of OW fN M660% Ma at • dMM�1r1I�1iM1r o1w11�* rirtrrr M�pr 1rMh+r�w= of tlrf rrrna� thrrtt r.,jaw .1lrltwl*. Cn1ru• t1e11 AM�raao b To rt awN Mew is tAr11 sra`tlrr t$MM�arriMll (us) w fiwiN vt►e�r arm 'iluwre rli► dre.r• 1634&SON CAM 114. � . . .1 � Irevisw; d�eMtaeta of iocal r�eelt.•ias; psllliMt; MG; datum and parer deftok W6 (a) Judk*d review of any d tWcn of a lom] adetic-t•. ot1wr tho •dWd dYbict„ as the telite lode) agency In deftgwd In &ctioa 54051 of E the Govenumt OWe, or of erly suva tnitt;on, bo`ut4 atfieve or MgW tlia•reof, nay bra M d purmnt to Saction 1094,5 of this coft anbr it the perlitloti for writ of rrtrindsto pummm To mob ver- tm is filed -within the UUW pipits specitw in this adl". (b) Am;, ath petition shall lie filed not later thltn the 95th etxy (OBWMind the date an which the decido►n betoaw Graf It the" Is no pravieiott for MMU1111deretion of Um decision in any appik-abbe peovi- OM of any statute, charter, or t'111e, for the purposes of this mwOoN the tkoWCV b fi W on the date it Is m%de. U "M t Is rush pc+ati•Is = ter derl>ttion, the dedsim is final for On p uposes of tltilr Vera tioa Won the uatp Mtlan of tM period dw•irg wil"Nth Iwta 0 risidwa- . tires caa be 90%*%t; provided, thtt it recorisiftutlon b s xW* pa su�. ' "t to Very s wh Provilllon the decision is ffi W'for the paVom of thk a cuor. an aw date that 1•acorxlder>tnon is rejetad. tc i "id ratM**%, rmv. rd of Tire jwei..oirdiltlQt sMU In pd ad by b"! kwxd t1gNwy or IN bairYi, oftkvr, ur nuent wli" opals ft- ticckrion sod attanil bP dAhmmW to The ip&U( otwr -within DO ibys rafter he ha filed a written t pad Ihw.Wtw. 1* kwd examy • may, ter [roes the potttlow Itr aettmel cadre for transloribietd at nUmni iwla perM sAr4 the rrc r& .Swh mood ixtcluft the ttw .1pt of the pmecedinm all pkedlT tip, a9 nMim and onAM propallal dwMon by a beea lar oMkor, the fi wi dm*4orl, ale aftitted 074 1 '� r'�..{-�{lyP'•�r:�,i',�''''�1�Cr�i�lApb�:", i:ro; ,1ti"...���''4S'�lkkf'":•.Ir ••1! Oh 271 iJ y or MAN"" f 10944 ; 4001ft as V111160 06oft In the p mwgd rr of do kit 4f r M� . Now% or sgwv l ail +writteh tw ed my tdl it tw pe0lionttr to a mulult for the ivm as Ill Ormin m " mOid1v1*m IV) wd 10 fb*s lifter tie date DO *Nbkn%mpg IV It tr Ad M wo+ 111 WIPM-1-rw w, lblrOr tires witbM wwfbh a pefltttm � ; 1� 1*it11• l" *A* tW the rR►h tw logo Ilk' is dti6w. r logo i*tip Itit bM oil 06161 at AA �; eat btt�lt a� rdlo�r+otwo. �►•, h drdetat► �dli�ttaad ton IaI. +� A" vmvide•wtlae to the plww &at the th" wttbftl rl ►krlr am*bo sougft 1r fined by this NeUm to tl , """*A "pwtrrt�r" merltre we or r *' ►, mVeW14 dampied or mod; . pmgm whim pond# or lkwm lbea been revdW or whm appUart►tloo for a perarrtE or Noon hu been donW; or a pm m whaer app►tkrttke for a SOUNNAft beWt or R1bwamo htw Neon denkd (g) Thle Dolan OW be appUa M !n.fit local agma mly It the swaaft boe.-.*d,ther4d r*ph m celdbuivie or rtraluttaa pskiet thk adiow stppitdlbk. V sOM dr+dbr mm or rem*Wm is Ad;ty tbo prwMone of Me sm dam shall pnwad owe wW t:arAlatift provklaa to any ethwrrrrlwrt appUmble►law reisthg to the m*jwt mttrrr. (Aired bar JUts.1179.a.M.p.M1, 11.) • r Mum MN 7Colft Numb 096 ft"4 Cho Fteewom �JMtry �lilw�etr 1. Aftb tkr 1A* •N4 Vowed to Cth PO tmfive RPM ad "Alms dt del Mnt thAt Pa" bw MOM to wb tlwt t#A tt� dilklito van 1. IA�MMMt10 Wei" sm RPAMM AM OM aatft�rod In APMM 11=14% MOWW l (101 9 Of KMOM Writ or Nr MWD tr eMPM rN- frAdmw "hom Of1M Wvhmkw "t 11 w iMiadmi of 1yNfw" now Nthrm to him m%mol pow. Oft "itm ur;*wi%wA iNrl *,% et~nk. ter WmL ASP TO. M+Mt« rt86*F wee �N a�r.it kr Kwi.N�lary► M�ia�att An"* 1. NfVl A tint Is liar of tra No" Art rr 101 10W AVtx. 724 U MAN M. V5 ', .•�14]V1�1'K"' r',, ; .' N' ,9'r�{W,''•. q , , i•rr;Y1,'• r 4 ,nr.n r ��L V + mot'•.,r-• . t e.. . r r /1� aiMi1lh Agelnc�a�077 9/4/84 + --ew-ND49 C LSSION APPROVAL OF CE 84-28 of on an appeal filed by Thomaa G. Harman, Attorney at Lair, on behalf of Dr. Mail frriednan, to the Manning Commission's approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-28 granting a 47 opine reduction in the required amount of parking for a psoposed 56# 000+ square foot medical. office tbtildirq an property zoned h5 (Off ice Professional) located on th* s/s of Neuman 4renue, d/o leach 8oulavard. W The Planning Cammissi�n and Planning staff recomwend • that Council, after making finding• of fact , sustain the decision of the planning Commission and deny the appeal Er►d approve CE 04-28. .jtMLL0 '1*4144 COMAIIIJ10AI AWA �W#Vy 40J . jJ0 API AMY*AVAF J R. i302d. xPP V G OF ONDITION ' P C$ 8 Reudir'Ing for,� he purpose of considering an appeal filed by Gas i SwaneoA, Attorneys at Laws, on behalf of Hato E. Grahame to the Planning Commission's ap oval of Condition Flo. 5 of Conditional Exce ion -No. 84-28 which requires the applicant to e a parcel map and condominium plan if ecessacy prior to the cvnetruction of a 56, 0+ square foot medical j office building on pro �`ty zoned its (Office Frofess ionalf located on he e/s of Newman Avenge, elo Beach Bouleva XMt The planning Commissi and Planning Staff recomaend that after rest ng findings of fact , Council grant the al and delete Condition 45 of CE 84-29 a requented by the appe an . (3 ) wt i. „yam_jr'. 1tl'N h"M4" i `i ti u r• d d ' 1 1. no CITY OF8 HUNTIN ON BEACH I 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9260 OFIFICE OF try env C1.I1K tsar 10, 1984 i' ThOWN G. Hartman, Attorney at Law 2130 Klein Street, Suite 170 , lkintirqton Beach, CA 92648 Not CC 84-ZB - Dr. Neil Friedman - Appellant The City Council of the City of Huntington Beech at its regulrfi me.tiny hold Tuesday, September 49 1484, overruled the Planning Commission and d4nied Conditional Exception 64-789 with findings, thereby granting Your 41ppe101. 1f you have any further "atiorm on this matter, please canovt 360M Palin, Director of Development Serviced, 536-5175. 11 Alicia 144 Montworth �•' City Clink AWt js .y r r I" � • 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DM August 22, 1984 6dWd"Wtu: Ncaorablt Mayor and City Council 8ubamw by: Charles N. Thompsong City AdMinistrator Ff bV: JAMS, N. Salim, Directors Developmnt Bervicea AMAL at M PLANNING COMMISSION'S kPPRCVAL OF CONDITIONAL BXC6PTION NO. 84-28 MOM11 of Dili k Purmfhv Wum, Alta umbe AQtkwo.Attwfln'Iws s mop IS Transmitted for the City Council's consideration in an appeal of t;be :Planning Commission' a action 'on Conditional Exception No. 84-28 wk-Oh r6todutd a rOddetion in tt:e required amount of parking for a ptop*W56, 772 aura foot modical office building located on the ioutb aide of Newman avenue, approximately 200 feet east of Beach �` �u leye rd 1 The Planning Commission and Manning staff reronmond that the City Council approve Conditional Exception No. 84-28 . I "ALTS111 Applicants 30th Street Architects Inc. � 2821 Newport Hourlevari j Newpost beach, California ApVelant: Neil A. Sr4idmant Diriator outpatient Aurgory Canter 17752 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beath, California 92647 Location: South side of Newman Aveau* approximately 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard. "Quests An appeal of Conditional Ox ption No, 84-28 which grated a reduction it parking for at 56t772 square foot medical office building. Ce �ru set MC y 1• y ylln+ ' r I FM'. ' ly', fib; 'r'1'�'•''� i ,. ...OMd. ..,�'q. ilk A �15 JIMIl RMIl-12J ACTION OD1 DULY 34 , 19041 ON Mf TION NY LIVNM WD An MOND OY HIGGINB "I APPRAL TO CONDITIOM IXCUTION NO& 84-28 WAS ORNIED WITH TRZ FOLLONING MODIFIRD VIMbINGS AND COMIT'IONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ATM 11991he, LiVingoo!!, Porter , Schumacher , Mirgahangir ad= None 2X *rokine TIA a one • MP d • a r v : 1. The parceling of the property with lease lines and the exlstiriq layout of building and circulation systems Jowl" create exceptional circumstances that d& generally apply to property with uses in the saner district. I.. The granting of this Conditional Exception is , PT necessary for the pteservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights« 3. The granting of this Conditional 2zeeption will rao be materially detrimental to the public health,. safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land property at improvements in the neighborhood on the property for which such conditional exception is sought. 4 . ' The applicant in willing and able to carry out the purposes for which the conditional exception is sought and he will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. 44 AM Aofirpr*llp 06rx Vow,& /AW.Wr,p4rp Mal -of oral a 1. A revised site plan showing the circulation and parking layout integrating the two adjac*nt project areas shall include identification of handicap parking &paces to meet State's standards and shall be rubeaftted to and approved by the Department of Development Services poor to the issuance of building permits. 3. rho uses ,within the proposed structure are limited to those as outlined in the Traffic Demand Study and as listed on the Conceptional Site plat,. MY modifications, expansion of buildings, or change of use shall requir$ now entitlement and additional p►ar k i ng. 3. A r*view of the complex parking an pro0ared by traffic consultants *hall be submitted to the bepartaent of Development Services when the proposed development is (ldldd) -2- August 23, 1984 r' dam 11 • Sixty percent (601) full. Such a study aball be °. Lade ndly prepored under contract to the City at the arppl +gent s ..pone,; If this traffic study finds that additional on-site• parking is required the applicant, in aeop,ration with 11uaana eospi.tall shall provide the add$tionaX spaces necessary in a parking structure. stzuOtur* design and location shall be subject to rOv40 arm$ a koval by the Planning Comislasion prig WOO Pok'ai Ling of additional occupancito over the sixty percent (600) figure. Parking lot modifications for the subject bite on Mlit.rent I ropetty owned by Human& shall bo tzasspleted pr cr to fasuance of a Certificate of occupancy. In addition, the applicant shall prepare a park lag phasing plan showing future parking atrdatures and their. locations with a draft agreement entitling Humana Hospital and the Canter Medical Complex to pirticip*to in any future parking proposal in order to 'r satisfy any future expansion needs: 0 5. The applicant shall file a parce.1 map and condominiu:� plan if necessary with the City. This reap shall be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. Ors 04 23, 1984 the Board of boning Adjustments approved iitxativae .Revieat No, 64-13 in conjunction with Conditional Gception go. 64-20 permitting the Oonstruction of a 566772 square ot bidietl offict building with 876- parking spaces which is 47 1 eking spa ge less thin the amount required' by code. The BSA s0 Iii a0#16 sal of the Conditional Hats-option No. 84-20 on the oonalusiona of the parking demand study submitted by the applicant. tii, 'AZA's •-alpproval was appealed by Dr . mail Freidman, owner of the Winter Oedipal Complex located at the southeast corner of Newman Avinue a Q Desch Boulevard. The arppellan�:'e medical offiam �m$ld*ng, sun�$Pgtan Inter-Comwunit}r., Hospita►1, an existing four iltol affl4d 6*iladi,ng adjacarnt to thi hospital and the applicant's PtOP064HP buildipaq all share an integrated; circulation system comma rig of 'ptivate drives vith Ontry and exiting off Moth Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue. The parking lots for the buildings are connected through a private roadway system which from a practical standpoint creates a shared parking situation. After the appeal wa►o filed t1,e Department of Development Services staff evaluated the entire medical complex and found than a stantial parking deficiency existed* viewing all of the faclUtiws served byy the Integrated circulation system as one project from a parking demand standpoint, resulted in a parking deficiency of Ply *pacts. This includes an estimated parking deficiency of 50 spa*** an the oppelanto parcel. Staff, after gowiaeving the entire site, requested) that the applicant and hunt1h9ton •Inter-Community �1d1 ) -3- August 23, 1984 r. r Pospital coordinate in an attempt to gain additional parking through tefesign of thw parking lots which are under control of the hO tale MOSS late which include all of the lots except the appellants were -redesigned by the architects for the hospital and a total of 88 parking spaces mere gained, k fbil ►lioaut's traffic consultant was the-. requested to re-assess r• ; t 0 ptrktaq an the entire site and concluded that with the 64141tionol $6 spades the parking deficiency on the applicants projoat and peas Nospital Mould be reduced to approximately 89 i spaofts and the cv4kall amount of parking proposed would satisfy poskimg demand for all, Of the medical facilities. Its addition to assing 86 parking spades, the re•,iced site plan prepared by the a ltal's arohit6ct includ4s other measures which will Improve parking for the hospital and other medical facilities in the vicinity. Hard to find parking areas south of the existing four story medical building and to the east of the hospital will be designated for employee parking. Imployeas will not be allowed to use the more assessable parking areas within the complex. Also shown on the site plan are two parking areas which will have a two hour time limit. This will increase the available amount of short term parking for the hospital and medical facilities. The Planning Commission considered the appeal on July 24 , 1984 and substained the 8ZA' s action, however, the conditions were added rmuirins that another parking study be submitted to the Department of Development Services when the proposed medical building is at sixty percent 600 occupancy and . 1 this traffic study finds that additional on-site parking is required the applicant in cooperation with X00ana Hospital shall provide tide add i t i^nal spaces prior to permi0ing additional occupancies over the 601 figure. i f„-," -STAIRS: On Nay the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Negative Declaration No. 84-6 for the proposed project. Not appl i cable 1.kPT2 t AC _ 1. 8ubstain than action of the Planning Commiksion and approve Conditional Exception No. 84.28 with findings and conditions as recommended or revise the findings and conditions as deemed appropriate. Z. Deny Conditional Exception No. 84-28 an the basis of the aippeal submitted by Sir . Neil Freidman. SUFF('4TING INFORMTION s I. lap iing Commission staff Reports and Minutes 2. Letter from appellant ,dated August 1 , 1964 3. Cenditions of Approval CNTYJ"Ogsa jh (1078d) -4-• August 23 , 1904 i -,.� r ' `� r :7�. •: � yc _ ��, � �,1 4.4 _ I y•"•• y +. !i77 ± t r 1`n a r , y r a• 1, ,. r; '4 � fY. ',� �! Y y •i oil —7 r�r¢r ',1'! ,�il i •T•!y f'•Ii • ' i yyy�4yyyD Vi f 00 rl4, ��+1r'1q'.f title , �tir,y M 4 e.. '•r.olr•�rr- „.. � rw....,Y,..w4` n.ri'. •. r .r . . V - 1. ;�. • lam•' • 4sunotbWen peach developmw t sorvices department f f ORT_ �• like or WX IT 1C► AL over � lfQ. � -2 6 gicAlif i. 14th Street hr' hitects, rne, DATA IACCXUA t 1 vlowpott 604eh, CA. dun* 10 1984 t Moil A. rr iedman H%NDATORx PROCESSING DATR I r B.itector, out-Pat3:ent surgtty Center July 31 , 1984 t: 17752 Boac►k 1Blvd. r; Huntington Beach# CA 92647 20.0$ R5 8Ta To permit a 47 space reduc- GE -RAL PTaAN tion In the required amount of parking . Office Professional + : South side of Newman AV*. , BXISTYNC TrSEs appruxisately 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Vacant 2 .36 acres .''_. TION't lip, r000m"nft that the Planning Commicgion . sustain the a'ction of `V.Noar4 oft ,$oning Adjustments and approvo Conditional Exception No. 2 gob bt to ,sodifled findings and wnditions contained in soction .6400 001% 23d 19►8� , the Board of loving Adjustments approved �►Atsl410trative Rtview No. 84-13 in conjunction wAth ConditLonal "'ftotion w*. 4-26 permitting the oonstiuction of a 56, 772 equate foot medical efficaa building on 2. 36 acres of property loepted on the south side of Yonan Avenue , approUmately 200 feet yeast of Beach 3oule4ard. Coaditianal 3xceptiion No. 84-28 was approved grantiimg a 47 space reduction in the required amount of parking for the proposed ■odiml, building A9ft A"FU-026 No -- - =MWO + .I r.r'1,i On June 1 , 1984 , the Department of Development Services received the attached letter from Nell A . Friedman, appealing the Board of Zoning Adjustments approvbl of Conditional Exception No. 84- 28. 3. 0 ' RNVI AONMENTAL STATUS : On May 23 , 19840 the Board of Zoning Adjustments adopted Negative Declaration No. 84-6 for the proposed project« 4. 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE , ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS : Sub eci ro rt : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : *. Office Professional zotm: R5 (office Professional) VND USE : Vacant South of Subject Propertyi . ' GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION :• Offi.ee Professional ZONE: R5 Office Professional) LAND USE : 4 Medical offices/hospital Went of Sub ect Property : GZNBRAL PLAN DESIGNATION : office professional ZONES R5 (Office Professional) LAND USE : Medical office East of Subject Property: GIMERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Office Professional ZONE : R5 (office Professional) U%HD Um s Parking lot North of subject Prol2ertyt I GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Medium Density Residential ZONS _ R5 (Office Professional) , R3 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE t Apartments S.0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The major issue oons ide red •by •the Board of Zoning Ad jus ta:e-sits regarding Conditional Exception No . , 84-28 is whether the amount of parking proposed for the new medical building is sufficient to satisfy parking i don" for the facility. Fursueant to Article 979 of the Ordinance Code# the pecking ratio required for medical office buildings is one space for every 175 square feet of gross fluor area. The medical cffice building ' s pharmacy •atnd other commercial uses have a required ratio of one space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area . Tt* required amount of parking far the proposed medical facility in as foIlows : �2- 7 -10-84 - P.0« Use Within Building Square Feet Parking Required Medical Offices 39 , 972 228 Nautilus Rehabilitation 15 , 600 89 Pharmacy 11200 6 Total : 323 Total Provided 276 The Board of Zoning Adjustments based its approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-28 (granting a 47 space reduction in the required amount of parking) on the . conclusions of the attached parking demand study submitted by the applicant. The parking study data is based on survey information gathered through observatiun of similar medical office and hospital sites in the County . The study concludes, based on the survey information , that "an average peak parking demand of. 233 vehicles is anticipated", . The study recommends 15% more spaces be added in addiO.on to the peak demand figure adjusting the total demand to 267 parking spaces for the new medical office facility. According to the par king ' sto.dy, the 267 - vehicles at peak demand can be � adequately accommodated by the 276 parking spaces proposed on the site pinn. The study goes on to conclude that " the type of medical specialist that will own the building generally service fewer office patients than the typical practicianer since more time is spent in surgery and hospital visitations" . This, according to the study, is added justification for a reduction in the required amount of parking . The appellant, ter. Friedman, owns the medical office building located adjacent to the subject site at the cornea of Newman Avenue and Beach Boulevacd. The appellant clairi that 0 . . , to construct the project with 50 parking spaces below the code requirement . . . will severely impact on the parking situation in the general Area as well as affect significantly, the already! compromised parking in my facility" . The appellant' s medical office building , Huntington Inter-Community Hospital, the existing 4 -story medical office building adjacent to the hospital and the subject site all share an integrated circulation system consisting of private drives with entry and exiting onto both beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue. The parking lots for the buildings are connected through a private roadway system which , from a practical standpoint, creates a shared parking situation. Viewed as one project, the total parking requirement for all of the #ftvt mentioned medical facilities would be as follows: � 3- 7-10•-84 - P.C. T-- "y,r W.* 74 care Required Parking ParkiL Use Feet R o _ R equ red Proposed medical Building 56, 772 1 sp./175 sq. ft. Grh - Medical 1 ep./200 sq. ft. GFh - Retail 323 Hospital 1 op./bed (141 beds) 1 op./300 sq. ft. GFA -• offices 161 4-Story Medical Building 78 , 360 - 1 up./175 sq. ft . GFA 448 Appellant' s Building 35 , 662. : 1 sp./175 sq. ft . GFA 204, Total: 1, 13 6 The total amount of perking provided for all of the existing and proposed facilities at the time of BZA approval was 909 spaces. If all of theme -facilities were viewed as one project from a parking demand standpoint # the project at the time of BZA consideration had a parking deficiency of 227 spaces. Staff has regaesRted the applicant ' s traffic consultant to access parking demand for the entire site using the sane methodology as was presented in the report prepared for the BZA assessing the new medical office facility. Using that methodology, the consultant has prepared a revised• traffic report (attached ) . According to the traffic consultant, the average peal. parking demand for the entire site is 651 vehicles. With the 15% overage factor, the total number of parking spaces recommended by the traffic consultant for all of the 'medical facilities in question is 979 spaces. Staff , after reviewing the entire site , requested that the applicant and Huntington Inter-Comman ity hospital coordinate in an attempt to gain additional parking thtough redesign of the parting lots which are under the control of the, hospital . Those lots which include all lots except the appollant' s, contained 759 spaces prior to redesign. They parking requirements for the uses served by these lots (all uses excluding the appellant' s) is 932 spaces. The architects for the hospital and proposed medical office building , through restri,ping , addition of compact car spaces, and reorientation of aiisles, were able to provida a total of 847 spaces, a total gain of 88 spaces. (Refer to site plan for CUR 84-16 . ) The traffic oonsultant' s estimate of parking demand for the entire site ( including the appellants site) would require 979 spaces. The total amount of packing provided' in the redesigned parking lots (847) plus the packing In - the appellant' s lot ( 150 ) in 997 spaces. The 997 spaces -4- 7-10-84 - P .C. • �+-mow,,,, : are 139 spaces less than the amount required in the zoninq ordinance ( ljlWj and 18 spaces more than the amount of parking necessary to pcovi.de: for peak demand (979) , according to the traffic consultant. :n Addition to gaining 88 parking spaces, the revised site plan includes other measures which will improve the parking situation for the hospital and other medical facilities in the vicinity. Hard to find parking areas south of the existing 4-story medical building and to the east of the hospital. , will be designated for employee parking . Employees will not be allowed to use the more act:essible parking areas within the complex . Also shown on the site plan are two parkinq areas which will have a two houx:• time limit. This will increase the available amount of short term parking for the hospital and medical facilities. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION : : Staff recommends that the- Planninq Commission sustain the Board of Soninq Adjustments' approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-28 with th& following findings and conditions of approval. I'INDIMS FOR APP ROVAT, t . 1. A traffic demand report has been submitted justifying the basis !� of a reduction in number of parking spaces. �! 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 84--28 will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other *)top^rties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification: 3. The granting of a conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classif i ra tion. 4 . The granting of the Conditional exception will not adversely affect the General plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 5. parking lots cn the subject site and adjacent property will be redesigned to gain .a minimum of 88 parking spaces . CONDITIONS OF APPRMAL: 1. A revised site plan showing the circulation and parking layout shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Oevelotment Service's prior to issuance of building permits. 2 . The uses within the proposed structure are limited to those as outlined in the traffic demand study and as listed on the oonceptual site plan. Any modifications expansion or change of uoe shall require Qew entitlement and additional parking . -5- 7-10-84 - P .C. T: F• 3 . A review of the complex parking, as prepared by traffic consultant, stall be submitted wo the Secretary of the Board when vacancy fadtorr. reaches twenty (20) percent or lees. 4. Parking lot noadificatioans for the subject site and adjacent property owned by Humana shall be oompleted prior to issuance of building permits. ATTACH MENT d s ' 1. Area Map 2 . Approved site plan 3. Letter from Neil A. Friedman dated dune i, 1984 4 „ BZA May 23 , 1984 minutes S . 8ZA Conditions of Approval 6 . Letter from LRO Investments dated July 9 , 1984 7 . Origina.. Parking Demand Study dated May , 1984 8. Revised Parking StEidy dated July , 1984 JR9:j Im 0904d i I 1 ^-C^ 7-10-84 P.C. I 1 •,, (p' s MOM r+k 3 + A review of the complex parking , as prepared by traffic consultants shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board when vacancy factor.-. re;,.(,hes twenty ( 20) percent or less. 4. Parking lot modifications for the subject site and adjacent property vi,ned by Humana shall to completed .)rior to issuance of building permits. AlVhCH MBNT S s 1. Area Map 7. Approved site plan ' 3. Letter f.:om Neil A. Friedman dated June 1, 1984 4. BZA May 23 , 1984 minutes S. BZA Conditions of Approval 6. Letter from URO investments dated July. 5 , 1984 i 7. Original Parking remand Study dated May, 1984 a. 'Revised Parking Study dated July, 1984 JRB s j Lm 0904d , I -ti- 7-10-84 - P.C. I .� -iilbfl CV s cV I— �� j � .�, •s tr ABJPW Ia = CL a goo N ` I -Ir IRPI-D � . - :"" CL in r„i. . ,�• __ is , , � � 1��1 ... m U 7. �,u .._ . 1� r ma y.' . � �A ou • ^ I i � II ft e .r._..-.._...�.« Vim Q �L......._Sj� i•1.1 7�f.-_N11{� ..l i )M1.1�._...r-_ ®r i<d Foul- Ali -_ I rn-rwd4i-v iw 10-aoc-m IL �b J Thomas G. ,Harman Atlorry at I.oev �lot 21,W Main Sfiner, Su1We 170 �'.s,t,r'�fi Hwanoun Bdwh, Caftfornin 92648 (714; 536- 597 Augrust 1., .1984 Huntington Beach 'City' Cler): 2000 Y44r, St . Huntington Beakch;' Cat, .92648 Res' Appeal of Conditiorsal Exception No . 84-•28 Planning Commission Hearing bate=: July 24 , 1984 Dear sirs This office 'represents Dr. Neil Friedman who is thrs 60pellant in the above matter., - At the. July 24 , 1984 hearing of theHuntington Beach 'Planning commission, the Manning Commission overruled my client ' s appeal � of conditional exception No. 84-28 and granted it � subject to cettain conditions . Please accept this letter as notice on behalf of my client to appeal the decision .of the Planning Commission to the Huntington Beach 'Clty Council . -Ohe grounds` fog the appeal can generally be stated as follows ; 1 . There has been no shoring that a hardship* will be Imposed on th O applicant if it is compelled to comply with the minimum code 'ruguirements for parking. 2 . Granting a reducti6n . of 47 parking spar-,as below code 'requirements' will cause persons that should park in applicant) a lot to park in Dr. Friedman ' s lot. This tins the 'effect of shifting to Dr, Friedman ^pplicant' s parking problems anti is manifestly unfair. It imposes an unreasonable 'buruen and hardship on nr. Friedman. There is a current exi,ating shortage of parking when the erntire 'nedical " campus" is treated au a whole. To permit A reductinon of 47 spaces of required parking would only 44grAvabe the existing perking pniblem that exists on the mdical caxpus . No valid reason has been stated for .icparing the minimum parking standards imposed by tM 'code f ' i y 4. The applicant has failed to address the obvious aestion f the' need for the construction of parking structure . The size of applicant ' s building is simply too 1&rge for the lot on which the proposed building is to bps built . Sinwe the applicant cannot comply with minimum code requirements , a parking structure should be required. 5. The conditions imposed on the applicant by the Planning Commission , riarntly, that after the proposed building is 601 occupied, a new par:cing surrey must be submitted to City Staff for approval before the building can be further occupied is unworkable . At a 60% occupancy factor, the parking problem will not be at its peak level of intensitw. Mhxa.mum use of the parking facilities will not occur until the building is fully occupied. It will only be at that- time that the full magnitude of the problem will be manifested, and by then, it will be too late to correct the 'problem. Th - problem of inadequate parking should be raddreised and s6L%,ed now , not at some later date. X would request that the ;rearing of this appeal to- the Huntington Burch' City Council be placed on the Couacil ' s agenda for the date of September 41 1984 . I will be out of town on vacation on August 20 , 1984 and unable to attend the Council rreeiing to be held on that date if this matte: were placed on the agenda for that date. I have discussed this matter with both Mike Adams and Jim Barnes of the Planning Department staff, and they have both indicated to me that the September 41 1984 date would be acceptable to them due to an overload of work and shortage of staff perscnnel in their department . I would appreciate receiving confi rrration from your office that the September 4 , i9 84' date is acceptable for placing thia matter on the Council' s agenda . Very truly yours , THaMM G. HARMAH. 1 TCH f aunt I . -2- A WFI.M r.nlwrww lam, t; nn..�tir.y f+. ( f ■r.■.'•:'' .�'�I J (,E'!; 111 l ;1 l l l l i 11.1111 . _, r.ov.w ■Y I ,"a&WI Ire �r ■c�iiw 1■INI■Mq I ', I El 77 AL &A owl 1•■Yf■I ` 1 El V. r V d M 490 fkvfi 4•�r■r ����i1� MTSSEq KEN, ��r•. ram+ SC n■rrr niw t 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESUAY, DULY 24 , 1084 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PREEENT : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mi rj ahaM-)i r C014HI SSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM P.-2 : (Street Vacation within Huntington Harbour) 1 Chairman Porter directed staff to add that at the point that vacation - of the street takes place that it will take access into the adjacent tract and that the homeowners association be formed prior to approval of finall r:treet vacation. ITEM A-3: (Construction of a water well) = Commissioner Livengood commented that there have been problem6"- in the past with in.compatibility, however, in this ease the project is compatible- with the surraunding area. ON MOTI.ON BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE CON ENT*'CALLNri.R, CON 5I ST ING OF THE MINUTES CI' THE REGULAR W.ET ING OF DULY 10j, GVNERAL PLAN CONFORMANCES NOS. 84 -9 AND 84- 10 W.W AL'PkWED AS FOLLOW.: ; AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumadher, M.i.rjahangir -.Non6 ABWNT : Winchell, Erskine AHSTAA s Mane PASCLAR AGENDA ITEM$s • .+r- ���� ■may iyn�■ CONViTIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-28, APPEAL (Continued from 7-10-84 ) Applicant: 30tti street Archites oollant x N*L1 A. Friedman An sppeasl to the Board of Zoning 'Ad just ments' approval of a request to permit .at -47 space reduction in the required amount of parking � at• . property loeated on the south side of Newman Avenue , appr'6ximately 200 , q,r feet. east of Beach boulevard . .Tin+ Barnes indicated that staff was directed at the last meeting to combine the presentation of this item �•1 with the new request for expansion of Humana Hospital. (CUP 84 -16 ) , The Chairman agreed with this method , however , requested that the publ is hearinc,js be held separately. Mike Adams pointed out that the staff was treating the medical build my site and the Humana Hospital as one parcel , that the lines on the map ` are lease lines, and that no division into separate parcels has been recognized by the City. Some discussion took place regarding the review of the medical facility ' s parking and occupancy rate stated in one of staff' s proposed conditions. The Chairman reopened the public f hearing on the appeal item. Toni Harmon, representing Dr. Friedman , the ap�.ellant , made his presentation. He asked that the Commission consider the existing situatior. with parking ; he did not aqree that a reduction in parkinq should be allowed. He passed photographs, take: at various hours of the day, to the Commissioners for their. perusal. He reiterated the need of a parking structure . He did not feel theme was any provision for future expansion. Harold Graham, representing the applicant , 30 th Street Architects , stated for the record that he agreed with the proposed conditions of approval . Me said his project was designed to allow for 24 doctors to park near the building - that the purpose was to keep the doctors whc use the- hospital facilities to have their offices close-by. He did not think that- parking would be so inadequate that people would use the- ,} appellani ' s parking lot. He said that his plan provided more parking than other, medical, offices in the general surrounding area . fie further stated that Dr. Friedman' s property would be ecreei ed sufficiently from the proposed medical facility. He concluded by aayi ng that they have tried to comply with the City ' s conditions in good faith and deserve an opportunity to move ahead with the project. Lynette ,Curva►ntes of Van Dell and Associates (aui, hors of the parking study) , - stated that after looking at the de,ta, t1%e problem seemed to be in distribution of parking ( she thouq ht Lhat if employees parked in the rear of the hospital it would mitigate any potential problems) and not necensarily lack of parking . She said the study her company completed was -,n the "worst vase" senario. She said with restriping there would be 9711 parking spaces for the entire complex . . Richard Sl.00mingthal, apoke in opposition of the appellant and in favor of the applicant, 30th Street Architects. He said that the parkins, study was submitted by the applicant as requested by staff, and that it was a qualified parking survey. He quoted Section 9815. 1. 2 which status that a person filing an appeal to a BZA decision must show reasons for his appeal, he did not agreed that the appellant had * dcne this. Fuf'ther, he did not agree that there was a problem with parking at the present time, nor did he foresee any situation in' the future of a parking ' problem. hick Thom spoke in favor of the appeal by Dr. Friedman ; against the approval of the project by the SZA . He felt that a parking structure . 2- 7-24 -64 - P .C . was necessary and would be good tc r the whole community . fie did not agree that a survey could be sufficient to base a reduction in parkirx3 on, e.%vecially when van Dell was hired by the applicant to do the study. H a felt that, naturally, they would submit a report favorable to their client. Two other member; of the audience spoke in favor of the appeal ; against the approval of the pro jeet, Arnold Angeneis (a dentist) and George Nir;hi (?� merchant in the area) , both stating the need for more than the proposed amount of parking . The public: hearing was closed. Commisslon discussion begcn with Commissioner Higgins who stated that he wouIld hate to grant an exception with a reduction in the required amount of pz;rking and then find out that parking was inadequate . He favored a condition where a parking structure would be required at 50 % occupancy if it was determined at that time that a structure would be necessary. He said another alternative would be for the applicant to consider purchasing the adjacent vacant land for additional parking . Ms, Cervar. L-es said t!iat this alternative was not discussed with the applicants only the alternative of a parking structure which would be a joint effort between the applicant and Humana Hospital . Kr. Graham stated that the hospital did nct own the vacant parcel referred to by Commissioner Higgins. Commissionex Schumacher Stated that she did not feel comfortable act . on the appeal itew before the hospital expansion item which was next on the agenda. Staff pointed out t !+at with the expansion of the hospital , no parking increase would be I required by code ; this because parking would be attached to an increase in beds and this was not the case . There was a riancensus' to change the f 801 occupancy finure c_i the proposed condition to 60% + Chairman Porter stated that a condition was necessary that parking be provided if there was a creed for it and that if it was necessary that it would be up to the applicant to work out some arrangement Witt] Hcsmana Hospital to provide that parking . Commissioner Schumacher stated that she did not think Humana Hospital would allow a shortage in parking i.o happen without doing something about it . Staff recommended that the Commissioners add a condition to require that a parcel map be filed. Commissioner Livengood suggested that the parties responsible for the required amount of parking be spelled out in the conditions of approval . ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS ' APPROVAL OF' CMI TI ONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84 -28 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE PO;,LOWIWG VOTE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1. The parcel inq of the property with lease lines and the ex istinq lmyout of buildings and circulation system create exceptional circumstances that do not generally apply to property or uses in the some dibt:rict. 2. -rho granting of this conditional exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. -3- 7 -24-84 P .C . .ter • x •1 I '1 _S . Th, lt. n& F) C_ villl itot be mat.erI a V. Jq: _ri -PU-nLa1 Lo tie pub:l item.;'iZ, safety and Wel t' r ', . � 111,►:. !':.C115 to tho Conforming 1,Arid, property o ►.' ri `hk7(: he ty or w►hic-h ouch r Ooildi tior►,al excer,ti on is sought . w . The apulirai'o is will any acid able to carry out the purposes for whi.rh the con,iiti.onal exception is sought ; that ),e will pror;eed to do '.n e,'-i thc'at onnecu .sary delay . C ONT)1 :'IONS Or- APi'R,."!tlAL : 1 . A re vz:,cd. E;i to plan showing the ci rc.ul.aLi.nn and parking iayou t integrating the two ad-jaceiit pro'ect areas, Chall include identitication of handicapped parking spaces to meet State standard , and shall be submitted to and approved by the .Vpartme: LIE Dt-% lopment: Sarviceq prior Lo issuance of building s. The Uses within the proposed structure dre li[nir.,od to those as outlined in the t: 1 of f is demand s tud;1 and as listed on the vj;ceptual site plan. Any mod iticattons , expansion of buildings or chi{rige of use shall. raqu? re new entitlement anei additional par k.i nq . 3 . A review of the complex parking , as prepared by a traffic consu . tant, shall be submitted to the Department of. Development afervic. 's when the proposed development is 60 percent full. Such, .a study shall be i.nden(-ndentlyt prepared under contract to the City at the ;.:pp.l.icant ' s expense. If this traffic study iir dz that: additional onsi to parking is requi !ed, the applicant, in cooperation with Hurl na Hospital , shall provide the,. additional spaces necessary in a parking structure. 8tLU0t-!rF e.esign and location shall rye Subject to review and upp:c,1 ''l by the Planning C Omission prior to the permit-tinq of a9ditic.,«k occuriancies over the 60 percent figure . 4 . Packing lot'. ,vilifications for the subject site and adjacent propel ty owned by Hul:l�rla anall be completed prior to issuanct- cf a c - rtifi crate of occupancy. in addition, the applicant sha,U l repare a parKinq ;phasing plan showing future parking structures and i:heir locations with a draft agreement entitling Homanb 11cr-Pi to11 ?.id the Center Medical Compelx to participate in any future parking proposal in order to satisfy any future expanL icon neat ds. The apt ' .chit shall file a parcel map, and condominium 'plah- if necessary, with the City . This map shall be approved and recorded prior to the isejance of any building permits. AYUS : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher , M; r jahanai. r 14M S: Mone ABStNT. winchelle R enkine A©STAIN : None M4- ` —2. .-g 4 - P .0 . t� E.iL CONDITIGNS OF APPROVAL : CONDITION"L EXCEPTION NO. 84-28 1. A revised s1ce plan showing the circulation and parking lAyout shall be subiviLted to and approved by the Department of Development SeLvices pi: iur to issuance of building permits . 2 . Thn uses within the propomed structure are limited to those as outlined in the traffic demand study and as listed on the conceptual Site plan. Any MOdifiCAtion, expansion or change of use shall require now entitloment and additional parkiuq . 3 . A review of the complex parking , as prepared by traffic consultant , shall be submitted to Lhe Secretary of the Board when vacancy factor reaches twenty (20) percent or less. 4 . Parking lot modifications for the subject site and adjacent property owned by Humana shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits . Y f , t � r � W'Mte Superior Court STAT90F VAI.IFORNiA Ito and for Om County of 0rungs � jr CITY OF HUN'TINGTON BEACHr CITY CLERK �1 LA10 F(IF PTID .IC-AZ-19N _ Public Hearing AR 83-75 State of California ) Rita J. Richter That I altl and at atl times herein mentioned wan a citizen of the United States,aver the age of twenty-one years,and that I am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; that l am the principal clerk of tho printer of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INE)- REVIEW a vewapsper of gemeral c:rctietion, published in the City of HUNTiNGTON BEACH County of Oranp and which newspaper to published for the diseminatioc of lace)n*Vn and intell°genre of a general charge- ter, and which am"paper at all times herein mentioned had and still has It bons fids subscription list of paying subscribers, sad which hE•y*paper has been established, printed and pub• llshed at telpilat intervals in tine said County of Orange for n period ertnredins on* year, thaw the notice, of which the annexed is a printed ropy, has been published in the rrgular and entire imme of said newspaper.and not it any supplement thereof.on the folJmWDg dates, to wit. Mel y 10, 1984 I certify(or declare) under perWty of perjury that the forrgo- ing is tnss and asrrect. Dated at............Gar4en.GraVie... ............... Cal rftla�,ht� ... yof ..May ...1g�..... J. Richter l :. •\ M. ............0....... ...... . Form No.r a a S . My • CITY OF HUNTINGTC3N BEACH MW peg MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 6, 1984 Chevron USA, Inc. P. 0. Box 2633 Le Habra, CA 90631 Attn: T. E. Baumgartner 'the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at ite ragular meeting held Monday, Junes µ, 23984 conditionally granted your appeal re:let.ive to Conditional exception #84-12 and Administrative Review 083-75, If you have any questions, please call the Development Services Dept. - 536-5271. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark AMW:CB:,je cc: James Patin - Development Services Departmowit iTdwMw-71"040" 4W w • ' 1 mP®R;v, pm,NaZ A', IL �. CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH 2DOO MAIN STPE.E l" CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE= OF. THE CITY CLERK May k2 , '984 Chevron USA, Inc. i P. 0. Box 2833 Le Hahep, CA 90631 Attn: T . E. Baummactner The CityCouncil of the City of Eluntin tan Beach at its reau.lar meeting Y 9 9 i held Monday, May 21 , 1981s , approved your request for continuance of your appeal to June 4, 1.9114. 'the Council meeLing begins at 7 : 30 P. M. in the Council Chamber, 2000 Main Street.. IT' you have any questions, please call this office 536-5405. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:je 49 IT* phamp 714 2 1 ! r + :M • Chmm !A A. Inc, Mail Address: PA Box 2833, La Habra, CA 9D631 • Ptioiie (213) 694- 7473 12i11 ^oath�h Fuulnnrd, l e 11;ibri,Cr«jfurnw U00*4 D9,1WtMnt May 1 .5; .1984 Conditional Exceptlon No. 34-12 Administrative Review No. 83-75 Service Station B02-94887 Warner and Golden West HuntipStvn Beach California City Council City of Huntingto„ Beach PW 0. Box "' Huntingto►r Beach, California 92648 Council Members: Reference Is made to our request for an appeal to the Planning Commission dental of CE #94-12 and cartial denial of AR #83-75. Said roat•ter has been scheduled for a public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 21, 1984. We find that the May 21, 1984 date Is in conflict with anther activity that we have scheduled. Therefore, please accept this letter as our formal request to postpone said public hearing until the City Council's next regi dar meeting on June 4, 1984. Very truly yours, CHEVRON U.S.A, INC. r• T. E. Baumgartn r Property Managem t Specialist TEB:sb REOUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION May 9 , 193A1 Submktdd to: Honorable Mayor aad City Council $ubm�fted bV: Charles W. Thompson , City Administrator 1, 11rqwW by: Jan-es W , Palin. Director of DeVelopnent Services CONDITIONAL rXCEPTION No . b-,.-12 - APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE R.'EVIEW NO, - APPEAL Stets-imm of inue, R&.vmmwdation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alwnstive Actions, Attechnimits: STATEMENT OF ISSUE; Transmittal for your consideration are appeals t,) the Planning Cc,-,Lmissiori' s denial of Administrative Review No. 83-75 , Reque3t No . 11 to permit a security kiosk, and Conditional Exception No . 84-12 , a request to allow the kiosk to be located within the 50 foot setback . RECObMNAT ION; The Planning Comissllon and the Planning staff recommend that the City Council uphold the Planning Comission and the Bonrd of Zoning Adjustments ' denials of Admini3trdLtive Review No . 83-75, Requer-t No. 1 , and Conditional Exception No. 84-12 . It is also recommended ti.iRt the City Council adopt the findings for denial . ANALYSIS : Applicant: Chevron, USA Inc . Appellant: Chevron,, USA, Inc. 1201 South Beach Boulevard P .O. Box 2833 La Habra , CA 90631 RLeauest : To permit a security kiosk within the 50 foot setback Location: Southwest coiner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street ., Planning Commission action of April 244 1984 : ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION UPRELD THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING AD3USTMENTS IN DENYING THE APPEAL TO REQUEST NO . I OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-75 ('ISM REQUEST TO ALLOW A KIOSK TO ENCROACH INTO TFE REQUIRED SET- BACK) AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 84-12 161TH THE FOLLOWING rximmas , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE P104AN CA 34-12/AR 83-75 ApiAl Any 9, 084 Page 2 FINDINGS : 1 ,, The applicant is unable to demonstrate hardship . 2 . The kiosk can be relocated to acconinodate all of the appli- cant' s present and future needs within the main structure , which would provide the securit:y and observation of the Pump operation . 3 . As the subject property can � re-establi.shed r.,eeting code- required setback, such a variance .4..9 not necessary for the preservation an(I enjoyna.-i-it- of substantial property rights . AYES: Winchell, L'_venqood , Porter, Erskine , Schumacher NOES: Higgins , hirjahangir ABSENT- None ABSTAIN : None DISCUSSION: Chevron USA, Incorporated filed an application for Administrative Review No . 83- , 5 to permit a security kiosk and relocation of an exisCing canopy and pump island , Administrative Review No . 83-7.5 was filed pur- suant to S . 9481 . 3 and was processed in conjunction with Conditional Ex- ception No . 84-12 to permit the kiosk to be located within the 50-foot seti)ck, a nequest for variance from S. 9471 . 4 . 1 . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code allows service stations at inter- sections of major and primary highways or freeway offramps and major or primary iiite-sections . All requireme.-,-,;s of the service station stand- ards and of the base zone district apply . The existing site is also subject to a 50-foot building setback from both Warner Avenue and Cold- enwast Street. In addition, PUMP islands may be located no close-- than 15 feet to front and exterior side yards , and canopies may be located no closer than 7 feet to front and exterior side yards . The service station standards do not specifically reference kiosks ; therefore , such structures are subject to the base zone setbacks. After considerable discu3sion of the applicant' s reasons for relocating the pump island and canopy and insta. ,Jng a security kiosk, the Dioard of Zoning Adjustments at its meeting of March 14 , 1984 did agree that the use of the property would remain the same but no hardship existed to allow the kiosk to encroach 23 feet into the 50-foot setback. The Board felt that if the pay booth were located within the main s-6ructure the present and future needs for the sire would be provided. By a majority vote , the Administrative Review No . 38-75 request for kiosk (Request No. 1) and Conditional Exceptlon No. 84-12 were denied. A representative for Chevron , Inc . addressed the Commission and advised that the proponed kiosk is a new pre-pay concept initia, .d by the com- pany, During the past year, 113 units are in operation , 10 of which kt' r` f+ pp i%r CZ 84-12/AJR 83-75 - Apt Ni are inside a main bui.ldyng . These 10 ur,its , although less expensive ! to install , are not as successful because customers find them incon- venient to use. He indicated a finding of hardship could be based on extra travel diatance for paying r-ustomer.s and decreased sales volume to Chevron because o .c customer dissatisfaction . AJ.though Commissioner Higgins , with CommJ ssi.oner Mirjahangir ' s con- currence , requested a continuance to allow staff time to review and draft changes to the code to allow thq proposed structure , the consensus of the Coimission was that no hardship had been proven and approval would detract from the existinq site . FUNDING SOURCE : Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Council may choose to reverse the Plannii_g Commission ' s action and approve Conditii:'nal Exception No . 84--12 and Administrative Review No. 83+-7S with the suclgested findincrs and conditions : a FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Or C. E . 84-12 : 1 . The granting of the conditional exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification , 2 . Because of special circum•,�tances applicable to the subject property including size , shape , topography , location, or surroundings , the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges onjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. 3 . The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to pre3erve the enjoyment of ors: or more substantial property rights . 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 84-12 will not be iwtteri,ally detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classifications . I S. The granting of the conditional exception will :.ot adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. SUGGESTED CONDITXONS�OF APPROVAL -- A.R. 8 3 78 7 5�EQUEST NO. 1) I. The site plan received February 28 , 1984 shall be the approved layout.. 2. Landscaping shall comply with F. 9482 .1 .1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code. 3 . The development shall comply with all applicable previsions of the ordinance code, Building Division , and Fire Department. CE 84-12/AR 83-75 -- APL 11 Hay 9, 034 Page ,4 4 . The major identi.ficatio-t sign shall be reimaired or altered to comply with Article 94H within ninety ( 90) dny5 of approval . 5 . Al':l signs shall comply with hrt:icles 448 and 976 or the Hunt1.r�gt:vri Beach Ordinance Cade . 6 . Proposed atruQt:ures shall be archi.t.e`t:17.rally cc-npatible with exist- ing atructures. 7 . All building spoils , such as unusab Urt l unber. , wire , pipe , and other surplus or unusable material shall he dispot�ed c:f at c,n offsite '► facility equipped to handle them. 8 . A kno:: box shall be install c-d. Advertising or ai,�.iage on the proposed kiosk shall be prohibi trod . SUPPORTING INFORMAT ION: 1 . planning Commission minutes 2. hrea Map 3 . Site plan 4 . Letter of Appeal 5. Board of Zoning Adjustments minutes CWT.-JWP :SP:df i I �j i 1 i� chevm Inc. ` Mail Address: P.C. Box 2833, La HGbra, CA, 90631 - Ptime (213) 694744,5 1201 Sifutn OrWh finuiKvanf, L'n Hatim, Cdfrf:fwo MarlcatJns f)e�pelre,�,tt May 1, 1984 Conditional "xcepilon Nod Admb)1st.ative Review No. 730,: . -4 Service Station B02-94887 ,p4 ;�-C Warner and Golden Rest ftuntln tan• Beach,OdifornlP •� �" City Council City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Callfornta 92648 Cr,uncil Members: At the Huntington Beach Planning Commission hearing on Aprii 24, 1934, our Conditional Exception and Adminstrative Review was denied for alarement of a 24 hour, full .security kiosk at the subject service station. We understand that ,,he basis for their denial was that we couid. not derr_vnttrate hardship to allow the proposed kiosk to encroach into the 30 foot building setback. We feel that our request is reasonable becaurc the size and Impact of the proposed flask Is relatively small, (72 square feet) more important, however, is that we are being donled a use of our property which has been granted to several other buslnesses In the immediate vicinity. They are: 1. World Savings and Loan building located 200 yards west of our service station site or the same side of Warner Avenue encroaches Into the 30 foot setback by 24 feet. (Appro>drnate:y 3,500 square foot building). 2. La Plaza Mexican Restaurant located on the west side of Golden direst, 200 feet from the intersection of Warner Avenue encroaches 23 feet into the 30 foot setback (App. 6,000 square foot building), 3. The Bank of Westminster located on the east side of Golden West 130 yards from the Intersection of Warner Avenue encroaches into the 50 foot setback by 22 feet (Approximately 2,300 square foot building) all of these buildings are massive in size compared to our proposed kiosk. The addition the proposed kiosk will provide 24 hour full security to the station personnel, enable more efficient operation by our deale) and provide a 24 hour net-tied service for the community of iuntington Beach. We are proposing to set said klosk dr.tl preset pump !gland on Warner Avenue further away from the property lire than at present. We: feel that our request is veaasonabie. We have further noted. that three other property owners In the immediate area have been granted the right to encroach Into the 30 foot setback, therefore, the City Council approval Is requested for our proposed layout modifk atlen. Very truly yours, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. By Property Managem 5peclalist ah y y ,a r^y, MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING, COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers Civic Canter 1000 Main Street ftuntington Reach , California TUESDAY, APRIL 24 , 1.984 - 7 :1.5 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: fiiggine , Winchell , Livengood, Porter , Erskine , Schumacher , Mirjaha►ngir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT : None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-13 Applicant: Sunco - Michael Jenkins A request to permit a greenhouse addition to a single-family dwelling to encroach one (1) foot into t:.e required five. (5) foot side yard setback on property located at 6561 Vesper Circle. micha►el Adams reported that this item had bean ,referred by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to the Commission . He prevented slifts describing t;� proposal , and indicated staff' s feeling that the addition c ild be made within the code requirements . The public hearing s opened . Mike Jenkins, appli ►nt, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He s, d that to build the addition within code constraints would ,an almost double the cost because such a structure would h� a to be custom designed, while the requested addition is a stp Gard, stock item. The room is intended only for growing plants and will not be a habitable area . Thor* were ni other persons to speak ,for or against the proposal , and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the proposed construction, including d"wasions and ceiling height, how access would be taken to the structure, and , hoight of adjacent fencing. ON NOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION ' 110. 84-13 WAS DENISD WrTH THE MLLOWIN'G FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING N S �r, ..,r. Minutes , H . B. Planning con nissi,on April 24 , 1984 , Page 2 c FTNDI NCS I . Although the property is irregular in cotifigorati.on , the ci. ze Of the lot satisfies the minimutr, size of 6 , 000 square feet and exceeds the minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet . 2 . Granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-13 would constitute a grant of special privilege: inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 3 . The subject property was 1 oqully subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with applicnble zoninq Laws . AYES : Higgins , 1,1inchell , Livengood , Porter , Erskine, Schumacher , Mir jahangir �.�• NOES: None ABSENT% None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 84-12/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO . 83--75 APPEAL Applicant: Chevron USA Inc. To permit a security kiosk within the 50 foot setback for an exist- ing service station located on the southwest corner of. Warner Avenue and roldenwest Street. Staff reported that the existing site is subject to a 50 foot build-- ing. setback from both Warner and Goldenwest; pump islands may be Located no closer than 15 feet and the canopy no' closer than 7 feet . There is a code provision all.o•4ing for encroachment into the setback provided extra landscaping is provided on a foot for foot basis , but the applicant has not requested that. option, Staff is recommend- � ing upholding the Board of Zoning Ace justments ' denial . I The public hearing was opened. I Lloyd Johnson, representing Che-.'ron, Inc . , addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He axplained that the proposed kiosk is part of a new pre-peer markeeti-,ig concept begun by his .company over the p4ot year. One hundred t,birteen of these units are in operation , 10 of which are inside the maid buildings . These 10 units , although less expensive for the company' to install , are not vorking out well because customers find them inconvenient to use. Mr. Johnson expressed his willingness to comply with the new sign code and to put in the extra planter area if granted the reduced Wback. He indicated that the finding of hardship could be based on the extra distanc* custorwrs would be required to travel and the decreased sales volume resulting to Chevron because of customer dissatisfaction, There were no other persons to speak to the matter, and the public hearing was cloMd. 't' -2- 4-24-84 - P.C. Mintttes, 11 . B . Planniny commission April 24 , 2984 Pane E Commissioner Higgins pointed out that this is a new type of operation occurr. my in new and remodeled service st.-at.ions , and suggested a concint)ance to allow staff time to study the caste and submit rec:onanendations or suggested changers to the ordin- ance: to acconunodate changes in market techniques . The Commission discussed the conditions of approval imposed by the: Boars; of Zoning Adjustments . Staff noted tilat even if the extra landscaping proposed by the applicant were installed the site still. would not comply to code in that;: regard . Possible traffic impacts from sight angle bloex,age and congestion were reviewed, as well as the comparative distances necessary for a customer to travel to either the proposer] kiosk or to a ' cashier' s pay booth installed in the mai.r, service station unit , Commissioner I .irjahangir concurred with Mr. Iliggins ' appraisal and favored a rontitivance ; however , the consensus of the Com- wission wae, that there was no proven hardship and approval would det:rzirt from the existing sites . ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 84-12 WAS DENIED AS NO LONGER REQUIRED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Winchell , Livengood , Porter, Erskine , Schumacher NOES : Higgins , Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMIt3SION UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS IN DENY- ING THE APPEAL TO REQUEST NO . 1 Or ADMINISTRA'1'IVF REVIEW NO . 83- 75 (THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A KIJSK TO ENCROA -H INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK) , 'WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1 . The applicant is unable to demonstrate hardship. 2. The kiosk can be relocated to accomtnodate ,all of the appli- cant ' s present and future needs within the main structure, e which would provide the ;security and observation of the pump operation 3. As the subject property can be re-established meeting code- required setback, such a variance .is not necessary -'or the preservation and 6Ajoyment of substantial property rights. AYES : Winchell , Livengood , Porter, Erskine , Schumacher NOES; Higginso Mirjahangir ABSRMs None ABSTA114 t Hone M3- 4-24- 84 - P.C. f6 Minutes, P . S . Planning commission A p 1 2984 r 11 2 4 page 4 The remainder of the Adminintrative Review 83-75 stand,,_4 as approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments . The aj:plicr:nt was advised of 77 T 7, the appeal period and procedure . CONDITIONAL USE PE :MIT NO . 84-9 82 licant : World Oil Market 4L A request to modify an existing gasoline station to a convenience store on property located alk.-I the scuowest cor'ner of Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street . A letter has been received from the, anplicajiL requesting a continu- ance of this request . ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CONDII110NAL USE PER- MIT NO . 84-9 WAS CONTINUED m TiIE MEETING Or .TUNE 5 , 1.984c AT THE RLQUEST OP THE APPLICANT, BY TH2 IFOLLOWING VOTE : 'hyrs Figgins , - Winchell , Liven-7cod, Pox-ter , Erskine , Schumacher , Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 140. 84-1 Applicant: The Architect' s Group A request to doxmit a 57 square foot freestanding sign and a 12 square foot garden wall sign on property located on the south side of Adams Avenue approximately 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard . Michael Adams .outlined the proposal and indicated minor modifica- tions to thin staff. report . Counissioner Schumacher noted that the approval of the Seabridge Specific Plan within which the subject project is located had been conditioned to require a planned sign program for the cverall "development, and gaestioned the consideration of a special sign Permit to grant an exception to sign standards which have not yet been established for the area. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Simon, representivig ths applicant, addressed the Commission to agree with the suggested conditions of approval except for the 40 foot setback from the entrance to the center. it was his feel- ing that no might impairment would result from locating the sign at t1.& location in which the applicant wishes to place it. He also said he had no objections to the preparation of a planned aLgrn -progras for the entire projerty however , he is not -�enrexent ing that developer and could not Initiate the prograza hinxelf. The public hearing was closed. i Y s, r huntington b*nch devaiopm,,.nt sorvices department %. Af f EPORIE TOO Planning, FROM : Development. Services DATE t April 17 , •t.9 r!4 CONDITIONAL EXCEM.'10N N(,) , 8 a -- 1. 2 . A"I'PiAL NDM1NISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. APPELLANT/LANT/ Chevron , USA , inc . !ATE h ,PTED: AvpLtCANT : 1201 1; . Beac'n Bolllev ar-1 P . U , noX 28�? [+parch a , 1.584 La Iiabra , Cii 90631 Nr NF).`�.TOF.Y pROrESSI h DATE : AE VEST: To permit a t:11,2 5") f:t . M-T : C4 , Highway T,OC'.AT?.t7N : SoUt:rZwr1^t c0',' i1c't,' Of Comm ercia) F�,Ici'r Zei rAvenu( and G(-)Id e nt;, t St:s er:t:, GENERAL PLAN : j ACREAGE: Comrnt_ rc. it EXISTING i US&'� ��r��i.c S to t.i.on i 1. 0 SU(l; 'STED ACTION : Uphold th-• Boa..- b of Z;onin(.j denial. oC Nd:ninistrative Rev::•. w No. 83 `5# Roquest_ 1i 1 , and Cr)neitional Exception No . 94•-12 based on the findings out:.+ ined in Section 6 . 0 . 2 . 0 GENERAL INF ORMAT'-0v : 4hevron U .S . n, . , Incorporated filed an application for Administrative Review No. 8J-75 to permit a secur;LLy kiosk and relocation of an existing canopy and pump istand . Administreit:ive tte : iew No. 83 - 75 was filed pursuant to S . 9481 . 3 and was processed in con jun l.-Jon with Conditional Exception No. 84-w 2 to permit the kiosk to he located within the 50 foot setback , a request for variance from .9 . 9471 .4 . 1„ The Board of Zoning Adjustments denied the kiosk and encroachment, but ap,,roved the canopy and pump island relocation . The applicant has appealed these denials. A•FW-23e A0� , i f•` 3. 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS : a Subject PropartY: OMPAL PLAN DESIGNATION : General Commercial 9 t C4 LAND USS: SetviCe station Nasth 01I Subject Property: MERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Ge�Ineral Commercial ' SM.- C 2 LAND USC: Commercial center with service station 89st of Subject Property : A IIAI 1 I 1 AI A• .� QRNXR&%L PLAN DESIGNATION : public Use ZONE= CF-E I-AND USE s Winter sburg High School South of Subject Property : GEINUR ►L PLAN DESIGNATION : High Density Residential ZONE: R3 LAND USE : Apartments West of Subject P::o e rty: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : General Commercial ZONE: C4 LAND USE : Commercial center 4 + 0 ENVIRUNKENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to Section 15103, Class 3 of the California t::nvironvental, Quality Act, no environmental assessment is required. 5 . 0 ISSUES AMD ANALYSIS: The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code al,ows service stations at intersections of major and primary highways or freeway offramps and major or primary intersections . All requirements of the service station standards and of the base zone district apply . The existing site is also subject to a 50 font building setback from bc.th Warner and Goldenwest. In addition, pump islands may be located no closer than 15 feet to front and exterior side yards, and canopies may be located no closer than 7 fe c ; to front and exterior side yards. The service station standards do not specifically reference kiosks; therefore# such structures are subject ject to the bass sore setbacks. Af er considerable discussion of the applicant's reasons for relocating they pmp island and canopy and irstalling a y,�Ocurity kiaske the Board j of Zoning Adjustments at its !*,feting of Match 14# 135-1. A4.A �+c:r#xA tha:-. _2- . r r the use of the property would remain the same , but no hardship existed to allow the kiosk to encroach 23 feet into the 50 foot setback. The Hoard felt that if the pay booth were located within the main structure, the present and future needs for the site would be provided. By a majority vote, the Administrative Review No. 83-75 request for kiosk (Request 01) and Conditional Exception No. 84-12 were denied. ' In the letter of appeal , the applicant refers to three commercial uses which encroach into the 50 foot oetbacks on Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street . It should be noted that nommercial uses such as a bank, restaurant, or retail sales buildings may encroach Into the 50 foot setback provided one foot of landscaping is provided for each foot of encroachment (S. 9432 . 6 , 5) . This provision has not been applied to the service station site. 6.0 1tECON KENDATION : Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustments ' denial of. Conditional Exception No . 84-12 and Administrative Review No. 83- 75 ( Request #1) based oi, the following findings : FINDINGS FOF. DENIAta 1. Applicant Ls . ,►able to demonstrate hardship. 2 . The kiosk car) be relocated as to accommodate all of the applicant ' s present "and future needs within the main structure Which would provide the security and observation of the pump operation . 3 . As the E?Ibject property can be re-established meeting Code-required setback , suc,D a variance is not necessary for the pre atvat: ion and enjoyment: Jf substantial property rights . ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Area Map 2 . Site Plan 3 . Letter of Appeal 4 . Board of Zoning Adjustments Minutes •r i spsjlm 0S3Zd -3- :x - re t T - t RIml , pq 4i � Ri -__! RI - i�t Rt '11I RlRt �R! :A7i>rs� - ' �1C' Rl NFU -- -- — t— ---- A 1 / =1 " I _-• - _ , ----- - - -•! �" _ r a ' ..,tea -- L' R 2 o� 4 -} R � �_,+ ice �� -�ti. C2 `R3 ;� ��ii I fir---' • `��R3 I C4' 3� �CA�� '� R= WARNER LJ C4 RZ R 3 CF—E Ri Rl Rl R5 RI CF RI t ! RI ,�� i.: R1 +,I Pt RI FRI � RF,„_� A 1 Rl ----. f ;i�J�t _���_1+L_ i �T '- s--- " Ike t i.s r�l CF—E 1 f— m 1 M 1 E m I kZ� .,�. oil Rl ( �� I ~ Rl LRi ruva )a Rl i Rl Rl ! ( ) al i I ! �_? ;.� CF—i c`.. % Rl R 1 !?i i71 z' -�� ; RI I.i Rl r Rr -R1 co a F[t �. ''Rl' F -- ts RI--Ma: WCD IJ CE 844Z € A R 8 3 w75 ANN I"clolvallcm"N*^-m MUNTMIGTON BEACH PLANN NG DIVISION t Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Mail Address: P.O. l3nx 21133, Lsr 11uhra, CA 9UG31 • Phone (213) 69474?3 I ';►� ;, I+ i'pN CfC,1rCF1 �?fll in„1'r Nr!n4'h 4milrtidrd I a °bll i,r, I,drinrnr,r 1���; (_�• R r M8rk011"1000arl ni March 16, 1984 (JAR Conditional Exception No. -��i��ton M-101.1i, CA IV- AdministrAtive Review No. 83-75 5S B02-94887 Warner & Golden West Huntington Beachm California Secretary to the Planning Cominission City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 h;untington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: At their March 14, 1984 meeting, the Huntington Beach Board of Zoning Adjustments denied our application for a Conditional Exception and Administrative Review for the placement cif a full security kiosk at the, sub ect service station. We understand that the balls of their denial was that we could not show exceptional circumstances to allow the proposed kiosk to encroach in the 50 foot building setback area. We feel that rour request Is reasonable because the size and impact of the propc-.. zd kiosk is relatively small. More important, however, is that %ve are being denied a use of our property wF ich has been granted to several other bus! lesses in the immediate vicinity. They are: #1) The World Savings and loan Building loc-ated about 200 yards west, of our service station site on the same side of Warner Avenue encroaches Into the 50 foot setback by 24 feet. The building Is massive in comparision to our proposed kiosk. #2) The La Plaza Mexican. Restaurant located can the west sidle of Golden West Street, 200 feet frt,rn the Intersection of Warner Avenue encroaches 23 feet into the 50 foot setback, This addition to their faclllty contains a large number of tables arid again Is substantially larger than our proposed lrlosk. #3) The Bank of Westminster Ibcated on the east side of Golden West Street about J 50 yards from the Intersection of Warner Avenue encroaches into the 50 foot setback by 22 feet. Again this structure- is larger than our proposed kiosk. The addition of the proposed klusk will provide full security to the station employees, enable more efficient operation by our dealer and continue a needelj service for the community. We are proposing to set said kiosk -further away from the property line than the present pump Island and canopy. We feel that our request is reasonable. We have further noted that three other property owners In the immediate area have been granted the tight to encroach Into the 30 foot setback, therefore, Manning Commis3ion approves is requested for our proposed layout modification. Very truly yours, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. By7C6&_ &A Zaurngar tner TEBscijl Prcoerty Manager nt Specialist ' r OV ,r 1 .1.� J) � �x b�-- - -tom r'•:y_.. , __� ,,••� LLI •,. �;� • �, g ,r � ��E�IFIJEF. AJE. �r� •I Mo 49 ir oi Aki fi • � y 1 i .9 bil i I Age M! j OP. 1 � of}-� may,, ?II•r • � of 1 1 1 41nu Lee s H . B . Board of Toning Adjijstments March 14 , 1984 Fagg Five and eras told it would ,not he a problr.m as it was on. the street aide# although, they-do want, -to i ee a . set of drriwtincis .showing the encroachment. Mr. Falzon cited other tomes in the area with similar encroachments on Venture and Typhon Street. tie f-�It that to build over the entire garage is the most structurally a6und , aesthetically pleasing,, and economically feasible alternaJt ►e . There being no one else prepe"nt wishing t3 speak 3n favor or opposition of the applicant ' s xeques�, the public hearing was closed . Cor,.erns of the board we're discussed e.g . no intregrated flow into the main dwelling, po,snihil.ity of a rental, , no exception or extra- ordinary circumstJanco's applicable to the property , impact, halt-way access , aestheticsr o' f overhang, etc. A MOTTON WAS MADV, BY VINCENT AND SECOND 13Y SMITH TO APPROVE THE APPL1CAW S REgf1EST DFADLOCK VOTE AS F'OLLOWS : AYES : / Vincent , Smith NOES : J Godfrey , Evans ABSTAIN: None r � As the two members ware uilable to the _ 131, 11.cant ' s justification of hair ship, ttie i3o :rd referred conditional Cxc;cption No. t 4-11 to t_tj Planning Commission for hearing by the following voter AY ,S : �Ianc:ert, Smith, Godfrey, Evans N ; r.S. Nonc ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 84-12 In Con' unct_i.on with ADMINISTRATIVE REVTEW NO . 8:3--75 A22l icant: Chevron U . S .A . C . E. Requ.�st - To permit a kiosk to encroach twenty-three ( 23 ) ft. into fifty (50) ft . setback. A .R. Request -- 11 To permit the addition of a ti ft . x 12 ft . security ryaybooth , 2) Relocation of existing canopy and pump islanu . Site locatic- is 6972 Warner Avenue (south side of street) . Following introduct.;.on of hoth applications, Chairman Smith stated th,it the Conditlonal Exception is a Class , 5 and the Administrative Review is a Class . 3 , both categorically exempt under the Caliiurniar Environrnental Quality net of 1970. 5- 8ZA 3/14/8 4 "Emogejt r o, Mi nutes : 11 . 13 , S - . of Zoning Adjustments 1 Match 14 , 1984 page S ix ' Staff stated 'that the. applicant ' s re.quest to igstsll a security paybooth and relocate eyxisting canapy� Iand pump island will provide the same use which has been in existence for many years . The conditional exception, it granted, would place the paybooth at twenty-seven ( 27 ) f t . from Warner Avenue encroaching twenty-threes (23 ) ft . into the requfred! fifty ON ft . setback , Staff feels no hardship is evident ; although, taken into r'onsideration is the fact that its a continuation of an existing use . Additionally, staff has concern with the paybooth having only one side entry/exit preventing the cashier from escaping should a problem arise with a vehicle parked adjacent to the struct'urc at Hin pump island . It was stated that the pump island and canopy do satisfy Code requirement . The public hearing was opened by Chaizman Smith . Mr . Tony Baumgartner , Property Management Specialist for Chevron U . S .A , , addressed the Boar,] . fie said that the addition of a seventy-two (72) sq. ft . cashier ' s paybooth, in their opinion, dries not constitute a building. tie felt tho minor modification to the pumpblack would provide for a fidl security cashier ' s booth and improve traffic flow for the self-service gasoline island . It wot:lcl also enable their dealer to meet: the competitive marketing practices felt mandatory by this propo spa] . ?\dd i t: ionall y, the public will. he batter served bar the layout r_hancie with employee safety enhaticed . With reward to tt:e ].ocnt: ic±n of the pa ,I)oot•h, ter . Baumgartner c,xplained that , at niclht , p(,% ►plo do not. l .il-.c to walk ate � ctition�i 1 distance t� pray the cashi or and that. within the lziosk a r.r�stroom it-, proposed at the rear preventing insti-illation of a rear door. lie felt that relocation of the payl)ooth within the, main, structure would not provide aaequate security or ob,erva t i.oci to the pump operation . The public hearing was closed . The Beard Members . liter considerable discussion, felt that if the payhooth ware Inczt:erl within the main structure , the present and future needs for the si- t•.c would be provided . Additionally, the Roar.d Members felt that the reasons, as expreused by the applicant, dial not justify hardship. Conditions for approvtil of Administrative ReviewNo. 81-75 , with the elimination of the S ft . x 12 f t . security pa y000th, were. discussed . ON MOTION BY r-VANS AND SECOND BY G4UFRFY, CONDITTONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-1.2 WAS DRNIED Wirt! rtNI)INGS AND VOTE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS FOR MIAL - C . E. Nr-. 84-12 1 . Applicant unable to demonstrate hardship. 2 . The kiosk can be relocated as to accommodate all of the applicant ' s present and future needs wi tni n the main s truc tivre which would -6- DZA 3/1.4/84 1 .1 , Minutes : H . S . nuard of Zoning Adjustments March 14 , 1984 Pages Seven provide the security and ohservaaon of the pump operation. 3. As the subject property can be re-established meeting Code , required setback , such a variance .is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment cf substanaial property. rights. AYCJS: Evans, Godfrey, 'Vincent ABSTAIN : None The appeal process was explained to the applicant. CONDITIONS Or APPROVAL, - A . R . NO* 83-75 AS MOTIONED BY EVANS AND SECONDED BY GODFREY : truest No. I - DENIED (To permit the addition of a 6 ft . x 12 ft . sec+u:-1ty Fayk3ac-t-iT . Request. No. 2 - APPROVED (To permit relocation of existing canopy � and pump island ) . 1 . A revised si. to plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a . Deletion of pi-o used sectirit'.y paybooth . J b. Required park.inq spaces. I 2. Landscaping -hall comply with S . 9482 . 1 . 1 o ' the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code , 3 . The development: shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Auilding Division , and Fire Department . 4 . The major identification sLln shall be removed or altered to comply with article 948 within ninoty (90) days . ' 5 , All signs shall comply with .Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington I Beach Ordinance Code . 6 . The relocated structures shall be arChitec turall.y com 7atible with existing strucutres . 7 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber , wire, pipe , and other ,surplus or untiSAhle material shall be disposed of at an offeite facility equipped to handle them. AYEBs Evans, Godfrey, Vincent NOES: Smith ABSTAIN: None -7-- DZA .3/14/84 A J '`e:1 �',•Ili i.I �1,'�Ii\' � 1 • � R C 1I . w 1 I Publish MAY "In-1 M —.. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL O PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CC 084-12 PARTIAL DENIAL OF AR #83-75 k NOTICE iS HERMY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington ,Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, I, I !' Huntington Beach, at the hour of ,2;,jo P.M. . or as soon thereafter as possible on .,MW the _..�. day o f � May ..—......�� 19 84 . for the purpose o, ' ,;onsidering an appeall to denial by the planning Comm ssion of Conditional Exception No.84-12 and partial denial by the Planning Commission of Administrative Review No. 83-751 a request to allow a security kiosk within the required fifty (50) foot setback. The property is located at the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street and zoned C4, Highway I Crrcial District 16972 darner Ave). legal descriotion is can file in the Department of Development Services , i All interested persons are invited to attend sai o hearing and express their opinion for w Against Said - said appeal �.r. ..� • Fwtkr inforation shy be obtained from the Office of the City &rk, 2000 Main Streat, NOtinRRon B"Ch, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED 19" CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 8y: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark k' l i JI P �;y�ys:,�: ,:;'+!„iC; . ��_. ___ + � • • � . ^his r +p t vow a, Pub 1 i s h`„__ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMISSION DENIAL OF CE 04-12 A PARTIAL DENIAL OF AR #83-75 NOTICE IS NERENY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held b the City Council � P 4 y Y of tb* City of Huntington .Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center MuntingUn MMche at the hour of .... ;J0 P.M. , or as soon thereafter ds pos$ihl* on �...� tldnlit ,_.._. the .,.21 st_. day of May 19 M . for the purpose of considering an appeal to denial by the Planning Cormission of Conditional Exception No.84-12 and partial denial by the Planning Commission of Administrative Review Nd. 83-75,1 a request to allow a security kiosk within the required fifty (50) foot satback. The property is lochted at the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street avid zoned C4, Highway Coamer vial District (6972 Wagner Avp) • legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing a0 express their opinions for or against said said appeal Further inf'oration nq be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main St+r"t„ MwtiftstQn Beach. California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED sty 7 1984 CITY OF HUNTI NGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk 'x[.:Y�4Wtiyitly<•sri•�'flrbl„1l�.ee.1'r':n r _u:,a,,. i".,.. 1 , A ■ W r LEGAL NOTICE rI sow IL W001CR 1$ HEXESY GIVEN hat a Public hearing will be held , by thy► City Planning Commission of tlic City of Huntington Beach, CalifarAi4s far the purpose. of coneidering 40 Irepol allmiovri to �- ',� denialoof Conditional Excel?lion No. 84- 12 and partial �denfab ref Administrative Review No. 8 3-7 5 j► recluos t 2 to allow a security kiosk withAn tho required fifty ( 50) foot sotbac k . The property is located olr the eQuthwest corner of. Warnor• Avenue and G lcle Strut and zoned C4 , Ilighwal- ollu»ereial District . aga duscrip- Lion is can file in the Department of Devul.opmenr Services. Said hearing will )Ie held at the hour ot: 7. P .M . , can _ April 17A_1964 , in the Council. Chambers Building of the Civic Center $ 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , California . All interested persons are invited to atten said hepring and express xhair Vinions for or against =90* • "* S Farther information may be obtainer, from .%a City Planning i Uap:�rtaent. r Telephosto No. (714) 536-52% BAUD this Sth day of April , 984 CITY PLANNING CUOMYSSIdN By James 11, Palin, Secretory r � r• 117, i ILA M -PI dw T + a 4; sr• go -{�`•'A41 dA �p 4f. 11 A SOM U M It ACT v 4 ,• -��'�,f"' y t � tom► 11' y a• .• o, IPA w � ' • j l.., ♦ �w 7 rye • moll 4JRwm i am • fist 1►4�CE1 Al1MIM�N � � 1 � '. ON 10 NNW v r M •� e�!Nt All jo + - i AL aw s � ire 11.0 AM i b/'. -. i , ��Nd' .; W ..� Z •I�ifil►©P d a mar r! 'w a• ♦ . Jar.• "••�'rr—�/ -------- •� ���.._�� ...�. or + •r � ' ► op ACT to OAF ►T A �� r 1 ` .. t ro. � A • _ _ ez • AN l y /S+ti y • ) :11 . 4 1• fah IL dim A, N r ) •, i $ f i V'41 ♦ �S��y` •� !. 1 ,�,,.WAI .,a '� Vi�A y � �S w V: � t J i a,11 � � �^ � n K� •. ,�. i�- �• �.. L• Y`+� �40, •� � i �'�i..� �'� .t 17 fop A •5' y,�+. �' l y� i', .,�, .ids •Y� � ...h rl�'���,,•,�.� �,ilk ••� �r + � � , � � ' ( 'li� 11Fs , ��.p� a•F••Y,a�—i uw��F��"iivl���a"J1'r,�• I ��� 1 ���„ •; `���'�'� l•''�•��r14�,Mv'4~�'��''� � � �.��.,� e�. p,�K' �"�'•�'f��.•r ESw,.,+M`��5.,,�����, .., 1�w �,�� �,� ,".• .� ,.v. �� d r g 163-202-0) ""t g4wo$ tea Mr. Donald Broner 7031 Betty Drive • f Huntington Beach, CA 92647 . ' 163-202-06 Mr, Roger Camp ' 7021 Betty Drive «' to 06ve Huntington Beach, CA 92647 A0 ON345 163-202-07 iG Mr. Robert E. Russell Ud/Ft 7001 Betty Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Apptoaq CA 9C24 g " 1 63-081-17 N. Mr. Bernard L. Samson q� C61 Co. Propyty Tait Div. #3 Inverness Ln. G• Boa 7600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 40 Aftgdlea' CA "051 �Q11 165-081-20 ` 3440h ftioa Mr. Fred Lame . 3 Ksttlet 2002 Stradella Rd. lfi stmt Los Angeles, CA 90024 ttattoo 6aeah, CA 926+46 142-232-71 Mr. William Landis ' 1180 S. Beverly Drive Los Angeles, CA 90033 ep U*LAr Inc. Via, CA ONJ1 Attxr: Mr, T, L Baumgrrtner or. A Mre. R. J. Minnick Los Angelesy CA "049 9 414. .- 3' 'fall,'i $$ask F1810111 CIMMISSION •y�+wrrwn.. � NOTICR OF ACTION Y� Ant.$ Cheanon USA r Xnc. r : Conditional. Exaeption No. 849%12. } ' Your a"ligation was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning COW1861CM on rx 24 1984 and your request wart Wt thdrawn f Approved Approved with Conditions (See AttAAchad) Disapproved Dented as no lopes&i,ng necessary Tabled Continued until Under the proVioions of tho Huntington Beach ordinance Code, thv action taken by the ,Planning Commission in final unless an appeal is filed to the City . Coudcil by you or an interested paity,. ' Said appeal must be in writin# and must sat forth in detail the actions and grounder by and upon which the applicant or interested party deaers lhinnseel f aggr iexvod . Said appearal . mast be accompanied by a filing fees: of one hundred and sixty-fives , ($165 ) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk ' a office Within ten ( 10) dabs 'of the date at the Commisrion 's action, In your case, the last .lay for f1llng an appeal and paying the filing fee is Provisions of the, Huntington beach Ordinance Code are such that any application becoxees null and void one ( 1 ) year after final approval , unless actual construction has started. Very truly yours, James W. Palm, Secretary A-PC-IT- IA Mob i 2x , Bank PIM1119 COMMIS1190 0r4. Bok in ,. LOU 24 1994 NOTICE OF ACTION Chevrar, USA, Ine. Ada dnistrative •Review No. 93-75 (appeal to Board of Zoninol Adjustments Denial of Request 03.) ' *Jour +gip►?ication woo acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning on _■„Ap,r,3;l 24d.— 4._.. ....�,�... and your re$neoit was # Withdrawn ]approved Apptovad with Conditions (See Attached) 1 to R i`'" A d ial Whe d D i aapproved teas att c wd.) r, Tabled Continued uv t i 1 Under the �prca`rtsions of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code, the action talkoh by ti ' Pla va Bing Commission in firibl unless an appeal is filed to the City Cotmci,l by you or an interested party. Raid ' appeal nvli t big in writing and must act forth in detail the actions and grounds by &'nd upon Uhich the Applicant or interested party deems hissaIt aggri*ved. ri a �1� at be aaoo"aie4 by a filing fee of one hundred and sonata and be submitted to the City Clerk 's offlce ' �wy t o tAa (10) days of the date of the Commission 's action. In your 'tame, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fieis �.., lIY � •.YI ?�iY �r ■ /`,r ��r iiw �+r?,R•�/r+1Y�Y i�. �M>r■ Provisiaas of the Huntington Reach Ordinance Code are such that any application becomes null and void one (l ) year after final approval , UTAees Actual construction has started . Very truly yours, James W. Palin , secretary WA K '^"t S> h +/, (�,t 4 ■t'yam I r.� 1 a r••,[hl� *I 'A .,v` f' r!' " ?1r•� r M r .� 4r1�"'� h rr 1 4 i'�e f�j a4T-0��r 1 '! wf 1A*"• 1 �yy, l: '.{ �', ! �y / ,,.rIr " 4 t�, Mr'f rit+ 1 Ar tQ rl,ti r- Ir 7r'4E r�r1 .rtiJ k r 1 ,,. " tif. .�'u.b '• 1 f v tj r p 7 r *ll..✓kP � . ,,. � .r r r a ,My;1 r�. � ti. 4w pl r rye' •;�S � .YI y • sY is . ' +_ a r 1V f w ✓.. frr r%1' J; '1:,d,''r ,r ii� :p fir, '.r l . .. 14f!'. r ., Aj �'I 99` '1 1 ••I' i + N.t f. 1 N1101 Orr luck PIN1111 C65MIS8161 CALWOMIA PA. lax to �r r o 036M7"5 we Api4n TO ash DMIAL Or Itt`Q z8T NotAftii ,r V4 t chavroA Usk Inc.r I 1301 South Beach Boulevard P.G. BOX 2033 La Habra, California 90631 Armrest t To permit a secuxr. ;A'x kiosk to be located within the 30 foot setback for an exist- ing service station Location, Subject property is located on the south- west corner of Warner Avenues and Goldenwest Street Date of D*nialc Npr11 34, 1984 FIIi1 t!GO FOR DENIAL s < . 1.. A"licant is unable to demonstrate hardship. 2. the kiosk can ba relocated to acco modate all of the applicant's r present and future needs within the wain structure, which would i provide the security and observation of they pump operation. 3. As the subject p• rty can be re-established meeting code requlr*4 setback:, such a variance is not necessary for the pre- servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights* �•; I twreby certify that the planning Comission of the City of Hunt- � in ton Beach, C41ifo=ia upheld .the de' cision of the Board of Znring F pAlustMents and d(zied the appeal of Request No. 1 of Administrative ROVIOW No. - 83w78 A April 24, 1984 upon the foregoing findings. ca; , very truly, t, . for Jams N4, P al i 1 secretary , �f