Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Hearing - Appeal by Keshavarzian to Plan Comm denial
' (19) 10/06/97 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 19 H-3. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Tom Harman H-4. Submitted By Council/Agency Mayor Pro Tern Shirley Dettloff H-5. Submitted By Council/Agency Mayor Ralph Bauer (City Council) Request By Mayor Bauer For Reconsideration Of The City Council's Denial On September 15, 1997 Of The Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian And Mahavesh Keyranazar To The Planning Commission Denial A Of Revised Plan Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 And Variance No.96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle)-s/w Ellis Avenue&Saddleback Lane (420.40) Communication from Mayor Ralph Bauer.requesting Reconsideration.of the City Council's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27, 18741 Jockey Circle. On September 15, 1997 the City Council denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission's denial on the following subject: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian. Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar. Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight(8)foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3)feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle-at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required Recommended Action: Motion to: Reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle) based upon letter submitted by property owner that he will revise the plans to reflect his homeowner's association recommendations for approval. These revisions include: 1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet-South-10 feet - East-10 feet- North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building. star' a '>r...... f " >:::id> << ' :> ............... :.................... :....:..........:.:.................. .cl... .:::...::f? f .... . #t.:........thy: ..... r ..... :. ::::::::::::::::1 :.:.::::::::::: :::::::::.::::::::::::::......::::,:::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::: E#7t17iS t?Tt..... . ::.:.:....:..::::::..::::....:..::...:::::.::::............:....:.:.:...........................................:::.:.:::.:::.:::::::::: .... ..... .: :............::.......................... :............. (Motion to reconsider 5-2 (Green, Harman: No) Motion to approve Recommended Action as Amended- FAILED 3-4 (Noes: Julien, Green, Harman, Sullivan)] (19) (7) 02/17/98 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 D-3. (City Council) Public Hearina Reconsideration Of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79Nariance No. 96-27 -Two Story, Three Level House -G. Keshavarzian - Jockey Circle -s/w Of Ellis & Saddleback (420.60) Communication from the Community Development Director Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Request: To consider revised plans for a 8,587 square foot two story, three level single family dwelling with variances to allow a 20 ft. setback in lieu of minimum 50 ft. and to exceed the maximum two ft. cut and fill grading limitation with up to 7.5 ft. fill. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89- 6A) and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three ft. between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane. Environmental Status: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Recommended Action: Approve the reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 for revised plans with Findings and Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action dated February 17, 1998. [Referred Back to Planning Commission -- 4-3 (Harman, Dettloff, Bauer.- NO)] (7) r 1PAiAC� Council/Agency Meeting Held: //Z f98 Deferred/Continued to: �YAp roved ❑ Conditio all Appr ve ❑ Denied City CI rk's sinature Cou cil Meeting Datex.'.'�Februa17 17, 1998 Department ID Number: CD98-2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, Acting City Administrator dW PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director SUBJECT: APPROVE RECONSIDERATION OF REVISED PLAN 2- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (JOCKEY CIRCLE) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment( Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a revised plan for Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27. These applications represent a request by Gilda Keshavarzian to construct a two story, split level house on property located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. The plans depict revisions requested by the City Council at their October 6, 1997, meeting during discussion for reconsideration of the project. This project has been approved by the applicant's �\ Homeowner's Association (HOA) and adjacent neighbors within the tract. Staff is recommending approval with findings and conditions of approval (Recommended Action -A). Funding Source: Not applicable. ! Recommended Action: A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve the reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 for revised plans with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings." 2. "Refer Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 to the Planning Commission." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92790 Location: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) The applicant has revised the plans for the proposed two story, split level dwelling. Revisions reflect the recommendations of the HOA dated September 8, 1997 (Attachment No. 7), which include building height of 35 feet measured above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet instead of originally the top of curb; providing an increased side setback along the west property line from 10 feet (building) and eight (8) feet balconies to 20 feet; and eliminating the cut variance. B. BACKGROUND On September 15, 1997 this City Council sustained the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the subject entitlements. At that time the architectural committee of the applicant's HOA denied the project. Further, they made recommendations for revisions to the plans to make it more compatible with the surrounding homes (Attachment No. 7). Subsequently, the applicant submitted a letter to the Mayor respectfully requesting reconsideration of the project in order to have the opportunity to revise the floor plans to reflect the HOA's recommendation for approval. On October 6, 1997, the City Council voted to approve reconsideration of their September 15, 1997, action. Since the project requires . a public hearing, action on the revised project must be at a subsequent City Council meeting to allow for adequate public notification requirements. After the Council voted to reconsider the item, discussion ensued relative to floor plan changes and processing the revised plans through the Planning Commission. A motion was made to approve seven items that the applicant should address prior to the reconsideration hearing. That motion failed. CD98-2.DOC -2- 02/10/98 3:19 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 through the Planning Commission. A motion was made to approve seven items that the applicant should address prior to the reconsideration hearing. That motion failed. On October 15, 1997, the applicant submitted a revised plan to the HOA. The architectural committee approved the revised plans and included a requirement that the property owner obtain signatures of adjacent property owners within the HOA. The signatures have been obtained. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Property owners to the north, east and south have approved the revised plans. There are two parcels immediately west of the subject property in an adjoining HOA. Those two property owners (Chapman and Mandic) have received a copy of the revised plans. One believes the northerly deck off the second floor master bedroom should be eliminated and the other recommends partial reduction of the same deck with a frosted glass panel along the west side. In consideration of these concerns, the applicant has reduced the northerly deck projection off the second floor, which includes a trellis cover projection approximately eight (8) feet from the building wall, and depicted a trellis cover over the lower deck. These revisions will be forwarded to the HOA for final approval. One of the property owners suggests that trees be planted along the westerly property line. Landscaping plans for the tract require planting of replacement trees on this property and must be provided at the time of construction. Planning Staff believes that the revised project is consistent with the purpose of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Planning Staff suggests conditions of approval to ensure that the upper level deck projection is reduced, the upper deck provides glass panels along the westerly side and is not enclosed, and that the void basement area is not converted to living space which would create a three story dwelling and recommends approval of the project for the following reasons: • The proposed project is a two story, split level dwelling that is terraced with the existing grade surrounding the property. • The maximum building height is maintained. • The fill allows level access from the street to the garage. • The building setback provides a transition from the 10-foot setback on the property to the south and the 34-foot setback on the property to the north. • The building will be compatible with the surrounding properties. • The zoning code revisions in 1994 changed the method for determining side and rear yards. As a result, this lot cannot be developed consistently with other lots in the vicinity without a variance for some encroachment into the rear yard setback area. • The lot configuration and grade prohibit the site from developing to the strict interpretations of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. CD98-2.DOC -3- 02/06/98 8:15 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 • Similar requests for variance to rear yard setback and maximum cut and fill requirements have been granted within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Attachment(sl: City Clerk's . - NumberDescription 1. Site plan, floor plans, and elevations received February 2, 1998 2. Findings and suggested Conditions of Approval 3. Letter from HOA dated November 11, 1997 4. City Council Minutes dated October 6, 1997 5. Letter from Keshavarzian dated September 28, 1997 6. RCA dated September 15, 1997 7. Letter from Applicant's HOA dated September 8, 1997 RCA Author: Susan Pierce CD98-2.DOC -4- 02/06/98 8:15 AM a AT ,. .. _ .• M, P,N -1- -AL-J'-L 14 �. e b 1 MEL 10' •I C.+ti.tie / � I c OISwI � \ I 14 ' 7 IC�TG Miw! m ML"Tay ..___... .. • I �F GALL I ZARIN•AFSAR LJ a AssonArna.rt+c. R..y..n..dq.cwu a,a..mr eyl.ay �L�S�1p✓A¢LIPN fC`r• SM66y 1 •P b lo/IS/1'1 THE us Dip R�r rt: Sao 00pr7 M�.gTeo 2 f �3 w o Aww r-1 , '1 f-A J: ( H�►brrpt, I E�a:T1� �6D RiaH STvvY/ '�i � LI$[wR++( ' Ora" TO �, \ J N sHUFT 2 or e �0/15/17 p Aw• 1/z/18 I . I moon I UP IPERSIs.�-1 lei Kcs•ry O o ••uP N g 1-d T L E Y E L. P L. A t-4 sHaa-r Ell Ell ai MOD a �a a N o r- -T F-i F_ L E t S"Ff"r 4 OFM g to/i5/1� p z/L/9 L tT •, t. 5o Faolr�p ie v�.�ati • ...—. 1Q. P.►-.,cam p� L 95 - �, 6 v. •EAL91 I ZARI N-AFSAR do ASSOCIATES.INC. Design.Planning.Civil a Sinmiurnl EnSlnmdnS SHED 'T, 'S '1n b t"AsIv) cs P TV4- 10 5 p t -ro t� damom C1G.RB E�Ev. 'SH66T ro °� V re �, 651.9" 1-4 "gar 2.11 _O 1 -' f Gor+f�'iS�Tv `r S icy u cHTs I I J _ N �5 c- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79/ VARIANCE NO. 96-27 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for a revised plan to construct a two story, split level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed two story split level dwelling is terraced to the site and minimizes visual impacts to adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan results in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed two story, split level dwelling fits the natural land form and is terraced to the site. There is a two story split level dwelling north of the subject property within the Specific Plan area. Balcony projections provide architectural relief and do not intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. The proposed dwelling substantially conforms to the setbacks depicted on the site plan previously approved by the Planning Commission in 1993. 3. The proposed two story, split level residential use complies with the provisions of the base district in which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located, except for the variance request to maximum cut and fill and rear yard setback. Staff supports the variance requests necessary for the establishment of the proposed project. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the two story, split level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will not adversely affect the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 Units per Acre, Specific Plan Overlay, on the subiect r)ropertv which prescribes the orderiv development of a residential area. It is _ J consistent with the following policies: CD98-2.DOC -5- 02/06/98 8:15 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. LU9.1.2 b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the: use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -VARIANCE NO. 96-27: 1. The granting of Variance No. 96-27 to allow (a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to twenty (20) feet and (b) to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation, which includes 7.25 ft. fill, will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project does not contrast with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and to comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, topography, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan development plan.is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to minimize the alteration of the natural terrain. The variance request to exceed the maximum cut and fill and reduction of rear yard setback will allow development compatible with the existing development within the Specific Plan area. 3. The granting of a variance to allow (a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to twenty (20) feet, and (b) to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation are necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of the two story, split level home will be accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. The fill request of up to 7.25 feet allows level access from the street and reduces drainage impacts to the dwelling. Surface drainage flow for the lot will be oriented into an existing drainage system at the northwest portion of the lot. CD98-2.DOC -6- 02/06/98 8:15 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: . CD98-2 4. The granting of the variance requests will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project does not contrast with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project does not reduce the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height, or siting of the two story, split level dwelling. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79/ VARIANCE NO. 96-27: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 2, 1998, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The upper story deck shall not be enclosed. b. The void basement area shall not be converted to living space. c. Balcony projections along the westerly side of the building shall not project more than one foot. d. The upper story deck projection adjacent to the master bedroom shall not exceed 10 feet and shall include obscure glass panels along the westerly side. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). b. Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans, as follows (FD): 1) Automatic sprinkler systems will be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the fire Department prior to installation. 2) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be sized a minimum of four (4) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half(1-1/2) inches. CD98-2.DOC -7- 02/06/98 8:15 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 3) The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. 4) The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. c. The site plan shall depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers. The location and screening shall comply with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code Section 230.76. d. Elevations shall indicate the following: 1) Colors and building materials proposed. 2) If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. e. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). f. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. g. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in.at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. h. The Design Review Board shall review and approve fencing/wall plans. CD98-2.DOC -8- 02/06/98 8:15 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A grading plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PW) b. Wall plans shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include necessary homeowner's approval. c. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. The plans must also depict the replacement trees required for Tract 13439 and shall be located along the westerly property line adjacent the house and along the northerly property line.(PW) b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the Orange County Recorder a covenant, approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Department, assuring that the upper deck will not be enclosed, void areas in the basement area will not be converted to habitable space, and that the.building will comply with the 50 foot setback from the north property line. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to Community Development Development. 5. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; CD98-2.DOC -9- 02/06/98 8:15 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 6. Prior to final approval of the building permit, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. b. All building spoils, such a unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 7. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council may be required pursuant to the H BZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 2. State-mandated school impact fees shall'be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 4. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the City Council's action. CD98-2.DOC -10- 02/06/98 8:15 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-2 6. The City Council reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 96- 79Nariance 96-27, pursuant to a public hearing, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79Nariance 96-27 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. CD98-2.DOC -11- 02/06/98 8:15 AM December 15, 1997 DEC15 1997 1 To: Scott Hess �;;�wT Or ty Huntington Coy, ]:TY DEVELOP `:E+�'t Ci of Huntin on Beach Planning Department From: Ellis Central Park Estates#9 Home Owners Association Architectural Review committee Subject: Approval of Construction of Home Project at 18741 Jockey Circle Owners: Bob & Gilda Keshavarzian This is to inform you that the above named applicants have met all conditions for approval of their project through the EllisCentral Park Estates#9 Home Owners Association. All parties concerned with this project met on November 23, 1997 and were able to work out solutions to satisfy numerous concerns. As evidence of this , please see the attached documentation and approved sketches with home owners signatures. If you need further information of have any questions, please feel free to contact a member of the Archeticural Review Committee, or myself, Joe Young, at(714) 847-7089. Ellis Central Park Estates#9 Home Owners Association Archco.27 ECCis CentraCPar( #9 Homeowners Associatton ' .November 11, 1997 Bob Kasravi 9597 Nightingale Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92708 RE: Ellis Central Park ##9: 18741 Jockey Circle - Architectural Plans Dear Mr. Kasravi: T1vs letter confirms that your application for architectural approval of 18741 JockeyCircle must uiclude signatures of affected homeowners. The Architectural Review Committee of the Ellis Central Park #t9 Homeowners Association indicated at it's last meeting that your application complies with all other requirements except the completed application with the signatures. Congrarulations. An extra application is forwarded for your records/use. Sincercly, VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMEINTT,INC. V Jack Ztlhnger,CAC 8 Property Manager On Behalf of the Board of Directors JZ/hab CC: Jerry Pabbruwee Architec.=al Review Conuruttee Enclosure managing .agent - TiCCageway .%lanage-ment, Inc. 1'. •o. �80x 4708 Irvine, C-A 92616 (714) 553-1876/ (714) 250-9009 ,J ax Post-it"Fax Note 7871 Date paogee1. • To Q from If. Cf{E IS r!A CoJoapt. Co. � or Pho7. o1'g133 6'7- Phone/3.7-61-3S•/I FaX rep► Fax# clt3 S& jSt I ASSOCIATION ns��.cut n,,.i vsvu.•+s-r>Rv r r►a..&%:QUEST Homeowner Name: ��'-1JQA kF-944 6VARz rA J Address: a5aL4 iJirui71AJ12n41. iw, camw VA-669 CA...agaQ7, .:,......_.. Phone: (Hotaa)C 14�Ct1?-;k bri bone:(Wedi?( Invprovemaat Addrwa: 192y 1 -r..T V V C'+Rr Lk M -13 CA wZ!4-1 .. Proposed Start4 DW: F1vPaa!Campiedcta Eor. Plan inform the ati;#aaeacpropmty qwr ers of a prvpwPd Vwjiwt and *m is tbelt xddn:ss and alpatme. '1z ttignat= is mot r approval. The it=ism atMw Ww neighbors of tip gmpoW prala x-ShmM the wigs have concerns or objecdont: plan: aoauu W mmaaRaenbssr oaevaay reprtaM=dvs as Sw as possible. Ia tip tam of resew, tho Ambiu+ctutsl COmr L= twig; Cat adjAam plepaclr owrns=to discuss ebe project Whiz tb+rm. Neipbor Advent (AAJ w 9 Nalihborr) No O1 s abject /SM2 !MCkd? eIR Addom ' Flc�w./r�wc rd►�! rB��Ct� C'M 9a-C�l�'• Name(?tint Please) Sipature Addrpa _ 1. Any improvement approved by the Arrhitwaual Roview►Comm4ttee will xtW be a b*t w&WIleable cotmty and/or chy roVAadow, ordiaMM And cad"as wa as dw Uniform BUii M Code. 2. Art hitsa usl approval of We plait does toot conad=a acapta=* of*zw w micar or etc ooriva vywUicatioux. All tachdW am etsg;areritsg A=M nee the"Vatat antra of the Lot owner- 3. Piwa notify the maneg m w compeay when the prof eat is&a ommpleted- 4'. Two rapist of the Maw*idbemadaa taktoutd be amtchad wbm the spplicadoa Is subeducd: A. Dwcr*4=of S• I ocad a of imaaovemrot wW raddtmcs d o%% on a plat pia whit dlmoasrion to preset ty flash. Ideadfy existing C. Eavemal of propo of lraprovemetu to e;cala m noted of per• D. Satwl of mwsti ds and colors.to W used. RM&UrM RgQtIF.i,R'S MMMNG ANY OF THE ABOVE LNMAMTION OR IF"TSE it11iF1DRM-070N IS UNCLEAR,WML SL RVMRN=WITHOUT iPItDCESSINC. i am�u hots for plan approval and I am rmpo"ble for the Information provided. MAM TO: ELLIa CEMTA"PARK#9 Signature omjaiawnar HCMMWNRRS ABSOCIATION P.O.BOX 4706 IRV=,CA mid (714)553.1$76 FAX(714)250.90M •errrirrrrr�ts*•#*it***###rsrrrri*i��M4♦***ofrarsssrss#srsss#re*i+i�Yiii+A*+�i*sss+rrri*t+rrs++*e#ssrrrsrrsrssess�ri. AUCH=C1•URAL COMMrr=>:SVMw Apprtoired Cowildow of ApprovWRessom fur Not Approved! Awroved w/CwWdvas Not Approved Date: Amftdzed zipan= • _ ARCHITECTURAL.COMMn7EE L'LL1J L.i:i'i li-�i 1:r 1"tliil tlJ �.ilYll..V Yt.l'lJ.:i\J t1JJVl.1L'111V1"1 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL REQUEST Homeowner Name: G-I L O A KF_5 H A VA R Z I AA) Date: Address: Q594 M1&1iT1A)&A1,1= ro i kiTAIW VAi-LG I rA gX707 Phone: (Home)(11LO q(-,7_A 69'Z Phone:(Work)( ) Improvement Address: 1 S7 q 1 C.K E C I RC LE -R CA q;.64-7 Proposed Improvement: x) Nou S r Proposed Starring Date: Proposed Completion Date: Please inform the adjacent property owners of the proposed project and obtain their address and signature. The signature is no, approval. The intent is to advise your neighbors of the proposed project.Should the neighbors have concerns or objections pit contact the management company representative as soon as possible. In the course of review. the Architectural Committee m contact adjacent property owners to'discuss the project with them. Neighbor Advisement (Adjacent Neighbors) No Objections Object Now.o-to VA-rn 7;4.VE yea JC Name(Print Pl ase) a /_/_� Qq'X-'r_ ture Address Name(Print Please) Signature Address 1. Any improvement approved by the Architectural Review Committee will still be subject to applicable county and/or city regulatic ordinances and codes as well as the Uniform Building Code. 2. Architectural approval of this plan does not constitute acceptance of any technical or engineering specifications. All technical engineering matters are the responsibility of the Lot owner. 3. Please notify the management company when the project is the completed. 4. Two copies of the following information should be attached when the application is submitted: A. Description of improvement..- .... B. Location of improvement and residence shown on a plot plan with dimension to property lines. Identify existu improvement. C. Elevations of proposed improvement relating to the existing dwelling and all dimensions of improvement to scale as noted plans. D. Samples of materials and colors to be used. SUBMITTED REQUESTS MISSING ANY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION OR IF THE INFORMATION IS UNCLEAR,WELL BE RETURNED WITHOUT PROCESSING. I am ubmitting thb' ppLication for plan approval and I am responsible for the information provided. MAIL TO: ELLIS CENTRAL PARK#9 Signature ofl3o eowner HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O.BOX 4708 IRVINE,CA 92616 (714)553-1876 FAX(714)250-9009 ARCHITECTURAL_COMMITTEE REVIEW Approved Conditions of Approval/Reasons for Not Approved: Approved w/Conditions Not Approved Date: Authorized signature: ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL REQUEST Homeowner Name:_I L iJ A K f 5 H AVA R _ !A A./' Date: Address: g qy NIGH71A)C—•ALI rc>tr oTA1d A �J.- Phone: (Home)(114 0 7- 69 Z Ptwne: (Work)( ) Improvement Address: i$74 ! —c o GK E Y CIRCLE y '�„ C A g0J6y 7 Proposed Improvement: t.\F 1'�') KQt I—c,r= Proposed Startiug Date: Proposed Completion Date: Please inform the adjacent property owners of the proposed project and obtain their address and sigma re. The Signature is n approval. The intent is to advise your neighbors of the proposed project.Should the neighbors have concerns or objections p cotnact the management company represeatadve as soon as passible. In the course of review, the Architectural Committee r contact adjacent property owners to dismw the project with than. Neigh r Advisement (Adjacent Neighbors) No Objections ere�o� V-tAR-y C _ Name 'Print Please) . PM W Si'gnantre Address Name(Print Please) Signature Address 1. Any impravetnan approved by the Architectural Review Comadaee will still.be subject to applicable county and/or city regulaf ordiaaaus and codes as well as the Uniform Building Code. 2. Architectural approval of this plan does not coatti=acceptance of any technical or cngineering specifications. All technical engineering matters are the responsibility of the Lot owner. 3. Please notify the management company when the project is the com;31cted. 4. Two copies of the following information should be amded when the application is submitted. A. Description of improveatent. B. Locadon of improvement and residence shown on a plot plan with dimrasion to property lines. Idcndfy exist improvement. C. Elevations of proposed improvement reLving to the existing dwelling and all dimensions of improvement to scale as note Pam• D. Samples of materials and colors to be used. SUBI\1ITTED REQUEM MISSING ANY OF THE ABOVE I NFORI ATION OR IF THE 1NFOR,INIATION IS UNMEAR,WUM BE RETURNED WITHOUT PROCESSING. I am submitting-this-7ppb. cation for plan approval and I am responsible for the information provided. MAIL TO: ELI.1S CENTRAL PARK#9 Signature orHo'meowner HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O.BOX 4708 IRVINE,CA 92616 (714)553-1976 .FAX(714)250-0009 a+r...............................r.*��srrrwa.irrrtrrrororr#rrrroYoo/o####t###r*#rr#r#M*Corr###*otrrrrfrYr####i7# ARCHITECTURAL COIviMITTEE REVIEW Approved Conditions of Approval/Reasons for Not Approved: Approved w/Conditions Not Approved Date: Authorized signamm: ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE � W �� J � � � ,� �, `� � �. � � � � _ .� ...� - ,_ �- ear ".a ..��: 10/06/97 -City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 27 (CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED APPROPRIATION FOR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT FROM DEMOLISHED STANDARD MARKET SITE ON MAIN STREET SOUTH TO THE PIERSIDE PAVILION-IMPROVEMENTS The City Council considered a communication from the City Council Downtown Committee recommending that the City Council appropriate $5,000 to remove and replace the remaining section of sidewalk from the Standard Market to the Pierside Pavilion for an overall short term improvement to an otherwise unpleasant and aesthetically unacceptable public pedestrian passageway. In the future, the remaining improvements to both the east and west sides of Main Street will be accomplished per the Council adopted Master Plan for Main Street. . Councilmember Garofalo presented reasons for his recommendation that funds be appropriated to-remove and replace the sidewalk only from the Standard Market site south to the Pierside Pavilion improvements. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to appropriate $5,000 to remove and replace the sidewalk only, from the Standard Market, south, to the Pierside Pavilion Improvements. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: None (CITY COUNCIL) REQUEST BY MAYOR BAUER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DENIAL ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY GILDA KESHAVARZIAN AND MAHAVESH KEYRANAZAR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL A OF REVISED PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE) - SOUTHWEST OF ELLIS AVENUE AND SADDLEBACK LANE (420.40) The City Council considered a communication from Mayor Ralph Bauer requesting reconsideration of the City Council's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27, 18741 Jockey Circle. On September 15, 1997 the City Council denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission's denial on the following subject: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian. Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar. Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision.to the previously approved master-site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required 279 Page 28 - Council/Agency Minutes - 10/06/97 Mayor Bauer presented reasons why he had placed this request for reconsideration on the City Council agenda. The Mayor referred to a communication from both homeowners' associations regarding the issues to which both homeowners' associations have agreed. He reported that these issues have been incorporated in the agenda packet, including the roof being 35 feet above the existing pad; the minimum setbacks as shown; the landscape/hardscape plans to be resubmitted with the affected homeowners' organizations' signatures; and architectural treatment. He stated an issue which he believes should be included is that the balcony is not to be enclosed. The Mayor stated that if the applicant agrees to these issues, he believes the applicant will be able to build his house. The Mayor stated the first issue at this point is to vote for reconsideration which includes staff returning this item to Council after the appropriate ministerial processes have been gone through; that Council is not approving the project tonight but merely reconsidering it and if the applicant is unwilling to agree with this the deal is over. The Community Development Director informed Council that this item could be set for public hearing probably within the next month. The Mayor stated it was his motion that Council vote for reconsideration which includes staff returning this item to Council after the appropriate ministerial processes have been gone through. A second to the motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he would be opposing this motion as it included the item being returned to the City Council. He stated he could support the motion if the plan with the parameters stated, with the drawings, etc. is presented to the Planning Commission and not returned to Council unless on appeal. The Mayor stated this was fine. Councilmember Sullivan stated he would like to vote on this with the additional wording on No. 5—to be brought back for approval by the Planning Commission and get it over with. The Mayor stated this was fine, recognizing that the applicant still has the right to appeal at that point. The City Attorney asked for the full motion to be repeated as she was unclear as to Council's action. The Mayor clarified that Council was approving Items Nos. 1 through 5 as set forth on the agenda (1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet- South- 10 feet- East-10 feet- North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans, 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building) with the inclusion of Item No. 6—that the balcony never be enclosed and Item No. 7=refer item back to the Planning Commission for approval. Councilmember Harman spoke in opposition to the motion for reconsideration, citing past difficulties in negotiations with the applicant. Councilmember Green spoke in opposition to the motion stating that Council is being asked to function as the Planning Commission. He stated that he believed the entire motion should be as set forth in Item No. 7—to refer the project back to the Planning Commission. 280 10/06/97 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 29 -ti Councilmember Garofalo stated that he agrees with Councilmember Sullivan that if the applicant complies with what is set forth in the agenda packet that it is essentially a new house that should go to the Planning Commission; that the fees should not again be charged and the process be expedited. Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff stated that she supported the motion. She stated the issues appeared to be resolved. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believes whatever fees are involved should be paid by the applicant. Councilmember Garofalo brought up the issue of the communication from the Ellis Central Park#9 Homeowners' Association and requested it be incorporated in the document. He stated it contained everything mentioned by the Mayor. The Mayor reviewed the letter stating there is a difference in letters as this letter from the Ellis Central Park#9 Homeowners'Association (dated September 8, 1997) agrees to a 20-foot setback rather than 23 feet. The Mayor stated his intent is to keep it simple; not for Council to design the house. He stated that it is clear the applicant can start over again no matter how Council votes. The City Attorney stated that the motion Council is making is first to reconsider which is to bring up the action that previously had been decided negatively. She stated this revives the matter as if it had never been denied; so the appellant does not have an obligation to pay another fee to apply to have his variance proceed—the fee was paid when he applied for the first variance. The Community Development Director stated she believes there are two different things to be considered—if the Council reconsiders this the applicant does not have to pay any fees; if it has to go back to the Planning Commission and the applicant applies for a new variance, then he will have fees for that. She stated if the Council does not want to handle this and the applicant wants to resolve it, he has to apply for a new variance for different standards which he can do. The Mayor requested a vote to determine what will happen. A vote was taken as follows: AYES: Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: Harman, Green ABSENT: None The City Attorney stated that it has been reconsidered. In response to the Mayor's question as to what the Council now needs to do, the City Attorney advised Council to make a motion as to how they want to proceed. She stated that earlier it was indicated to her that Council wishes to follow the outline on the agenda and add the condition of the top floor balcony and to refer back to the Planning Commission for approval. i Councilmember Garofalo stated that if the Council does nothing the applicant can take the new plans and move forward on his own. 281 I Page 30 - Council/Agency Minutes - 10/06/97 The Mayor stated that the motion made by him and Mayor Pro Tem Dettloff is as shown on the agenda with the two additions-1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet- South-10 feet- East-10 feet- North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building and to add the following revisions: (6) The upstairs balcony is not to be enclosed and (7) Refer back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he favored the motion as it makes it clear to the applicant to build the house under these parameters. The Mayor stated that by this motion the two homeowners' groups have veto power over whatever the applicant does. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Harman, Green, Garofalo ABSENT: None The Mayor stated that the applicant has his direction. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Bauer adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at 12:38 a.m. to the regular meetings to be held on Monday, October 20, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman 282 � � �,. �� a � � 'rya i FROM PHONE 1•40. _ _ V September 29, 1997 .The office of City Council Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 VARIANCE 140.96-27 Dear Honorable "Council Members, As the owner and applicant we respectfully request reconsideration• related to the proposed project located at 18741 Jockey Circle, to have the opportunity to revise the floor plans to reflect our home owners associations recommendation for approval Thank you very much for you consideration. Very Truly Yours, Gilda Ke avarzian 1 Y CC: Mr. Howard a sky Mr. Scott Hess MS. Susan Pierce cm VII '_ w ..c Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved enied City Clerk's Signatur Council Meeting Date: September 15, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 177.-�33� -o CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH cx� ,_, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ' C. �Al r'n ; r.-C p SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator J .�: PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director Z44_L SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 (JOCKEY CIRCLE RESIDENCE) (CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 18, 1997 MEETING) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27. The applications represent a request to construct a two story, three- level, 35 ft. high structure with a ten-foot rear yard building setback (eight-foot for balconies) in lieu of the minimum 50 ft. setback and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of more than three feet between the high and low points on the site. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. At the July 21, 1997 City Council meeting, the neighbors expressed concerns regarding the height and massiveness of the proposed residence. Subsequently, the City Council continued this item to the August 18, 1997 meeting and encouraged the applicants to meet with their respective Homeowner's Association (Ellis-Central Park No. 9) and adjacent Homeowner's Association to reach accord. Because the Homeowner's Association had not finalized its review and action by August 18, 1997, the City Council continued the item to the September 15, 1997 meeting. s . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 'MEETING DATE: September 15, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33b On July 25, 1997, the applicants submitted architectural. plans to the Homeowner's Association Board for its consideration. On August 6, 1997 the Board met and referred the plans to the architectural review committee. According to the applicants, a revised plan was prepared in response to preliminary comments from the committee. A notice of action and recommendations of the architectural committee was received September 5, 1997 (Attachment No. 3 faxed copy). The Architectural Committee denied the project. Although the revised plans depicted a two-story dwelling with a basement and a two foot reduction in building height, the Committee recommended that the plans be further revised and resubmitted reflecting a maximum 35 ft. building height measured from each of the two building pads, a minimum 20 ft. building setback from the equestrian trail to the west, and removal of the stair and balconies on the west elevation. The applicants have indicated unwillingness to continue to modify the plans. They believe that the original direction from the Association's architect and architectural committee has been satisfied. They are disappointed with the final architectural review committee's recommendations and believe the adjoining property owners caused unfair denial of their proposed plans. Staff is continuing to recommend approval. Funding Source: Not applicable Staff Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and conditions of approval as set forth on Attachment No. 4 to the Request for Council Action dated September 15, 1997. Alternative Actions: The City Council may make one of the following motions: 1. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings." 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 and direct the applicant accordingly." CD97-33B.DOC -2- 09/09/97 3:51 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - MEETING DATE: September 15, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33b Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number 1. Letter to Gilda Keshavarzian dated July 25, 1997 from Connie Brockway, City Clerk 2. RCA dated July 21, 1997, and August 18, 1997 3. Architectural Review and Recommendations received September 5, 1997 4. Findings and Conditions of Approval (staff recommendation) 5. �,i9,►wmu��c.ca.�C� �rx. �rhe�+n.��/+a�., � S /9 9-7 CD97-33B.DOC -3- 09/09/97 3:51 PM �T�� ___. � - _ �. � Stay{ 5Y:VILLAGEWAY MANAGE. %11-:2-50 i 15:56 ViLLAGtWAr MANAUC. , ELLIS CENTRAL PARK#9. HONMOVOMRS ASSOCIATION : P. O.Box 4708 Irvine,CA 92616 September S. 1997 Bob Keyvanazar 9597 Nightingale Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92709 RE: 18741 Jockey Circle,Architectural Application Dear Mr.Keyvanazer: The Architectural Committee met on August 21. 1997 and considered your application. Your application was disapproved. Zhe Comnsittee recoaunends the:following: I. Building height must be brought down so that no point of the roof is 35' above the existing pad elevations. Maximum building height of 93' at the upper northern pad must be achieved. It appears that this can be easily resolved merely by the elimination-of the cupola over the stair. Maintain the south layout as shown on sheet A-7 of the 8115/97 revision. Applicant needs to show existing grades on the new submittal. 2. The unit site plan of 1993 calls for a 23' setback to the west, 15' to the south, 14'to the east and 75'to the north. The homeowners m the area want these setbacks strictly enforced. However, the Architectural Review Committee feels that a reasonable compromise is to allow the Applicsat's proposed setbacks of 10' south, 10'east, and 50' north, and to allow a reduction in the west setback from 23' to 20'. The 20' wrest side setback must be_adhered to. Outside stair and balconies should be eliminated, and the south portion of the building brought down 10' to the east. Additionally, entire structure should shift 6"to the east to bring the 19'-6"setback into conformance. 3. Landscape and hardscape plans not a pate of ibis approval and must be submitted separately. Final approval would be eb"tional upon the approval of these plans. 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures. Sincerely, VILi.AGEWAY MANAGEh Nf,INC. Jac Zullinger. CAM® Property Manager On Behalf of the Board of Directors J71bab CC: Scott XeM Senior Pimner,Chy of.Huadngtm Bout Arehitectum!Reviser►ConuWme Tom. , ..��.. .`�� �... �.. ... �' �•-T'.�T•- _ .�• .�.�...��.. �� � .��..��. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (TWO STORY, SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS . . Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the CityAttomey) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Attached (Explain) Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached .. ....... _..... .__.... ......... ........ .. ... _.............. ......... ...... .. .. .. ...... ......... ........ EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS' Please refer to RCA in City Clerk's office. . ......... ........ ... ........ . ......... . ._ .. ......... . ........ REVIEWED RETURNED FORW D> .. .. .. .. ... Administrative Staff ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) ... ........ . ....... ........ ....... ......... ..... . ........ . ....... ..... ......... ....... ....._.... ......... ......... EXPLANATIONN FOR RETURN OF ITEM SpaceOnly) S ® CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication ~ Community Development Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director, DATE: February 9, 1998 SUBJECT: REVISED CONDITIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 (KESHAVARZIAN RESIDENCE - 18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE) Attached are three revised conditions of approval for the Jockey Circle residence Conditional Use Permit to ensure that all surrounding property owners' concerns are fully addressed and incorporated into the project. The applicant concurs with these revisions. In addition, a copy of the applicant's homeowner association approval letter is attached. Attachments: l: RCA (D-3) Three revised Conditions of Approval 2. Ellis Central Park#9 Homeowners Association letter M r m 2 MSF:SP (g:admn1tr98/298sp1) Gil z, c 3 m - r- r C'f RCA (D-3) February 17, 1998 THREE REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (JOCKEY CIRCLE) Id. The upper story deck projection adjacent to the master bedroom shall not exceed 10 feet and shall include obscure glass panels along the westerly side. The trellis shall not project more than eight(8)feet from the building. Le The northerly property line fence shall be increased 2 feet in height. 4.a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36 inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. The plans must also depict the replacement trees required for Tract 13439. Additional trees shall be planted approximately 20 feet on center along the westerly property line adjacent to the house and along the northerly property line for screening purposes to the northerly and westerly parcels.(PW and CDD) g:\rcas98\cd98-2r SEND BY:VILLAGEWAY MANAGE, 1-99-51 23:11 VILLAGEWAY MANAGE. - 7143741540;# 1 Ellis Central Park #g .LN3Wd401_-- aQ,ks Nnmwo Homeown e.rs .Association g s s 1 833 February,17, 1998 ' ' 33 (; QA Fax Number:714-374-1540 Susan Pierce City of Huntington Beach Planning Department P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: Ellis Central Park #9 Homeowners Association: Lot 18, 18741'Jockey Circle Dear Susan: This letter informs the City of Huntington Beach Planning Depa**z^Pn*that the Board of Directors of the Ellis Central Park#9 Homeowners Association has approved the architectural design and plans for the owners Bob and Gilda Keyvanazar to build a house on Lot #18 at 18741 Jockey Circle, Huntington Beach,California. Sincer w Jack Zullinger,CACM16, CCAMIM Property Manager On Behalf of the Board.of Directors I JZlhab Cam: Bob Keyvanazar Joe Young O\AW90CIAMOME C P\ArdIkeW."&0[RWsb Qff0P\I! akey ar,d= Managing Agent - Ti ageway Management, Inc. P. O. Box 47o8, Irvine, CA 92616 (714) 553-187i5/(714) 250-9009 fax Reconsideration of City Council Denial ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79/ Variance No. 96-27 **.* Two story, split level house 18741 Jockey Circle a EA�,,-c m AN, � ��+� « to' �s " s.� ,'. 0 -Sy n r History ♦ 9/15/97 : City Council sustained Planning Commission's denial of original request ♦ 9/28/97 : Applicant requests reconsideration and plan revision ♦ 10/6/97 : City Council grants reconsideration hearing based on proposed changes - -2- Revised Plans ♦ Council's concerns: 1 ) Maximum 35 ft. height from existing pads (complies) 2) Minimum setbacks: west - 20 ft.; south - 10 ft.; east - 10 ft.; north - 50 ft.; (complies) 3) Architectural treatment on all building walls (complies) -3- Revised Plans (cont.) 4. a. Plans , approved by HOA b. Plans approved by adjacent HOA c. Plans signed by neighbors to east, north and south d. Plans reviewed by two neighbors to the west - some issues resolved -4- Revised Plans (cont.) Neighbors requested: 5 . a. Reduced deck area on second level b. Frosted glass panel on west side of deck c. Trellis over portion of second level deck -5- Recommendation ♦ Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 2 of RCA). _6_ FROPI PHONE 110. Bob's Chevron Service swim 700 Redondo Blvd. (at 7th Street) Long Beach, CA 90804 i� Telephone (213) 433-5897 ur (2131 439-8431 1/ HALLMARK AWARD STATION ��40`=z''C===moo m = KoveMber 12, 1997 z Scott Mayes claming DepsstAsc►t City of buatioptoa Beach 2000 M&LVL ftseft ra Suntiagtoa beach, C& 92649 Dear Mr. Bayas e The puxpose of )his latter from the Counevy View Zststtes Rome Owners Asseoiation, beard of Diseetors is to infoa the City of Hantington Beach of our dspieien to mAneopt the revised plans, dated 10/15/97, Fes t}►a prepeacd bese oa 1Y741 Joebey Circle. 9pe4sifieally, we aoaA=mLr with the 20• Westerly aatbaeb, the 5011 +u�+ yard eetbaak, bad the 95• + --J -- structure height (umasuzrsd fsem the pad) . Sheae wore the seat iaportamt design points for our assoeiatioa. if you have need to thews• this matter further, please call wee at 714-949- 9607. admoos ely, 002!1 ea xaVOOft Fsesidest Ceuntsy VIAw !states Hoe Owner's bsaooiation PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a i OINK,I A poopy:oT the party to o r interested i n the below PUBLIC NOTICE = , prop squeal Is on fi►e NOTICE OF Pn,90 QomlriunityJD'eveI9j- entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of Pusuctft;ARINa °�partme^t. ►?000 Main Street;,• Huntington. the .HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a Beach,,Callfoml�a`92s48 'CITY,COUNCIL for.:lnspectlon,4by.the pubw newspaper of general circulation, printed OFTHIRCITYOF ::; lie.-A.copgof-thejstaff:re- "HUNTINGTON BEACH port will a avallablwto'In- and published In the City of Huntington NOTICE. IS HEREBYi terested parties atC� H-, -/ GIVEN that 'on Tuesday or: the Maln. City �brary Beach, County of Orange, State of February 17,"1998 st 7. (7111 Talbert Avenue)after `J c7 PM In the- City Council Februaryxl2,1998.1 California and that attached Notice I$ a Chambers 2000 Main ALL INTERESTED PER-, Street, Huntington'Beach', SONS�are Invited,-to:,` ttend" the City Council will hold a Bald_,hearing ,and_xp�essi true and complete copy as was printed I public hearing'"on the°fol opinions or submlt`_evl- lowing Item denc`e,fob-or" against 4the1 and ublished m the Huntington Beach RECONSIDERATION OF application as,;outllnad P V I CONDITIONAL USE PER above If you challenge`ahe and Fountain Valley Issues of said MIT NO. 96-79%VARIANGE CIty;Council's action In. Y NO. 96.27 (TWO "STORY court; ygp,may be Ilmlted THREE LEVEL HOUSE) to.raising onlyahose$(ssues' newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: i Applicant: Gllda Keshavarl you•-or someone Verse: zlan Request-To consider, .ralsed et the publio6fiearind revised plans;:for a 8,5874 descrlbed In.this_anotice or:, square foot two storryy three In w;ltten corresppondence level'single.family Twellin delivered to-he�,,Clty,at or, with;varlancesto,allow a 20 prlorsto,he.public�hearing. I- ft.-setback in lleu of minP f there are-iq&� wither ' February 5 , 1998 mum 50 ft. and to exceed questions,.please call,the the maximum two ft. cut, Planning* Dlvlslon�atS_$6- and fill,gr6ding`.11mltati6rr 527V�,and .'refer to Afie With up to 7.5 ft. fill. The above Item. Direct -your proposed project requires wrltten�communicatlons,tol a revision to the previously..the CItyClerk. appproved-ma?tar site plan Connli Brockway„ (Condltlonal` Use Parmft City,CW j City of Hun. I declare under penalty of perjury, that ! No.896A)and will be'on al tington Bosch w160 penalty t' J lot with a grade differential Maln Strobt..snd Floor, the foregoing is true and correct. I of more than,three'it,be- HuMIn!➢ton tlseoh;�Ca1=� tween the high point and, the low point. Location Ifornli Osti48, j 18741.Jockey Circle(at the`,aSti ?27s.. terminus o} Jockey Clrcte t �Publlshe�tlHuntingtonl �-southwest 'of Ellis Avenue Beach-Fountain Valley .In� Executed on February 5 ggs I and- Saddleback Lane dpende'nt February i Project Planner Susan 1898�€ e i at Costa Mesa California. Pierce _ �021=944', NOTICE 'IS ' 1fkREBYYi GIVEN that the above I eml Is categorically exempt from=the provisions=of the California .Environmental Quelltv_AM_r- Signature wde Brockway, City Clerk y of Huntington Beach r7l Mice of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 0� `� _. ,. `. on Beach,CA 92648 r12/06/3�,S414..- tAl-c�:. 145 -411-11 Jay B. Davis 279 Santa Ana Ave . Long Beach CA 90803 �011 b PM z C)> 12 18 0"5�j i -GAL N IC HEARING .as ----------------- ---------- -de Brockway,City Clerk y of Huntington Beach Mice of the Cfty Clerk P.O.Box 190 iroon Beach,CA 92648 M 027i"06/lak S-A-4-IM4 7 E T E R S E 23 r`V�D✓V v' 159-411-30 e A/D Central Park #9 Homeowne: 123 Agate Ave. No. B �ligr0,W, Newport Beach CA 92662 R E T U R N TO.- SENDER E X P I F-111. L NOTICE.- PUBLIC HFA�1% 'Myl(fir,ph,�M if If if' 6-a rhu't a Sri -;a33 159-352-26 David D. Dahl 505 Park Ave . IN6TO,f� Newport Beach CA 92662 ITI L GA . IQTIG I U LIC HEARING �� `'"�' ` `.J... : 3',zya'�2►1r�1'3r� {{l1f;E�1;ItII„flttl{1iI11111t1t�II13I„I�fttl,I �II1li11ltli :kway, City Clerk iting/tton Beach Cit _ the y Clerk Box I90 7Cd41 1 ■/�_A 92648 •� f't 1-llj1S' -Aa, -!•t.ryst i. �.y p s.: (•. �''_�{•f S�s=r�-i�SLr V flT r, � Y _ ..Iti ,•5 J L 1 A+ � 159-352-2-3 David D. Dahl 505 Park Ave . NSTpr'� Newport Beach CA 92662 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 3L�..4$�cs1��� IIlI!'.!lI11l11litl!!Iltll!!!lIII {i{t11{1!�!{ititllyll{�l.{tt{�Ili{:Iftliil1�1�111J� Box 190 . :' i �u .i --�: �' ,���; .�-. }'� !• Beach, CA 92648 �•. . ,. at___ ,-r ,.�./,'f ,L_ 27 i—j._x=' -. w.f ��•f)!�L• 3R ik' ii �.7;Jiffs G - IC� 159-411-21 Patrick B. Roche 18732 Jockey Cir HF IN6T Huntington Beach CA ��R�. O,r 9aGyg P� �c El ITr LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING �a6aa �t�,b-�-Bf•���' '� ' .: �-:, . II!Ilftll:itiit,illlIlllltl{ltll�iiiilil,ii,,,1,1,t11,tl;lllil inie Brockway, City Clerk ty.of Huntington Beach Mice of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 tington Beach, CA 92648 X4W,0_& 159-412-02 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . INS Newport Beach .CA92662 RE-11FIN 3 F.1 5RETUR'N -r-5- LEGAL NOTICE- P-U�LIC--HEARING'---'-.----,7;.-. Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 .iflngton Beach, CA 92648 VV 159411-29 Park#9 H.A.E. INS 123 Agate Ave. No B Balboa Island CA 92663 To P4. TY 5 E IN D P R -'tMAL.NQTIC . ...... FARING P.O. Box 190 itington Beach,CA 92648 1-,)9-412-02 Park#9 Central 505 Park Ave. Balboa Island CA 92663 RETURN _RETuR :7 SENDER� TY LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC-MEA13M.- Ild...All III",I!III,I Idlul 1111 Hill 111111 ,ckway, City Clerk f - ntington Beach _ f the City Clerk ,•'`-` `�. yam: �. Box 190 Beach,CA 92648 r,:, ,,,, ,.,}}4.. .�•. •J.rJ-J Jy. IV _ 159-411-28 Park #9 Homeowners Ass F 123 Agate Ave . No. B Newport Beach CA 92662 INsrp,� t - D LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING w_ S2662 =ilarsfx — iT-�� Ilslssssislsilsslssil,sisllss,ssri11�1ssiliitl�i:sil„�,�lsll - -- --- 1-7 '.O. Box 190 :_; :,- - ; {-1 "= �.: in Beach, CA 92648 116 {.; ._ :• ,= - t.;TL ,;?i =:�'=' "'� : ': � y 159-411-30 Park#9 H.A.E. �'l ITINsrp�, 123 Agate Ave.No B li� Sap"MA1144 Bid Balboa Island CA 92663 r-� y ;_ ,'`fie : RE T l!fZ,J G-�� ..r TURN TO SEND�R "-Q' S 'IDER i ��EGALvNOTfCf RING '}+� _ d „111u„1,lot Ji,liili„li„Li„li,,,ll�l f Huntington Beach. a of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 :on Beach,CA 92648 "f n /r._ r,n _uk,~,. `'tir• � '= _ `L?j_ 'S 1.)9-411-28 Park#9 H.A.E. S tlN6rp,�, 123 Agate Ave. No B Balboa Island CA 92663 �:RETLjR'� 7RE .��;�a 'J y R. LEGAL NOTICE- PUBTo LIC.-HEARING - r�� 62 c,��n ti�l,► till 11„►1111„111„of till 1111„1m..1,1 rockway, City Clerk -�' untington Beach of the City Clerk O. Box 190 'n Beach, CA 92648 _ •,3,',-, .:� x•—r _¢\\_'fit•3T;: u:�r —{?''=�•'.r.', ,Y•-i',.:s`a v�': 159-411-29 Central Park #9 Homeowne 123 Agate Ave . No. B �jIM6T0,�, Newport Beach CA 92662 URN �NT1 c SENDER � _-- y F LL.ECA�-N. - P IC HEARING -- " 9s66s; a-B1 R0 II+IY„�I�i�l( ::I:.II:,I+I( ► ,:, fifi�1� 1i�� 1,1�:11����}1+1I rockway, City Clerk _ Huntington Beach of the City Clerk .O.Box 190 - -n Beach,CA92648 tra iL.'Ss•r.r.3s� =r. +t� �,r, ', r- � _� j-�_1 �� 1. -.u�•a s u j,! � — r 159-352-26 David D. Dahl 505 Park Ave. ATIN6�p�, Babboa CA 92662 ER � ; E , T�. ' PUBLIC HEARING _ - 159-352-23 David D. Dahl 505 Park Ave. Ba6boa CA 92662 r r. NO ^ r- LEGAL NDICE=PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK February 24, 1998 Gilda Keshavarzian Mahvesh Keyvanazar 9594 Nightingale Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held Monday, February 17, 1998, referred Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle)back to the Planning Commission. A copy of the minutes of the February 17, 1998 will be mailed to you when completed for your review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:mh CC: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director Susan Pierce, Community Development Depart. Scott Hess, Community Development Depart. g:/fol Iowup\letters\90day1 tr (Telephone:714-536.5227) I 151w NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE .m � a.�S�9� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, February 17, 1998,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2006 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will.hold a public hearing on the following item: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-79NARIANCE NO.96- 27 (TWO STORY.THREE LEVEL HOUSE): Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Re uest: To consider revised plans for a 8,587 square foot two story, three level single family dwelling with variances to allow a 20 ft. setback in lieu of minimum 50 ft. and to exceed the maximum two ft. cut and fill grading limitation with up to 7.5 ft. fill. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A)and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three ft. between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle(at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Project Planner: Susan Pierce NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. N FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after February 12, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-522T (g:1ega1s:counci1:98CCO217) PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS - 1/14/98 President 1 Hunti gto Harbor POA '10 FAN 16 H.B.Chamber of Commerce P. O.B 791 Jim Xa t Zki 2210 Main Street,Suite 200 Sunse ch,CA 90742 18586 ain Street,Suite 200 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun ' gt n Beach,CA 92648 Judy Legan 2 Williai\i D. Wman 11 Edna Liftlebury 17 Orange County Assoc. of Realtors PLC Golden St.Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. 25552 La Paz Road 23 Cornakate Plaza,Suite 250 11021 Magnolia Blvd. Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Brach CA 92660-7912 Garden Grove,CA 92642 President 3 Mr.Tom.?anfc 12 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Amigos De lsa ica New UrbM West Society, nc.// P.O.Box 374 520 Broa�a,�ay Ste. 100 P.O. Box 926 Huntington ea lt,CA 92605 Santa 1V�iomca,CA 9040I Costa Me ,CA 92627 Attn:Ja e thold Sunset Beac Co munity Assoc. 4 Pres.,H. . Hist ociety 13 CountyXCA EMA 19 Pat Thies Pre i nt C/O New nd House Museum MichaeDir. PO Box 215 19820 Be Blvd. P.O. Bo Sunset Beac 90742-0215 Huntin n each,CA 92648 Santa A02-4048 Presiden 5 Chairpe son 14 County o Oran EMA 19 Huntingto B ch Tomorrow Historica Re ources Bd. Thomas th s PO Box 86 Comm.Se ices Dept. P. O. Box 4 8 Huntingto ach,CA 92648 2000 M ' t. Santa Ana C 92702-4048 Huntin on each,CA 92648 Julie Va Zder ost 6 Counci n Aging 15 PlannX artment 19 BIA-OC 1706 r nge Ave. Orany EMA 9 Executi Circle #100 Hun ' gto Beach,CA 92648 P. O. 8 Irvine C 714-6734 Santa 92702-4048 i lucha Sp' er 7 Jeff'etz 16 Countyo Or nge/EMA 19 SCAG Sea OA Tim Miller 818 We 7th, 12th Floor 1939 ady Harbor Circle P.O. Box 04 Los An7le CA 90017 Hunti gto. Beach,CA 92648 Santa A a,CA 2702-4048 E.T.I. rral 0 8 Joh2 o 16 Planni Di 20 Mary Be Seacli HOA City of C Mesa 20292 Eas ood Cir. 193 rfdale Lane P. O. Box 0 Huntin j n each,CA 92646 Hun ingt n Beach,CA 92648 Costa M sa,CA 92628-1200 Allen Macenski, 9 Lou nnone 16 Planm Dir. 21 Environmental Board Chairman Seaclif OA City of tain Valley 20021 Lawson Lane 19821 can Bluff Circle 10200 Sla- Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntin o Beach CA 92648 Fountain /al ,CA 92708 g:labels\phnlbls PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS - 1/14/98 Planning rect r 22 Jerry Buchan 29 Country View Estates HOA 37 City of West ster HB City Eleme ry School Dist. Gerald Chapman 8200 Westmi er Blvd. 20451 CraimeV e 6742 Shire Circle Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Plamlit Dir ctor 23 James Jo i s 30 Chelyle rown' g 38 City of S I each Ocean Vie ementary MeadowIa rea 211 Eight School distrJ'' 16771 Roos t Lane Seal Beac ,CA 90740 17200 Pinfhurs Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Califo ' Co tal Commission 24 Ron Frazi r 31 Sally Grah 1 38 Theresa He Wesri11i11st School District Meadowlar rea South Coast Office 14121 Ce od Avenue 5161 Geldi,g ircle 200 Oceang te, IOth Floor Westmin�er CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92649. Long_Beach;CA 92802-4302 California octal Commission 24 Patricia o 32 Koll Con an 39 South Coast ea Office HB Union igh School Disrict 4343 Von roan 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor 10251 Y rkt n Avenue Newport B ac ,CA 92666 Long Beach,.CA 92802-4302 Hunt4n Beach,CA 92646 Robertrt eph 25 CSA 33 Caltrans D, ict 12 730 El Can n Way#200 2501 Pul tan St. Tustin,C .92680 Santa A ,CA 92705 Director 26 Goldenwes ollege 34 Local Solid ste Enf.Agy. Attn: Fred O ns O.C.Healt Ca e Agency 15744 Gol enwest St. P.O.Box 55 Huntingto Beach CA 92647 Santa An CA 92702 New Gro Coordinator 27 OC County rs,Beach 35 Huntington ch Post Office and Parks D t. 6771 Warne Ave. P. O. Box 40 8 Huntington B ach,CA 92647 Santa Ana, A 92702-4048 Marc ker 28 Hunti n Beach Mall 36 Fountain all y Attn: at R rs-Laude Elementary hool District 7777 Edit er e. #300 17210 Oak t et Huntingt 11 Beach CA 92647 j Fountain Valley CA 92708 i Dr. Dua Dishno 29 Country View Estates HOA 37 HB City El 1 entary School Dist. Carrie Thomas PO Box 71 6642 Trotter Drive Huntington ea h,CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92648 g:labels\phnlbls 110-221-01 110-221-02 110-221-03 Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92648 ,Yz&y?� 91.24 vp 110-221-04 110-221-05 110-221-06 Ronald I . Brindle City of Huntington Beach Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 2000 Main St . 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92648' 9Z_&i,sr 110-221-07 110-221-08 110-221-09 Ronald I . Brindle Dorothy J. Walker Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA _ Huntington Beach CA = _3. Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-221-10 110-221-11 110-221-12 Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . i 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA _'_T_= ? Huntington Beach CA 92648 9�C�Y$ 9�yf3 110-221-13 110-221-19 110-221-20 Dorothy J. Walker Margaret J. Pettitt Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA ,-'-. : _ Huntington Beach CA `: -3 Huntington Beach CA 92648 �y8 _ 9?bu8 110-221-21 110-221-22 110-221-23 Ronald I . Brindle Emma F. Scouller Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 8302 Indianapolis Ave. 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA - __-: Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-221-24 110-221-25 110-221-26 Dorothy J. Walker City of Huntington Beach Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 2000 Main St . 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA' "'" Huntington Beach CA - Huntington Beach CA 92648 IWO 9aG48 159-352-05 159-352-06 159-352-07 Courtney Dubar Gerald L. Chapman Gordon M. Watson 6741 Shire Cir 6742 Shire Cir 6732 Shire Cir Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92648 leYo7� �I�Y� 159-352-08 159-352-15 159-352-16 John D. MacKey Donald B. Jankowiak Jack C. Collins 6712 Shire Cir 6711 Shetland Cir 6731 Shetland Cir Huntington Beach CA -_ Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 9264S 159-352-17 159-352-22 159-352-23 Robert P. Mandic Country View Homeowners A David D. Dahl 16242 Tisbury Cir 17205 Pacific Coast HWY 505 Park Ave. Huntington Beach CA - Sunset Beach CA 90742 Newport Beach CA 92662 Q.u P R - 9 159-352-24 159-352-25 159-352-26 Edwards-Lindborg-Dah Country View Homeowners David D. Dahl 30110 Crown Valley PKWYN/ I 17205 Pacific Coast HWY 505 Park Ave . Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Sunset Beach CA 90742 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-352-28 159-352-29 159-402-06 Gene N. Hill John T. Fisher Michael P. Pust 6722 Shetland Cir 6692 Shetland Cir 6711 Pimlico Cir Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92649 9�(c5E8' _ 9zG �g 159-402-07 159-402-16 159-402-17 David T. Mai Michael D. Burdge John A. Thomas 6721 Pimlico Cir 6731 Pimlico Cir 6741 Pimlico Cir Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 9264S 9Z(o�fS 9 LG V 8' 159-402-18 159-411-04 159-411-05 John Chien Nguyen Gary A. Hybl Joseph B . Young 6751 Pimlico Cir 6811 Derby Cir P.O. Box 1067 Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92647 92,G11$ 159-411-06 159-411-07 159-411-08 Mehraban Homaie Barton A Kubelka DDS Inc Anthony W. Pascoe 10052 Birchwood Dr. 10951 Chestnut St . 172 Julip Lane Huntington Beach CA _ Los Alamitos CA 90720 Huntington Beach CA 92647 92h�G 159-411-09 159-411-10 159-411-11 Ronald K. Marks Arnold Brender Jay B. Davis 6752 Derby, Cir 6772 Derby Cir 279 Santa Ana Ave. Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA _ Long Beach CA 90803 qwV 8 159-411-12 159-411-13 159-411-14 Ronald Mc Devitt Wayne Leader Gelso Dispalatro 27 Rue Cannes 18671 Jockey Cir 14358 Trumball St . Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA Whittier CA 90604 2,&4 159-411-15 159-411-16 159-411-17 James D. Rye Jung-Chou Chang Howard T. Yata 9488 Honeysuckle Ave . 18721 Jockey Cir 18731 Jockey Cir Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92648 9�4�g 159-411-18 159-411-19 159-411-20 Mahvash Keyvanazar Christiano Trust David R. Melin 9594 Nightingale Ave . 18752 Jockey Cir 18742 Jockey Cir Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92648 9LG�� 159-411-21 159-411-22 159-411-23 Patrick B . Roche Carl T. Hartman Raymond C. Wang 18732 Jockey Cir 18722 Jockey Cir 18712 Jockey Cir Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA Huntington Beach CA 92648 .t e �r-7 ` n 159-411-24 159-411-25 159-411-26 Jerry H. Pabbruwee Christopher Lee Mc Elroy Thomas J. Watkinson 18702 Jockey Cir 18692 Jockey Cir 18682 Jockey Cir Huntington Beach CA c Huntington Beach CA - 8 Huntington Beach CA 9264& 159-411-27 159-411-28 159-411-29 Thanh Van Tran Park #9 Homeowners Ass El Central Park #9 Homeowne 18662 Jockey Cir 123 Agate Ave. No. B 123 Agate Ave. No. B Huntington Beach CA - :�~ Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 QWe� 159-411-30 159-412-01 159-412-02 Central Park #9 Homeowners David O. Schiller Park #9 Central 123 Agate Ave. No. B 2602 E. 20Th St . No. 203 505 Park Ave : Newport Beach CA 92662 Signal Hill CA 90804 Newport Beach CA 92662 j-jcr►gavwnti"� .4sboc- P.o. P�oY V-;aX /r✓1A I i I 159-352-23 159-352-26 159-411-27 David D.Dahl David D. Dahl Thanh Van Tran 505.Park Ave. 505 Park Ave. 18662 Jockey Cir Batboa CA 92662 Babboa CA 92662 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-411-28 159-411-29 159-411-3 0 Park#9 H.A.E. Park#9 H.A.E. Park#9 H.A.E. 123 Agate Ave.No B 123 Agate Ave.No B 123 Agate Ave. No B Balboa Island CA 92663 Balboa Island CA 92663 Balboa Island CA 92663 159-412-02 Park#9 Central 505 Park Ave. Balboa Island CA 92663 G:KIM:FORMS:LBLFORM } CITY COUNCIL/REDE�'ELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: �76 -y7 DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE 9 -�i 7- y dp' CONTACT O w PHONE: X Please referJLQ Section 3 of the "Agenda Process Manual" N/A VES NO ❑ [ff ❑ Is the notice attached? ❑ Ell," ❑ Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or Redevelopment Agency) hearing? ❑ El' ❑ Are the date, day, & time of the public hearing correct? ❑ ❑ If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? ❑ ❑ C' Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ❑ ❑ ET' Is a map attached for publication? ❑ ❑ p/ Is a larger advertisement required? Size ❑ ❑ Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list as prepared from the last available County Ass so 's rolls? ❑ d ❑ Are the applicants name and address part of h mailing label? Z' ❑ ❑ Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing label? ❑ ❑ If a Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? [Er ❑ ❑ If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission included on the mailing labels [Ef ❑ ❑ If Coastal Development Permit, are the residents labels attached? p� ❑ ❑ Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Items only) What is the minimum number of day from publication to the hearing date? What is the minimum number of times to be published? What is the specified number of days between publications? _____ 0 ML `` ....... ..... MEETING DATE: February 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Community Development Tentative tract No. 15531/CUP 97-65/Variance 97-22, Cape Anne-John Laing Community Development Holly Seacliff Development Agreement Community Development CUP 96-79,Variance 96-27 Jockey Circle TODAY'S DATE January 30, 1998 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: Q lepl-� Ray Silver Acting City Administrator 1/30/98 11:34 AM NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,February 17, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79/VARIANCE NO.96- 2E (TWO STORY,THREE LEVEL HOUSE): Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Request: To consider revised plans for a 8,587 square foot two story,three level single family dwelling with variances to allow a 20 ft. setback in lieu of minimum 50 ft. and to exceed the maximum two ft. cut and fill grading limitation with up to 7.5 ft. fill. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan(Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A)and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three ft. between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle(at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Project Planner: Susan Pierce NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after February 12, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714) 536-5227 I (g:Iegals:council:98CCO217) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING rn 4 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday,February 17, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: Vi• APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15531/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97- 65/VARIANCE NO.97-22 (CAPE ANN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS Applicant: John Laing Homes Appellant: Councilmember Tom Harman Request: To permit the subdivision of approximately 13 gross acres into a one(1) lot subdivision for condominium purposes for development of 146 detached single family homes. The conditional use permit request includes a model home sales complex. A variance is requested for a minimum nine(9)feet side separation between buildings on the same lot in lieu of 15 feet between two(2) story buildings and 20 feet between three (3) story buildings. Location: Southeast corner of Promenade Parkway and Seagate ,Drive Project Planner: Mary Beth Broeren 2. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE HOLLY SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: Review of the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 Annual Compliance Report. Location: Approximately 450 acres located between Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington Street on the east,Edwards Street on the west and the Seacliff Golf Course on the south. Project Planner: Mary Beth Broeren NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item#1 is covered by Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #2 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington.Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after February 12, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g:legals:council:98CC2172) Connie Brockway,City Clerk U.S.F�� City of Huntington Beach �;c�' �'�f, .r..:;e ,,,n Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 :. t , I Li; :3 r f u i a.. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 'Ai 40: *.� }sue A.! I-A-S f, L-54-1- l 11-0-221-05 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . 'fIN6Tp Huntington Beach CA Ntr LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING SI64a cvzD II.(,,,,(,I,I(.„I„II„I,pill lift,I,IIfill 1111(1111(111111111 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 �� AQ Huntington Beach,CA92648 .�., i�Y���JL;•� �LI•iTf.• L'k��. _L _-� i?.Ti-=.-.� q 110-221-25 , City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . �►ttic to,� Huntington Beach CA ,r :: icy_._�•.,, B�,� 9aG48 � ITI s 'ems° '��::;;::•� LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING ��648 a►vzc ,,I,II„„III II„J(,,III lilt •,, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK December 24, 1997 Gilda Keshavarzian Mahvesh Keyvanazar 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar: . The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, October 6, 1997, reconsidered Conditional User Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle). The following was taken: "(Qv Council) Request By Mayor Bauer For Reconsideration W The City- Council's Denial On September 15, 1997 Of The Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian And Mahavesh Keyvanazar To The Planning Commission Denial A Of Revised Plan Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 And Variance No. 96-27(18741 Jockey Circle) -Southwest Of Ellis Avenue And Saddleback Lane (420.40) ********************************************************************* "The Mayor stated it was his motion that Council vote for reconsideration which includes staff returning this item to Council after the appropriate ministerial processes have been gone through. A second to the motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Dettloff. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he would be opposing this motion as it included the item being returned to the City Council. He stated he could support the motion if the plan with the parameters stated, with the drawings, etc. is presented to the Planning Commission and not returned to Council unless on appeal. The Mayor stated this was fine. Councilmember Sullivan stated he would like to vote on this with the additional wording on No. 5—to be brought back for approval by the Planning Commission and get it over with. The Mayor stated this was fine, recognizing that the applicant still has the right to appeal at that point. The City Attorney asked for the full motion to be repeated as she was unclear as to Council's action. g:fo l l owup/l ette rs/90d ay l tr (Telephone:714-536-5227) Page 2 - 10/6/97 Letter Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 The Mayor clarified that Council was approving Items Nos. I through 5 as set forth on the agenda (1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet - South-10 feet - East-10 feet - North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building) with the inclusion of Item No. 6—that the balcony never be enclosed and Item No. 7—refer item back to the Planning Commission for approval. Councilmember Harman spoke in opposition to the motion for reconsideration, citing past difficulties in negotiations with the applicant. Councilmember Green spoke in opposition to the motion stating that Council is being asked to function as the Planning Commission. He stated that he believed the entire motion should be as set forth in Item No. 7—to refer the project back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Garofalo stated that he agrees with Councilmember Sullivan that if the applicant complies with what is set forth in the agenda packet that it is essentially a new house that should go to the Planning Commission; that the fees should not again be charged and the process be expedited. Mayor Pro Tem Dettloff stated that she supported the motion. She stated the issues appeared to be resolved. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believes whatever fees are involved should be paid by the applicant. Councilmember Garofalo brought up the issue of the communication from the Ellis Central Park 49 Homeowners'Association and requested it be incorporated in the document. He stated it contained everything mentioned by the Mayor. The Mayor reviewed the letter stating there is a difference in letters as this letter from the Ellis Central Park#9 Homeowners'Association (dated September 8, 1997) agrees to a 20 foot setback rather than 23 feet. The Mayor stated his intent is to keep it simple; not for Council to design the house. He stated that it is clear the applicant can start over again no matter how Council votes. The City Attorney stated that the motion Council is making is first to reconsider which is to bring up the action that previously had been decided negatively. She stated this revives the matter as if it had never been denied; so the appellant does not have an obligation to pay another fee to apply to have his variance proceed—the fee was paid when he applied for the first variance. g:/fo11owup\1etters\90day1tr Page 3 - 10/6/97 Letter Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 The Community Development Director stated she believes there are two different things to be considered—if the Council reconsiders this the applicant does not have to pay any fees; if it has to go back to the Planning Commission and the applicant applies for a new variance, then he will have fees for that. She stated if the Council does not want to handle this and the applicant wants to resolve it, he has to apply for a new variance for different standards which he can do. The Mayor requested a vote to determine what will happen. A vote.was taken as follows: AYES: Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: Harman, Green ABSENT. None The City Attorney stated that it has been reconsidered. In response to the Mayor's question as to what the Council now needs to do, the City Attorney advised Council to make a motion as to how they want to proceed. She stated that earlier it was indicated to her that Council wishes to follow the outline on the agenda and add the condition of the top floor balcony and to refer back to the Planning Commission for approval. Councilmember Garofalo stated that if the Council does nothing the applicant can take the new plans and move forward on his own. The Mayor stated that the motion made by him and Mayor Pro Tem Dettloff is as shown on the agenda with the two additions-1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet-South-10 feet- East-10 feet - North- 50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners'signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating. appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building and to add the following revisions: 6. The upstairs balcony is not to be enclosed and 7. Refer back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he favored the motion as it makes it clear to the applicant to build the house under these parameters. The Mayor stated that by this motion the two homeowners' groups have veto power over whatever the applicant does. gAbI lowup\letters\90dayl tr Page 4 - 10/6/97 Letter Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Harman, Green, Garofalo .ABSENT. None The Mayor stated that the applicant has his direction. " This is a final decision. You are 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 December 24, 1997 to apply to the courts for judicial review. A copy of the minutes of the October 16, 1997 City Council meeting is enclosed for your review. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, O / Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:mh Enclosure: Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 CC: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director Susan Pierce,Community Development Depart. Scott Hess,Community Development Depart. gAb I lowup\letters\90dayltr Page 28 - Council/Agency Minutes - 10/06/97 (CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED APPROPRIATION FOR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT FROM DEMOLISHED STANDARD MARKET SITE ON MAIN STREET SOUTH TO THE PIERSIDE PAVILION IMPROVEMENTS The City Council considered a communication from the City Council Downtown Committee recommending that the City Council appropriate $5,000 to remove and replace the remaining section of sidewalk from the Standard Market to the Pierside Pavilion for an overall short term improvement to an otherwise unpleasant and aesthetically unacceptable public pedestrian passageway. In the future, the remaining improvements to both the east and west sides of Main Street will be accomplished per the Council adopted Master Plan for Main Street. Councilmember Garofalo presented reasons for his recommendation that funds be appropriated to remove and replace the sidewalk only from the Standard Market site south to the Pierside Pavilion improvements. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to appropriate $5,000 to remove and replace the sidewalk only, from the Standard Market, south, to the Pierside Pavilion Improvements. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: None (CITY COUNCIL) REQUEST BY MAYOR BAUER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DENIAL ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY GILDA KESHAVARZIAN AND MAHAVESH KEYRANAZAR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL A OF REVISED PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE) -SOUTHWEST OF ELLIS AVENUE AND SADDLEBACK LANE (420.40) The City Council considered a communication from Mayor Ralph Bauer requesting reconsideration of the City Council's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27, 18741 Jockey Circle. On September 15, 1997 the City Council denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission's denial on the following subject: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian. Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar. Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of-a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required 279 10/06/97 -City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 29 Mayor Bauer presented reasons why he had placed this request for reconsideration on the City Council agenda. The Mayor referred to a communication from both homeowners' associations regarding the issues to which both homeowners' associations have agreed. He reported that these issues have been incorporated in the agenda packet, including the roof being 35 feet above the existing pad; the minimum setbacks as shown; the landscape/hardscape plans to be resubmitted with the affected homeowners' organizations' signatures; and architectural treatment. He stated an issue which he believes should be included is that the balcony is not to be enclosed. The Mayor stated that if the applicant agrees to these issues, he believes the applicant will be able to build his house. The Mayor stated the first issue at this point is to vote for reconsideration which includes staff returning this item to Council after the appropriate ministerial processes have been gone through; that Council is not approving the project tonight but merely reconsidering it and if the applicant is unwilling to agree with this the deal is over. The Community Development Director informed Council that this item could be set for public hearing probably within the next month. The Mayor stated it was his motion that Council vote for reconsideration which includes staff returning this item to Council after the appropriate ministerial processes have been gone through. A second to the motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he would be opposing this motion as it included the item being returned to the City Council. He stated he could support the motion if the plan with the parameters stated, with the drawings, etc. is presented to the Planning Commission and not returned to Council unless on appeal. The Mayor stated this was fine. Councilmember Sullivan stated he would like to vote on this with the additional wording on No. 5—to be brought back for approval by the Planning Commission and get it over with. The Mayor stated this was fine, recognizing that the applicant still has the right to appeal at that point. The City Attorney asked for the full motion to be repeated as she was unclear as to Council's action. The Mayor clarified that Council was approving Items Nos. 1 through 5 as set forth on the agenda (1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet- South- 10 feet - East-10 feet - North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building) with the inclusion of Item No. 6—that the balcony never be enclosed and Item No. 7—refer item back to the Planning Commission for approval. Councilmember Harman spoke in opposition to the motion for reconsideration, citing past difficulties in negotiations with the applicant. Councilmember Green spoke in opposition to the motion stating that Council is being asked to function as the Planning Commission. He stated that he believed the entire motion should be as set forth in Item No. 7—to refer the project back to the Planning Commission. 280 •Page 30 - Council/Agency Minutes - 10/06/97 Councilmember Garofalo stated that he agrees with Councilmember Sullivan that if the applicant complies with what is set forth in the agenda packet that it is essentially a new house that should go to the Planning Commission; that the fees should not again be charged and the process be expedited. Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff stated that she supported the motion. She stated the issues appeared to be resolved. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believes whatever fees are involved should be paid by the applicant. Councilmember Garofalo brought up the issue of the communication from the Ellis Central Park #9 Homeowners'Association and requested it be incorporated in the document. He stated it contained everything mentioned by the Mayor. The Mayor reviewed the letter stating there is a difference in letters as this letter from the Ellis Central Park#9 Homeowners' Association (dated September 8, 1997) agrees to a 20-foot setback rather than 23 feet. The Mayor stated his intent is to keep it simple; not for Council to design the house. He stated that it is clear the applicant can start over again no matter how Council votes. The City Attorney stated that the motion Council is making is first to reconsider which is to bring up the action that previously had been decided negatively. She stated this revives the matter as if it had never been denied; so the appellant does not have an obligation to pay another fee to apply to have his variance proceed—the fee was paid when he applied for the first variance. The Community Development Director stated she believes there are two different things to be considered—if the Council reconsiders this the applicant does not have to pay any fees; if it has to go back to the Planning Commission and the applicant applies for a new variance, then he will have fees for that. She stated if the Council does not want to handle this and the applicant wants to resolve it, he has to apply for a new variance for different standards which he can do. The Mayor requested a vote to determine what will happen. A vote was taken as follows: AYES: Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: Harman, Green ABSENT: None The City Attorney stated that it has been reconsidered. In response to the Mayor's question as to what the Council now needs to do, the City Attorney advised Council to make a motion as to how they want to proceed. She stated that earlier it was indicated to her that Council wishes to follow the outline on the agenda and add the condition of the top floor balcony and to refer back to the Planning Commission for approval. Councilmember Garofalo stated that if the Council does nothing the applicant can take the new plans and move forward on his own. 281 10/06/97 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 31 . The Mayor stated that the motion made by him and Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff is as shown on the agenda with the two additions-1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet - South-10 feet- East-10 feet - North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building and to add the following revisions: (6) The upstairs balcony is not to be enclosed and (7) Refer back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he favored the motion as it makes it clear to the applicant to build the house under these parameters. The Mayor stated that by this motion the two homeowners' groups have veto power over whatever the applicant does. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Harman, Green, Garofalo ABSENT: None The Mayor stated that the applicant has his direction. ADJOURNMENT -CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Bauer adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at 12:38 a.m. to the regular meetings to be held on Monday, October 20, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman 282 Part 3§ 1094.5 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Note 378 n.malyd (nr iww trial de no".. Prvxi+ l r, tnine,l r.oni, i,aiou r hnd oo juri.di,-limi 1'nlirornin lus. .\1+prnls it.]. nod +litl not drtern;hu• nu•ritx. \\'extern Air (19711) 1:7 ('nl.nptr. 51o. .ri-, l'..\.:td 29. I,Inrx lac. v. Kolilexki (Iptil) 19 Cal.l(ptr. 'rrinl court'm judgnteol d.•n%iug writ n( n+nndate to coulprl director tit ligrirtllturu Irnrt that. letter dixchargiag mcnior Iva+• In met nxide hie derision revmkiut; petltinn• Ist Agri, in office m( mail% clerk xluled er'n lirenmr us Aircraft pilot ill huxinrxm ,.t halt xhe wax guilt?• of mimronduct in re- prst rtnitrol wnm resumed mitt cnxc re movhig publie rerurds front Ihn files and mnnded In trial rnurt with directivam to nnttilating and me-cretins: them on vnrloax nvnaml ease to director fur purlmt,v tit datem, w•hercnx ill hearing heforo county ,1 re+onmiderh;g the pemalty l,rrviously im. elvil xervive cmamimsion rcidrnre wito; in• posed, where it was found (lint some of traduced only ns to whoa took place on Ihu charges against petitioner worn not nnc of the dateR. did oil require tho diR- wipported by evidence. \\'ingfirld %-. t rft•t ronri r+f nppr.al nn ni.prnl from judg- Dirot.•tor of Agriculture (10721) W3 Cal. ;rent ?wording mcnior Iypi.,l clerk writ of Ilptr.019,20 C.A.311 200. mandnte. after reverxing tl:o judgmeut of 111'ocesilhig fair rpviow of drninl by rom. the muperior vourt, to remand the matter rnixsloner of enrporntionx or permit to to tl;n c.-m 111mxtan for re••ousideration. rhnngo voting rightm of xlotrrholderm where there n•ax n similnrit*v of fnelx Four- would he rrnlnnded to xuperior smut fur rounding renu,val of the d,Kumcnla on all cletof the dntem. Pratt v. L+,s .kngelcm C7oun- tiul evidence whether thorn �mi sloner'S tv Civil Service. C.ontmiesiuu (1952) 2:i8 tint evidence to xupport e,+nuniseloncr's I'.3d S. ](15 C.A:.'.<l 11.1. - fiudingFo, where court 'improperly deter- § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and tarty defined; or- dinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local ?gamey, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of - the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent tht-reof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094 5 of this code only if the petition for writ:of mandate pursuant to such section is filed -,:'ithin the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decisiC)l is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tiQn upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- ant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The cclmplefe rv(:ord of the proveedings shall Ix- prepared by flit local ;lg(,11(.y or ifs voillulis!:itln, board, officer, or ;1gen( which made the decision and shill be delivered to the petitionk!l, within 90 tiays after he lies filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- Sc-ript of tht: proccedings, all pleadings, all notices Ind larders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or Its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) )f the petitioner files a request for the record ns specified in ;ctllxlivision (c) within 10 days after the dale the decision becomes fi- nal as pro\'ided in subdivision (b)', Iliv lisle within which a petition put:sutint to Section 109-1.5 ratty be filed shnil he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been .revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. _ (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this :section applicable. . If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision In any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976, c.276,p.681, § 1.) Forms See West'M California Cotle Forme,Civil Procedure. Library References Admiairtrotive Lti%v turd Procedure C..1'.& Public Administrative Bodiee and 1'r(mrrinre i 193. Notes of Decisions In general 1 that hublia emploptucnt rrintionN hunril Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 loll rx-•inxivb 'furiMlliatfon to dctenttine whrl.hor the mirnir practice chnrgex were Juetifie11; niod, in view of trimbers' failure to r<hunst timlr ntlminixtrtulve remedies 1. in general moiler tit. lindoht All. trial emtrt erred in grltnul bniord's 'lntilnt-:rtd frrrritig tut grouting writ of mundisto to compel xnprr• Irat-ln:r xttltarivs nrtt•r twotirtitg tut ttt:w ioteod.•nt of dixtrirt and othertt to ruixr xrhoal year, while ronirni•t urt;ntinihmx xttlitri-•s of rennin trnchcru. Amndtnr Viol. were peodinb, arranbly emx ion tuifuir lee 8,•t;mndnry K'hif- torx Axn'n t. \rwlin prurtioe lit violution of the ItudQn Act oil (1070) 131 Cul.11ptr. 724, &4 U.A.Jil 25-1. 675 (19) 10/06/97 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 19 H-3. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Tom Harman H-4. Submitted By Council/Agency Mayor Pro Tem Shirley Dettloff H-5. Submitted By Council/Agency Mayor Ralph Bauer (City Council) Request By Mayor Bauer For Reconsideration Of The City Council's Denial On September 15, 1997 Of The Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian And Mahavesh Keyranazar To The Planning Commission Denial A Of Revised Plan Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 And Variance No.96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle)-s/w Ellis Avenue&Saddleback Lane (420.40) Communication from Mayor Ralph Bauer requesting Reconsideration of the City Council's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27, 18741 Jockey Circle. On September 15, 1997 the City Council denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission's denial on the following subject: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian. Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar. Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight(8)foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two(2)foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3)feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle-at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required Recommended Action: Motion to: Reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle) based upon letter submitted by property owner that he will revise the plans to reflect his homeowner's association recommendations for approval. These revisions include: 1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet-South-10 feet - East-10 feet- North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::................................. .....:..::. �� ::: ::< le:::# taxrr rt s r] .........::.::.::...:.::::.::.::..:.:.::.:.:... .::.:: :.::.::.::.:::::. ........ [Motion to reconsider 5-2 (Green, Harman: No) Motion to approve Recommended Action as Amended-`FAILED 3-4 (Noes: Julien, Green, Harman, Sullivan)] (19) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication �- Community Development Department or TO: City Councilmembers FROM: Ralph Bauer, Mayor PIVj � Z VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator o __{'�A _. �C12.rn DATE: October 1, 1997 N mm Cn r_ o a SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-7q AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE) a Motion to: "Reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle)based upon letter submitted by property owner that he will revise the plans to reflect his homeowner's association recommendations for approval. These revisions include: 1) Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2) Minimum setbacks as follows: West - 20 feet South - 10 feet East - 10 feet North - 50 feet; 3) Provide landscape and hardscape plans; and 4) Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures." 5) Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building. (g:admn1tr97/1097msf1) 8 -5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK September 22, 1997 Gilda Keshavarzian Mahvesh Keyvanazar 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, California-92708 Dear Gilda Keshavarzian-and Mahvesh Keyvanazar: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, September 15, 1997, sustained the decision of the Planning Commission and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 based on the attached findings for denial by the Planning Commission. This is a final decision. You are 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 September 22, 1997 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC < I-q - q7 , City Clerk CB:cc Enclosure: Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 Findings for Denial cc: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director Susan Pierce, Community Development Department Scott Hess, Community Development Department .A0I I0NN up\]etters`•.90dayItr (Telephone: 714.536.5227) C n FLYDLtiGS FOR DEN7r1L _ m CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT NO. 96-79/ VARLANCE NO. 96-27 W L r �- U y -M`D]E�MS FOR DENLAL - CONDITIONAL USE PER`IIT NO. 96-79: w 1. 'Coh'ditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for construction of a 8,587 square foot, ttivo story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will be detrimental to the genera: .v elfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelEng emphasizes bulk and mass on the site and visually impacts adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan does not result in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed t,.vo story, split three level dwelling appears to be a three story, 45 foot high dwelling along the north and west elevations. There are no three story dwellings within the Specific Plan area which is developed with one- and two-story dwellings. Balcony projections intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. 3. The proposed t-wo story, split three level residential use does not comply with the provisions of the base district in which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The variance requests necessary for the establishment of the project have been denied. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a vrade differential of more than three feet be o,.-een the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan v,ill adversely affect the General Plan. The project is not �onsment v:nth the Land is-_ Element designation of Low Density Residentia], 3 Units per Acre, specific Plan Overlay, on the subject propery which prescribes the orderly development of a residentia --ea. It is not consistent :ith t-- fc lov.-ng policies: -. Avoid building materia-is, color_, a .d co-struct:on elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast s ar�fica tly v.*tn t.-e c*'a cter oI the nel�:borhocd. LU9.1.2 �. Require that a11 new resldent'al ce`'elOp-ent %NItl-un e\isting residential nelghbonccods (i.e., ulfill) be co,;,patible with existing st -L�c i res i ciudi;,g t:;e: use of building heights, grade elevations, onentatlon, and bulk- -,hat are Cc:::pat:bye with t'ne sur-mun:dlno development 2-nd mzintenance of J privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 1 FLNTDE GS FOR DENIAL - VARIA' CE \O. 96-27: 1, The ranting of Variance No. 96-27 to allow (a) a reduction in the rear aid setback from 50 feet to 8 g J Y feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling (appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c) to exceed the maximum t-,vo foot cut and fill limitation (up to 6 foot cut and 7.25 foot fill) will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent «ith limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. Although there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, in cluding shape, topography, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenw-est Specific Plan development plan is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to minimize the alteration of the natural terrain and will allow development in compliance with the Specific Plan. 3. The granting of a variance to allow (a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 8 feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling (appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c) to exceed the mascimum. ,,vo foot cut and nll li=*ation are not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of a custom home can be accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved site plan or unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. 4. The granting of the variance requests will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project reduces the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height, building height, and architectural design of the two story, split three level dwelling. 1094.5 SPFCIAI, PROCEEDINGS Part 3 Note 378 n.:mdod fnr n,•w Iri:tl de tint", 1'n•:co,l tniuc,l c,nni, i.:ioucr liner ut, juri.-li, lion ('alifnrnin l'iwinl,lt,yntcnt Iti:. Ai,pertlx 1l11. and lid not dvit-rntlue nwrit)-, \\'cat(,rtt Air (1:17,1) 1�7 ('I11.R1,1r. GIn• 57 I'.A.3.1 �29. IJovs inc. v. Kohle.ki (HIM I) 1J CAl.l(ptr. Trinl court'« jrld$;uwttl d.u*iug wril of 71f1, )91 l'.:\: t13r1(l. nimnlnte. to compel director ,f ngrirullnru lend that letter dixcitnrging xenior tyi,- In xet nxide hi derision rernking pctllinn- ixt cl, rk in offit•c of count) clerk xltited or's license ux aircrtft ldlal in hnxmcxx „i Mutt she ttax guilty of misconduct in re- prct conl rol wnx reverxcd uud caso rc tuovhi;: puhlie recunl: from Iho files and ntnndcd In trial court with directiaux to nnttilating and xrcrcting (liem on various rruinnd -nse to director fur purlmo,e of dulcx• whercnx in Itcaring before county 1 rcconxideriog the pcnnity l,r,•viously im. civil x,•rcicv commix-ion evidence wwi in- posed, where it was found ihnt norne of traduced only ns to vOint took Place on the charges ngitinxt petilioncr were. not ono of the 1:ites. slid not require. tha dis- wil,ported h•v evidence. \\'iogfirl,l v. trim court of ❑plmnl on nl.l„•n1 from ju,lg- Uirec•lar of Agriculture (11972) 1(t3 Cal. invat atvnrdiog xcuior typi>t clerk writ of l.ptr.619, 29 C.A.36 2W. mandritr, after reversing Il:o judtimcut of Proccediug for rrview of denial by cons- the superior court, to rcntnnd the trotter missioner of rorpnnitionx of permit to to iItr cmtl III txxlon for rr•-onsideraIion. rl,nnl;c votint; rights of xlinrchohlrr.x wlicrr tht•re was a ximilnritc of fAeLr cur- would he rcu,nndrd to Nuperior c•onrt fur roundii:g removal of tltc dtK•uuunts (in all :t detcriniurinn whether there tens auhrl:m of (lie dnics. 1'rnit v. L,,,: Angeles C'oun- lial evidence to support conuuiseioner.s tv Civil `en•ic� Conttnissiou (M2) 233 fiudings, where court improperly deter- P.2d 3. 10S C..A.2d 11.1. § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and jiarty defined; or- dinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent tlrt.-reof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094 ; of this code only if the petition for writ:of mandate pursuant to such section is filed t:'ithin the time limits.specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decisi%> is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tinn can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- ant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The complete rr(-ord of the procee•dirlgs shall 1w prepared by Inn kw'il .1genc'y or it; cominis.,:M11, ho:lyd, officer, ()r ,i);cnt which made the decision rind shall be rlolivered to the tletitioncl, within 90 trays riftcr he has filar a written rcOucst therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- Sc-ript of the• pr'oceedinl :s, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposexl decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 l i Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 I exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or i its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any i other papet-s in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a rettucst for Iltr record as specified in I ' .stl1)rlivisinn (c) within 10 (I:iys ;tflor the dale the decisions becomes (i- i nal as provided in subdivision (b)', tho tints: within which a petition pursuant to Sc(:tion 109-1.5 ratty he filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either t personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing b and thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this :section applicable. . If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the pt•ovisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976, c. 276, p. 581, § 1.) Forms Sce West'K California Code Forme, Civil Procedure. Library References Admiuit•trntive law rtnd Procolur,, C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodien and 0-7,!:2. Pruec,htrc § 1P3. Notes of Declslons In general I 1111tt imblic emillnvinew n•bttlons I-unrd Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 iota rs,ln�ivu Juri,+,lit•don to dutonnine whellwr the unfair l,ructice clmr�:a+ were Instifi, t; rani, in view of trxcberw' failure 1n erbnust flivir ndministra0ve remedies I. In general un,lrr Ih,• Itn,bln Acl. trial cMirt erred in S,-bool bonrd'N 'in,iInt,•n,l fr,•r•zin,; of Kranliiig writ of m:u„lute to rompel mayor. t,•:wf:,:r,' mabiri,•N nft,•r brl;imiiul; or ucN• inletident of district and utbrr4 to ruiso s,-hwd 'vrnr, wliilr. vwitnn•t nrl;ntintionx vnlnri,s of rertuin tenchr.ru. Ainnd,ir Vul- wcr,• l-en,ling. argnubl�• war nn uuf:tir I,•} X,•r,nuMry I:,Ln ntnry Ass'u %. NvNvlin l,ruclice in violutiuu of ton ltud(Iu ,1,•t nt, (1970) )51 Cul.11utr. 724, &4 C.A.3,1 251. 675 9� � - . _ _ �.� 1 -�: 10/06/97 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 27 AGENDA ITEMS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (CITY COUNCIL) DISCUSSION REGARDING: VACATION OF THE END OF HUNTINGTON STREET AT MAIN STREET (TENTATIVE MAP NO. 14590) - PROPOSAL TO REVISE PROCEDURE FOR CITY COUNCIL TIE VOTES - CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT Councilmember Garofalo stated that he would like to address the procedure by which Council made its decision on the Huntington Street issue at the public hearing on the Cannes Development Project following a tie vote. He stated that he had removed this item from this agenda, however he would like to comment on procedure in the bylaws of the Planning Commission where a tie vote automatically continues the issue to the next meeting. He suggested to Mayor Bauer that this procedure is something for the City Council to consider. City Attorney Hutton reported and read the Planning Commission bylaws. Following discussion, City Attorney Hutton was requested to place this subject on a future agenda. (CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED APPROPRIATION FOR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT FROM DEMOLISHED STANDARD MARKET SITE ON MAIN STREET SOUTH TO THE PIERSIDE PAVILION IMPROVEMENTS The City Council considered a communication from the City Council Downtown Committee recommending that the City Council appropriate $5,000 to remove and replace the remaining section of sidewalk from the Standard Market to the Pierside Pavilion for an overall short term improvement to an otherwise unpleasant and aesthetically unacceptable public pedestrian passageway. In the future, the remaining improvements to both the east and west sides of Main Street will be accomplished per the Council adopted Master Plan for Main Street. Councilmember Garofalo presented reasons for his recommendation that funds be appropriated to remove and replace the sidewalk only from the Standard Market site south to the Pierside Pavilion improvements. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to appropriate $5,000 to remove and replace the sidewalk only, from the Standard Market, south, to the Pierside Pavilion Improvements. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: None Page 28 - Council/Agency Minutes - 10/06/97 (CITY COUNCIL) REQUEST BY MAYOR BAUER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DENIAL ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY GILDA KESHAVARZIAN AND MAHAVESH KEYRANAZAR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL A OF REVISED PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE) - SOUTHWEST OF ELLIS AVENUE AND SADDLEBACK LANE (420.40) The City Council considered a communication from Mayor Ralph Bauer requesting reconsideration of the City Council's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27, 18741 Jockey Circle. On September 15, 1997 the City Council denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission's denial on the following subject: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian. Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar. Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fil! grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle- at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required Mayor Bauer presented reasons why-he had placed this request for reconsideration on the City Council agenda. Following discussion it was determined that the recommended action be revised to add No. 6 - . The balcony not be enclosed upstairs and No. 7 - that the project be referred back to the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to reconsider Council's September 15, 1997 action which sustained the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the appeal filed by Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar to the Planning Commission's denial a revised plan, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741) Southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: Harman, Green ABSENT: None A motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to approve the following recommended action: Reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle) based upon letter submitted by property owner that he will revise the plans to reflect his homeowner's association recommendations for approval. These revisions include: 10/06/97 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 29 1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above the existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-20 feet- South-10 feet- East-10 feet - North-50 feet; 3. Provide landscape and hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all four sides of the building and to add the following revisions: (6) The upstairs balcony is not to be enclosed and (7) Refer back to the Planning Commission. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Dettloff, Bauer, Garofalo NOES: Julien, Harman, Sullivan, Green ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Bauer adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at 12:38 a.m. to the regular meetings to be held on Monday, October 20, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman (19) 10/06/97 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 19 =: . H-3. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Tom Harman H-4. Submitted By Council/Agency Mayor Pro Teem Shirley Dettloff H-5. a-Submitted By Council/Agency Mayor Ralph Bauer (City Council) Request By Mayor Bauer For Reconsideration Of The City Council's Y . Denial On September 15, 1997 Of The Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian And Mahavesh Keyranazar To The Planning Commission Denial A Of Revised Plan Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 And Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle) = `xt slw Ellis Avenue & Saddleback Lane (420.40) Communication from Mayor Ralph Bauer requesting Reconsideration of the City Council's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96 27, 18741 � . Jockey Circle. 4 On September 15, 1997 the City Council denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission's denial on the following subject: 4F App lican : Gilda Keshavarzian. Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and >s Mahavesh Keyranazar. Reques :.Appeal to Planning Commission's d_enial of a revisedn pla Y for an 8,587.square_foot, two story, 35 foot high,single:family dwelling with variahces toperm an eight 8 foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two v P 9 . O _ t (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the 7 previously approved master site Ian Conditional Use Permit No.89-6A and will be on elot r P Y PP P ( .. Y With agrade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low pointy, , Location' .18741 Jockey Circle- at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue y r and Saddleback Lane. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically ;K exempt pursuant to Class 3 Section 15303 of the California Quality.Act which states that F , construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment r and no further environmental analysis is required . .__ Recommended Action: Motion to: Reconsider Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (18741 Jockey Circle) based upon letter submitted b property owner that he will revise the plans to P Y P P Y P _ reflect his homeowner's association recommendations for approval. These revisions .;i include: 1. Reducing the building height so no point of the roof is 35 feet above thef;�prm_ existing pad elevations of 52 feet and 58 feet; 2. Minimum setbacks as follows: West-_ u 20 feet - South-10 feet - East-10 feet- North-50 feet; 3. Provide landsca a and P 4 hardscape plans; 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' 'r; signatures; and 5. Submit plans indicating appropriate architectural treatment on all ' four sides of the building(G) -(,JL vpst--�,o �,,� .A (rl d n, J-D J ('10 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HAO5 HUNTINGTON BEACH - TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney FROM: Paul D'Alessandro,Deputy City Attorney (,)t A_ziv+v�� 7 DATE: November 7, 1997 SUBJECT: Jockey Circle Appeal; RLS 97-862 O_V l The Planning Commission denied the Jockey Circle project. The applicant appealed the denial to the City Council. The Council heard the appeal and also denied the project. At your request, I reviewed the tape of the 10/6/97 meeting. Mayor Bauer sponsored an"H" item concerning the reconsideration of the project. He moved that the project be reconsidered, and seemed to attach five project oriented"conditions"to his motion. These conditions included things like building height, setbacks, landscaping, and several other items. After much discussion, the Council appeared to want to attach more conditions to the motion. You correctly pointed out that a vote needed to be taken just on the issue of reconsideration; that project conditions needed to be discussed separately. The Council then approved the motion to reconsider by a 5-2 vote, with Green and Harman dissenting. The Council then went on to discuss the conditions again. A subsequent motion failed. The proper action now is to renotice the appeal and have a hearing on the project before the City Council. The adoption of the motion to reconsider nullifies the Council's previous denial of the project. _ o I believe from viewing the tape that the Council would prefer this matter to ret 2 Commission, with certain guidelines for the Commission's consideration. This can be accomplished in two ways: either the Council hears the entire matter again on appeal and refers ii<r m back to the Commission for further deliberations, or the applicant can agree to waive his h4&inC a m before the Council and go directly back to the Commission. In either scenario, no fees shod be charged because the applicant currently has a right to be heard before the Council on his p&ing appeal. --� I have previously stated the above analysis during a meeting I attended with Melanie Fallon, Scott Hess and the applicant a few weeks ago. I also discussed the matter again with Howard Zelefsky and Scott Hess after watching the videotape. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. \ &4:97memos:jockey.doc rls#97-862 n�/4/ //-/o- 9 7 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and not a pUBIIC'NOTICE mainfnumtwo'r(2)�too—twc'ut+= party to or interested in the below NOT'C b#' and tilt-gtadingrlimitation-` ti The proposed pro'lecte re entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of PUBLIC HEARING quires a revision 0 the pre BEFORE-THE uausly� approved'' master ; CITY COUNCIL site plan (Conditional Use the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a OF THE.CITYOF'. Permit No.'896A,and wilf newspa er of general circulation printed - NTINE.;IS BEACH ofis NOTICE: IS HEREBY- three (3) feet betweenMhe GIVEN that -on .Monday F and published in the City of Huntington July 21 1997; at 700 PM high- point-'and the _low in_the City Council Cham point Location -t-"' hers,. 2000 ;Main Street Jockey Circle'(at the�jermr Beach, County of Orange, State of inuS.Lofy J,ockeyCiccle, Huntington Beach, the,City California and that attached Notice is a Council will.-hold'a public-Isouthwest ,of,Ell�s Avenu; and. Saddleback Lane hearing on the following , Project Planner Susan, planning and zoning item`: �,� true and complete copy as was printed CONDITIONAL USE Pierce PERMIT NO =96 79NARI NOTICE "IS HER"EBY and published in the Huntington Beach _ DANCE NO 9627 REVISED GIVEN that Elie above'item I(APPEAL) (TWO` STORY,-, is :.categorically. exeirpt; and Fountain Valley issues of said SPLIT-LEVEL HOUSE).'Ap from the-provisions of'<thep iplicant Gilda"Keshavariian California Enwronmentalf newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Appellant G iE: and fvla Quality Act havesh Keycanazar Re ON FILE ,A copy of.the quest: Appeal:to Planning . Proposed request is.on foe : Commissio'n's denial `of a' 1 the-City Clerk s"Office;i revised plan for an_8;587 2000 Mairr Street, Hunting square foot;,two story'35' ton Beach,. Californra l foot high;-"single family, 92648 for:inspection.--byL 'dwelling with-`variances io the.publ�C A copy of-the ;permit an eight(8)foot set staff`.report will be available Jul 3 , 1997 back in lieu of minimum 50 to interested parties atj e y LfeeL and .to.'exceed the City Clerk's-'Office -afterli - -- July 18,1997 . All-INTERESTED PER=, SONS-are invitedt to-attend said hearing,;.and express_. declare, under penalty of perjury, that Idencons submit- the Bence tor- or against the application as.-. outlined (above If you challenge-the the foregoing is true and correct. City Councils action; Court you,may be_limited' to raising only-those issues' you;or, someone -else rased at the public hearing: Executed on described in this notice �Ittlr3r 9 �— in written correspondence at Costa Mesa California. delivered-to the City"at,roi piior to the`public.hearing : It; there are= any-,further,, questions please,icall-th'e_r Plannmg�-,Division:tat`536-'" 527.kl.`and;:refer�to:,..the j, above -item: Direct:' your_5 written communications io,. ttieiCrty;Clerk.-- Connle-Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach { k ;2000 Main '_Street' 2nd�- Signature Floor Huntington eea_ch f /1 California 92648 `,�JF/ (714)5.36 5227 iPublished Huntington l Beach.-Fountain Valley_-In- dependentsJuly 3,1997 .- _,071_950 �w6 7/3/1J 7 � -dJ /30 7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,July 21, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 REVISED (APPEAL) (TWO STORY, SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE): Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Appellant: G.K. and Mahavesh Keyranazar Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot,two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight(8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan(Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) Project Planner: Susan Pierce NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after July 18, 1997. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (97cc707) CITY COUNCIL/REDP 'ELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEART G REQUEST SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 9 6-7 9/VARIANCE NO. 9 6-2 7 REVISED (APPEAL) (TWO STORY SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE) DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY MEETING DATE July 21 , 1997 DEVELOPMENT CONTACT SUSAN PIERCE PHONE: X5 2 50 Please refer to Section 3 of the "Agenda Process Manual" N/A YES NO ❑ ® ❑ Is the notice attached? ❑ ® ❑ Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or Redevelopment Agency) hearing? ❑ ® ❑ Are the date, day, & time of the public hearing correct? ❑ ® ❑ If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? ❑ ❑ ® Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ❑ ❑ ® Is a map attached for publication? ❑ ❑ ® Is a larger advertisement required? Size ❑ ❑ ® Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list as prepared from the last available Count Assesor's rolls? P,,gjW! by Susan case aoAr ccpda��d by 5l-z , ❑ ® ❑ Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing label? ❑ ® ❑ Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing label? ® ❑ ❑ If a Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? ® ❑ ❑ If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission included on the mailing labels ® ❑ ❑ If Coastal Development Permit, are the residents labels attached? ® ❑ ❑ Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Items only) What is the minimum number of day from publication to the hearing date? 10 What is the minimum number of times to be published? 1 What is the specified number of days between publications? 0 10 220 05 1 K 110 221 01 2 110 221 02 3 Ronald I Brindle 0 Ronald I& ' y Ann Brindle Ronald I& ily Ann Brindle ' 1885"i Goldenwest St 18851 Gold west St 18851 Gol nwest St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntingt n Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 22103 110 221 04 5 110 221 05 6 Ronald I&Emily n Brindle Ronald&En}y Brindle CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC 18851 Goldenw St 18851 Gold dwest St 2000 Main St Huntington ach CA 92648 HuntinBeach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 06 7 � m 110 221 07 XSt 110 221 08 Ronald&Emily Brindle Ronald I&EilBrindle Ronald I&Emil n Brindle 18851 Goldenwes v5t 18851 Goldenw 18851 Golden est St Huntegton B94 CA 92648 Huntingto ach CA 92648 Huntington fleach CA 92648 110 22109 10 110 22110. ,� �°B'"� 110 221 11 12 Ronald&Emil rindle Ronald I& n Brindle Ronald& y Brindle 18851 Golde est St 19782 Scen" ay Ln 188�Go enwest St Huntingto ach CA 92648 Hun " on Beach CA 92648 Huntin on Beach CA 92648 11022112 13 110 221 13 4 110 221 19 15 F Ronald I mily Ann Brindle Ronald I& Ann Brindle Ronald I& y Ann Brindle 18851 G denwest St 18851 Golden est St 18851 Goo] nwest St Junto .gptm Beacj Huntingto ach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 22120 110 22121 17 11022122 1> Ronald L&Emily n Brindle Ronald I& ' y Ann Brindle Emma F Scouller 0»'gym W`SOn� l?851 Goldenw t St 18851 Golde est St 8302 Indianapolis Ave Huntington ach CA 92648 Huntingto Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646--5a d 110 22123 19 110 22124 20 110 22125 21 1 Ronald I& ' y Ann Brindle Ronald I& y Ann Brindle CITY O UNTINGTON_BEAC l 18851 Gold west St 18851 Gold west St 2000 St Hundne' Beach CA 92648 Huntingt n Each CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 22126 2 159 352 05 23 159 352 06 24 Ronald I&Emil Ann Brindle Courtney Dubar / GeAdd L Chapman 18851 Golden t St 6741 Shire Cir 6l, 6742 Shire Cir Huntington each CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 /5Do Huntington Beach CA 92648 /Sov 159 352 07 25 159 352 08 26 159 15 /�) 27 Gordon M Watson John D Macke DOZE Jankowiak 6732 Shire Cir 9 6712 Shire Cir Y 3J� 6711 Shetland Cir ,S/B Huntington Beach CA 92648- 15oo Huntington Beach CA 9264&-/500 Huntington.Beach CA 92648-l3.26 r 159 35216 28 159 35217 159 352 23 30 Jack C Collins Robert P M c Jr. David D Dahl `/U' 6731 Shetland Cir -3I6 11 22 M ' t 505 Park Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648-15a 6 H " gton Beach CA 92648 ea sort BeReh-CA 92662-Ioov . T - 159 35�26 31 159 352 28 32 159 352 29 33 bavid D�Vel Gene N Hill John Fisher 505 P r 6722 Shetland Cir S1� 6692 Shetland Cir Ne rt Beach CA 92662 Huntington Beach CA 92648-152(o Huntington Beach CA 92648-15 Z G 159 402 06 34 159 402 07 35 159 40216 36 Michael Pust David T&Miebelle Mai MiclW,D Burdge 6711 Pimlico Cir 6721 Pimlico Cir �� 6731 Pimlico Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648- Huntington Beach CA 92648-1539 Huntington Beach CA 92648-15 3 9 159 4021 7 37 159 40218 38 159 411 04 39 R y 4. N yJs John A Thomas John&Kimberly Nguyen Gary&Robin Hybl 6741 Pimlico Cis Sl8 6751 Pimlico Cir s�a 6811 Derby Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648= 15 3 9' Huntington Beach CA 92648-1.539 Huntington Beach CA 92648-1. 5 15941105 159 411 06 415113 �� 9 41107 O K Joseph&F • a Young �.�j' Brett Austin �°A 10 mL� vN 17292 _ el Ln ,oc P Gy' � 15 San Sebastian I C)p 5 2, >31 am moo Pv 10 55 estnut St H gton Beach CA 92649 Newport Beach CA 92660 u-8 . CA. Alamitos CA 90720 '�e•,e� 159 41108 4 xv;t_ 159 411 09 4& 159 411 10 45 AleKow Brenner KUBELKA BA N A D D S IN Ronald K Marks 4 RWALDK.MAU's T�Amold&Therese Brender 10953 Ches 5311 Glenstone Dr (0752. DgkAy ar • 6772 Derby Cir A :esia 90702 � Huntington Beach CA 92649 µ.B: Huntington Beach CA 92648 -160(o 92(04 8 a 159 411 11pa�46 159 411 12 47 sla RonAt� 15,9:10 13 48 Jay B&Lynn B �" ' • Ronald&Virginia McDevitt IhS DUirrntChen-Fu&Shu-Chen Chiu. 279 San Ave 27 Rue Cannes 18671 Jockey Cir Lo ach CA 90803 Newport Beach CA 92660-59 b 1 Huntington Beach CA 92648 _1 so-7 159 411 14 49 159 411 15 50 159 411 16 51 Gelso&Teresa Dispalatro RYE JAMES&IN JAMES D.RYe C 00 u 14358 Trumball'St s 6 9488 Honeysuckle Ave 9 4.8 8 RweqaAkl 8721 Jockey Cir Whittier CA 90604-1 41 Fountain Valley CA 92708 �F-V• I ?Huntington Beach CA 92648-I50-7 159 411 17 52 159 411 18 53 159 411 19 54 Howard&Jane Yata Mahvash&Gilda Keyvaaazar D 1 James J Christiano. 1873.1 Jockey Cir SI6 o� 9594 Nightingale AAve �2 33 18752 Jockey Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley C 92708-- Huntington Beach CA 92648- l S08 159 41120 55 sY3 59 41121 6 )/'O' 159 41122 57 CAK•1- T Da%jd At Candace Melin DAB I0 R CrL� Michael McFa en Carl&Elise C Hartman 3230 Lilly Ave 1 81 42. Sa�k� 8401 Cape wbury Dr PA 18722 Jockey Cir Long Beach CA 90808 N• q to 4&- Huntin n Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648—l SO $ J5o8 159 41123 58 159 41124 59 1501128 60 Raymond&Rowena Wang Jerry H Pabbruwee ELLIS-CENTRAL PARK#9 HO 18712 Jockey Cir , s�5 18702 Jockey Cir 123 Agate Ave#B Huntington Beach CA 92648-150 V Huntington Beach CA 92648 I-5°9 Newport Beach-CA 92662 18 �.l01i a Cam. e, to %- -79 /v -1 1 . 15941129 61 B ors 159 41130 62 15941132 ' 63 . ,ELLIS-CENTRAL PARK#9 HO ELLIS-CENT PARK#9 HO ELLIS-CE PARK#9 HO 123 Agate Ave#B � 123 Agate ve#B E A e Ave#B Newport Beach CA 92662 Newp Beach CA 92662 NeWport Beach CA 92662 J4.mes Za✓1h 159 412 64 159 412 02 65 S p4.S2 DIC Pont be, #2,2-16 David O Schiller CENTRAL PARK#9 /��' 2602 E 20th St#203 505 Park Ave l i'vi ne G�4 92,(v ll, Signal Hill CA 90804=4 052- &f�er` 9�`r Jay 6 t Lyn n f3 Awls �i2d y Derby CA 946y 9 i nfirg�n beach . s/g f39-IW—z/ !/0-fit/-Dbr,/3, � //O-uPlo9 f�tua/�►'Q . I5732 f y oc�:e �r. � y��'l�cS�-�.�d/� �,j�tref' �yrr 13 &Idmicll ft. �� qg hiu1 ha Kahan- jmdtL�,k. Re.�-m .;,c�, V_ lr_eFA� IGa�fa2T,sh�cr i'. �8srs� .t.W�. p a.Be� lobs .,: .. uc73�q 8 ! C4,!q�,�f ""'t'&'[', G4 9xw8' pw,,,#.ack, C eA g 07 02 Ct 9MM (o7P.2 d ,,,;,, 44, C 4 Office of the City Clerk I. City of Huntington Beach U S.POSIL.GE A N 0%ON A 0-4 11 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 JUL 13'97 via 7 r-I E T E:R 5 :t:3-'07/19"97 -S-0-170, AN.A; cp, 1431 7 Connie Brockway, City Clerk s. U.S.111011114GE City of Huntington Beach L-397 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 'j,F- I UL-'-"J'97 40u) 0 0. \1 :5R� Huntiogtj2n Beach, CA9_26 4 . .. ....... -Mik 55s".; 3 1 P 46-79 E Tup Tm 159 411 29 61 ELLIS-CENTRAL PARK#9 HO 123 Agate Ave#B ING �Pj ra 4 CppYX ISO N I LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARROV0%, oR nnie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk /ate 0 nnie Brockway, Clerk City roc w Y' ( Huntington I ngtor C of u ti Office ice of the City P.O. J U L '19 7 Box 01I.- P.O. Box 190 It 0 0 to c Hun ton Beach, CA 92648 c r, HMCTER 552-,3 C A Cup Fn 28 60 40 E.. , _I IS_CENTRAL PARK#9 HO L PCs C-2 co * NT' tV7 44 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING ... p 2 Mae MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 --------------------- 3 Q Q I Y Community Development CUP 96-79, Var. 96-27, Appeal of a two story split . level house 18741 Jockey Circle NUMBER OF HEARINGS: TODAY'S DATE: 06/27/97 12:30 PM VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: tLz-L Ray S i lv r Assistant City Administrator 6/27/97 12:30 PM 110 220 05 1 K 110 221 01 2 110 221 02 3 Ronald I:Brindle b Ronald I&E ' y Ann Brindle Ronald I&Ed�ly Ann Brindle "18851'Goldenwest St 18851 Gold west St 18851 Gold�nwest St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntingt n Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 03 110 221 04 5 110 221 05 6 Ronald I&Emily n.Brindle Ronald&Emily Brindle CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC 18851 Goldenw t St 18851 Goldpnwest St - 2000 Main St Huntington ach CA 92648 Huntin;Wn Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 06 7 110221017 XCA 110 221 08 Ronald&Emily Brindle Ronald I&EmilBrindle Ronald I&Emil n Brindle 18851 Goldenwes �5t 18851 Golden 18851 Golden est St Huntington B� CA 92648 Huntingto ach 92648 Huntington each CA 92648 110 221 09 10 110 221 10 /-,Ic - P-e�' 110 221 11 12 Ronald&E/1yest indle Ronald I&E n Brindle Ronald&E ily Brindle 18851 GoIdSt I9782 Scen' ay Ln 18851 Go enwest St HuntingtoCA 92648 Hun ' on Beach CA 92648 Huntin on Beach CA 92648 110 221 12 13 110 221 13 4 110 221 19 15 Ronald I mily Ann Brindle Ronald I&Emiy Ann Brindle Ronald I& ily Ann Brindle 18851 G denwest St 18851 Golden est St 18851 Gol riwest St Jimto gptm Beacj Huntingtow9each CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 20 110 221 21 17 110 221 22 18 Ronald L&Emily n Brindle Ronald I&E ' y Ann Brindle Emma F Scouller "851 Goldenw t St 18851 Golde est St 8302 Indianapolis Ave H�.intington ach CA 92648 Huntingto Beach.CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 110 22123 19 110 22124 20 110 221 25 21 Ronald I&E y Ann Brindle Ronald I&E ily Ann Brindle CITY O UNTINGTON BEAC 18851 Gold west St 18851 Gold west St 201 in St Huntingt Beach CA 92648 Huntingt n Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 22126 /each 2 159 352 05 23 159 352 06 24 Ronald I& n Brindle Courtney Dubar // Gerald L Chapman / 18851 Golde 6741 Shire Cir 15/'6 6742 Shire Cir R Huntington 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1Soo Huntington Beach CA 92648—/5ov _ 159 352 07 25 159 352 08 26 159 352 15 27 Gordon M Watson John D Mackey Donald B Jankowiak 6732 Shire Cir SIB 6712 Shire Cir �l� 6711 Shetland Cir ' S�B Huntington Beach CA 92648- 1500 Huntington Beach CA 92648-1500 Huntington Beach CA 92648-/5.2/o 159 35216 28 159 35217 A ,� 159 352 23 30 Jack C Collins Robert P Ma c Jr. /�'' David D Dahl 6731 Shetland Cir 316 1112 M . t 505 Park Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648-15.A16 H gton Beach CA 92648 N port-Beaeh CA 92662-/006 ,mot -Zaa,#-�ao�.•• � �e.-.. C 14 --- I A3 159'352 26 31 159 352 28 32 159 352 29 33 ,David I]D Gene N Hill John Fisher '505 Par ve 6722 Shetland Cir S��i 6692 Shetland Cir Ne ort Beach CA 92662 Huntington Beach CA 92648-152 G Huntington Beach CA 92648-15 z G 15940206 34 159 402 07 35 159 402 16 36 Michael Pust 46 David T °- "�heI4 .Mai Michael D Burdge 6711 Pimlico Cir 6721 Pimlico Cir �� 6731 Pimlico Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648-1 53�/. Huntington Beach CA 92648-1539 Huntington Beach CA 92648-15 -S 9 159 402 17 37 159 40218 38 159 411 04 39 G R X y O-- John A Thomas John&Kimberly Nguyen I Gary&Robin Hybl 6741 Pimlico Cir ��� 6751 Pimlico Cir 5+4 6811 Derby Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648- 15 3 9' Huntington Beach CA 92648-1.539 Huntington Beach CA 92648- 5 S 15941105 05 159 411 06 41 S/O 941107 D O K AosT)N,BreT►- mONN G Joseph&F ' a Young .� Brett Austin �prnR LZmL FF� 17292 _ el Ln ,ou CaotGL• 15 San Sebastian 1po5 2, t3I►2C Ono t) M0951 estnut St 'P, H. gton Beach CA 92649 Newport Beach CA 92660 W .6 • CA • Alamitos CA 90720 � qt Z(Oi46__5q,3 1 15941109 4 /Vfi 159 411 09 4V6 159 411 10 45 APenlow Brenner KUBELKA BA N A D D S IN Ronald K Marks 4 ROJAW K'.MJRTs TIP-Arnold&Therese Brender 10951 Chest 5311 Glenstone Dr (0752 bgf-O e r 6772 Derby Cir A-esia 90702 (""o Huntington Beach CA 92649 14 ,8. Huntington Beach CA 92648 -l 50(o z 92��8 15) 411 11 46 159 411 12 47 Sp (Ron r*LO 159 411 13 48 Jay B&Lynn 13 41' Ronald&Virginia McDevitt Ins Devirr TA Chen-Fu&Shu-Chen Chiu 279 San Ave 41+ 27 Rue Cannes 18671 Jockey Cir Lo ach CA 90803 Newport Beach CA 92660-59 01 Huntington Beach CA 92648 _1 SU 159 411 14 49 159 411 15 50 5146 159 411 16 51 Gelso&Teresa Dispalatro RYE JAMES&IN JA I'YIk5 D.M E ;Ww1au.Chang uNG C I+o u 14358 Trumball St s 16 9488 Honeysuckle Ave 909 HaneySce ri•C18721 Jockey Cir C Whittier CA 90604-1 8 Fountain Valley CA 92708 9.V• _ o�Huntington Beach CA 92648-1So-7 159 411 17 52 159 411 18 53 159 41119 54 Howard&Jane Yata Mahvash&Gilda Keyvanazar v t� James J Christiano 18731 Jockey Cir 9594 Nightingale Ave 18752 Jockey Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648- 150-7 Fountain Valley CA 92708--7 2. 33 Huntington Beach CA 92648- l Sob 159 411 20 55 5)3 W159 41121 6 159 411 22 57 CAK L T ' David&Candace Melin •DAVIb F M6L) Michael McFa en Carl&Elise C Hartman RANI A TF- 3230 Lilly Ave 18'1k2 Sceke�/Cr 8401 Cape wbury Dr PO „�/ 18722 Jockey Cir Long Beach CA 90808 h• 4Zeo`�&' Huntin n Beach CA 92646 d Huntington Beach CA 92648--L So 8 ISoB 159 411 23 58 159 411 24 59 159 411 28 60 Raymond&Rowena Wang II Jerry H Pabbruwee ELLIS-CENTRAL PARK#9 HO 18712 Jockey Cir 51S 18702 Jockey Cir 123 Agate Ave#B Huntington Beach CA 92648-15o T? Huntington Beach CA 92648- 15 c 8 Newport Beach CA 92662k)� 1 z 3 Cc «.4-e— 6-Ve, 2C`ut 8 ccnd , Ok. 119-41 1 29 j 3 61 5- & l�159 41130 62 159 411 32 ' 63 . ELLIS-CENTRAL PARK#9 HO ELLIS-CENT PARK#9 HO ELLIS-CE RAL.PARK#9 HO 23 Agate Ave#BLO 123 Agate ve#B 123 A e Ave#B Newport Beach CA 92662 Newp Beach CA 92662 Ne ort Beach CA 92662 Zctri,,ti 15941201 64 159 412 02 65 ja-mes David O Schiller CENTRAL PARK#9 2602 E 20th St#203 505 Park Ave 11-vi Pie G4 9LG r 2. Signal Hill CA 90804—1 05 2: 14ew ort�BnI el 2662 Jay 13 t. Lyn n 13 Davis GZd Z Derby C/F yt6�s �Nfi�9 fon �ar1i //D-72/4 9 . 87 3 2 Jm Cr.C�/o `y�614 _7� �- `9 cry lhulhn r* �jtW,�.4 43�5/aP-/5q 8 MSS/ /a'enrwt�' l�uz.hic�tfn' �Q'L� /Go�1Fa27,'S�j�cr��• k,:5 .60e . 4)4,4.2:f. Pa,6lo6-7 GC�i�'i�'Y� �C'Q� L• a3��$ � '�,L Gt ?;)(.(d atk, Cat 9 a(vif 7 s1� 9z64''- t 6aol �By pt�a„w, o Chi 107 oa �� 4 9o8't3 "W" „ At.4% 64 %x-v y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK f CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK September 19, 1997 Gilda Keshavarzian Mahavesh Keyranazar 9544 Nightingale Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Ms. Keshavarzian and Mr. Kayranazar: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, September 15, 1997, sustained the decision of the Planning Commission and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 based on the attached findings for denial by the Planning Commission. This is a final decision. You are 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 September 19, 1997 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:cc Enclosure: Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 Findings for Denial cc: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director Susan Pierce,Community Development Department Scott Hess, Community Development Department g1fol lowup\I etters\90dayltr (Telephone:714-536-5227) Office of the City Clerk ............ JAM City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 P. - ,N Ago ,j 049p� GILDA KESHAVARZIAN ' MAHAVESH KEYRANAZAR 9544 NIGHTINGALE AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 11111117111111111111 fill 11111 lift ifIf1111111111111111111111111 FP.ON PH01.1E 1•10. PC September 29, 1997 The office of City Council Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 VARIAkCE N0.96-27 Dear Honorable .Council Members, As the owner and applicant we respectfully request reconsideration . related to the proposed project located at 18741 Jockey Circle, to have the opportunity to revise the floor plans to reflect our home owners associations recommendation for approval. Thank you very much for you consideration. very Truly Yours, Gilda Keqhavarzian 1 cc,. Mr. Howard sky Mr. Scott Hess MS. Susan Pierce r . Council/Agency Meeting Held: --/S-9-7 Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved >6enied City Clerk's Signatur Council Meeting Date: September 15, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-33� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C;> rn C SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator -_: PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director- YAK-u ) c SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79/VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (JOCKEY CIRCLE RESIDENCE) (CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 18, 1997 MEETING) IfStatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27. The applications represent a request to construct a two story, three- level, 35 ft. high structure with a ten-foot rear yard building setback (eight-foot for balconies) in lieu of the minimum 50 ft. setback and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of more than three feet between the high and low points on the site. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. At the July 21, 1997 City Council meeting, the neighbors expressed concerns regarding the height and massiveness of the proposed residence. Subsequently, the City Council continued this item to the August 18, 1997 meeting and encouraged the applicants .to meet with their respective Homeowner's Association (Ellis-Central Park No. 9) and adjacent Homeowner's Association to reach accord. Because the Homeowner's Association had not finalized its review and action by August 18, 1997, the City Council continued the item to the September 15, 1997 meeting. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 15, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33b On July 25, 1997, the applicants submitted architectural plans to the Homeowner's Association Board for its consideration. On August 6, 1997 the Board met and referred the plans to the architectural review committee. According to the applicants, a revised plan was prepared in response to preliminary comments from the committee. A notice of action and recommendations of the architectural committee was received September 5, 1997 (Attachment No. 3 faxed copy). The Architectural Committee denied the project. Although the revised plans depicted a two-story dwelling with a basement and a two foot reduction in building height, the Committee recommended that the plans be further revised and resubmitted reflecting a maximum 35 ft. building height measured from each of the two building pads, a minimum 20 ft. building setback from the equestrian trail to the west, and removal of the stair and balconies on the west elevation. The applicants have indicated unwillingness to continue to modify the plans. They believe that the original direction from the Association's architect and architectural committee has been satisfied. They are disappointed with the final architectural review committee's recommendations and believe the adjoining property owners caused unfair denial of their proposed plans. Staff is continuing to recommend approval. Funding Source: Not applicable Staff Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and conditions of approval as set forth on Attachment No. 4 to the Request for Council Action dated September 15, 1997. Alternative Actions: The City Council may make one of the following motions: 1. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings." 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 and direct the applicant accordingly." CD97-33B.DOC -2- 09/09/97 3:51 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 15, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33b Attachmen Us : City Clerk's age Number 1. Letter to Gilda Keshavarzian dated July 25, 1997 from Connie Brockway, City Clerk 2. RCA dated July 21, 1997, and August 18, 1997 3. Architectural Review and Recommendations received September 5, 1997 4. Findings and Conditions of Approval (staff recommendation) 5. r!'E�m�mu� 9� x. �a•�rho�m.15� � mod/ 'get, 4e" 5 /9 97 u CD97-33B.DOC -3- 09/09/97 3:51 PM i J. omm'n"NO1TY OF HUI® TINGTON BEACH u 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF 1 HE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 25, 1997 Gilda Keshavarzian Mahavesh Keyranazar 9544 Nightingale Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Ms. Keshavarzian and Mr. Kayranazar: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 21, 1997 closed the public hearing and continued the decision regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79,Variance No. 9.6-17, two story split level house at 18741 Jockey Circle,to the August 18, 1997 City Council meeting. The motion adopted by Council is as follows: "A motion was made by Garofalo, seconded by Dettloff, to continue decision on the appeal filed to the Planning Commission denial of revised Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79, Variance j No. 96-17, to allow applicants to meet with official Homeowner's Association to reach accord. " Enclosed is a copy of the action agenda for you and.your Homeowner's Association. Sincerely, JDL e.. u.r Connie Brockway J U L 2 5 1 7 City Clerk cb:mh ,:ITY DEVE!0-. E IT Enclosure: Action Agenda Page No. 7 4 (Telephone:714.536.5227) � -�„, _� � -. k '--k _ xy � err- ,.� � #.� - � �- � -�.r-=fir "x��'-" .-' --� --:� ,a._ -dam---.y+ "�-- y, f � `� z; .m -r'' Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: August 18, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-33a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator �'`--- PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development DirectoPF SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 (JOCKEY CIRCLE RESIDENCE) (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 21, 1997 MEETING) Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27. The applications represent a request to construct a two story, three- level, 35 ft. high structure with a ten-foot rear yard building setback (eight-foot for balconies) in lieu of the minimum 50 ft. setback and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of more than three feet between the high and low points on the site. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. At the July 21, 1997 City Council meeting, the neighbors expressed concerns regarding the height and massiveness of the proposed residence. Subsequently, the City Council continued this item to the August 18, 1997 meeting to allow the applicants to meet with their respective Homeowner's Association (Ellis-Central Park No. 9) to reach accord. It was recommended that the Homeowner's Association meeting involving review of the plans be a public meeting where all interested parties could attend, including an adjacent Homeowner's Association, and express their concerns and comments. I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33a On July 25, 1997, the applicant submitted their architectural plans to the Homeowner's Association Board for their consideration. On August 6, 1997 the Board met and referred the plans to their architectural review committee. The Committee is in the process of reviewing the plans. As of August 11, 1997, no meeting or action by the Committee has occurred. They expect to decide whether or not .to hold a public meeting, and make a decision on the plans, in the next two weeks. " Staff recommends that the City Council continue this appeal for one more month to give the applicant additional time to obtain Homeowner's Association Board consideration. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 to the September 15, 1997 City Council meeting." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and of approval;" or 2. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings." Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number 3 1. Letter to Gilda Keshavarzian dated July 25, 1997 from Connie Brockway, City Clerk 6 2. RCA dated July 21, 1997 CD97-33A.DOC -2- 08/11/97 2:41 PM Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: July 21, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-33 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 (TWO STORY, THREE LEVEL HOUSE) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27. The applications represent a request to construct a two story, three- level, 35 ft. high structure with a ten-foot rear yard building setback (eight-foot for balconies) in lieu of the minimum 50 ft. setback and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of more than three feet between the high and low points on the site. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. The appeal is based upon the applicant's belief that their project addresses the concerns of the neighbors and Planning Division staff. The Planning Commission is recommending denial (Recommended Action - A) because the structural design of the proposed residence appears to be a three-story, 45 ft. high dwelling which is inconsistent with the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan, and does not conform to the character of the existing neighborhood. Staff recommends approval (Recommended Action - B) because the project complies with the intent of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan; the proposed dwelling conforms to the natural land form and is terraced to the site; and the site plan results in a better project. j } I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings." (Attachment No. 1) Planning Commission Action on Ma.y13, 1997 (See Attachment No. 7) THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY BIDDLE TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Kerins, Biddle, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Inglee ABSTAIN: Chapman MOTION PASSED B. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 as requested by the applicant with findings and conditions of approval." (Attachment No. 3) Alternative Action(-s-�, The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and modified conditions of approval;" or 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 and direct staff accordingly." CD97-33.DOC -2- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92709 Property Owner/ Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahvash Keyvanazar Appellant: 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Location: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 represents a request for the following: A. To amend a previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6) to construct a 8,587 square foot, two-story, three level single family residence which includes a basement (Attachment No. 4) pursuant to Section 241.18A of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO); and B. To permit construction on a 15,597 sq. ft. lot with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point pursuant to Section 230.70C of the ZSO. The 15,597 sq. ft. lot has a grade differential of 14 feet. Variance No. 96-27 represents a request for two deviations to the development standards of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (Attachment No. 5) in order to construct the 8,587 square foot residence as follows: >.....:::::::>:<::::>:: >EE SP< < < :::::: .........:>:<::;:.....:;»<;:::<::.::'.....:;::>:::::<::::<:::<«:::<°REQUi.I lYl I T.................R U. .EST IV. 50 feet for lots over C. 5c........ � Rear yard 10ft. for main 15,000 sq. ft dwelling 8 ft. for balconies III.D Cut and fill Max. 2 feet Up to 6 ft. cut and up to7.5ft. fill CD97-33.DOC -3- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 B. BACKGROUND On September 16, 1996, the applicant submitted plans to develop a single family home with four (4) variances. On December 10, 1996, the Planning Commission denied the original single family home, a larger, three story dwelling with variances relative to height (39.5 feet requested in lieu of maximum 35 feet), ;stories (3 stories requested in lieu of maximum 2 stories as defined by the code) grading, and rear setback requirements. During the public hearing five persons spoke, two against and three in support of the project. The property owner stated that the code required minimal grading in order to maintain the maximum two (2) ft. cut and fill resulted in a split level home which was impractical for his family. He also stated that the dwelling would appear as two stories from the street. In addition, a setback transition was proposed for the dwelling to attain compatibility with existing two (2) story homes in the area. The speakers opposed to the project stated that the project does not maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and it does not comply with the requirements of the specific plan. Planning staff recommended denial of the project. The Planning Commission denied the project based on findings of incompatibility with the surrounding area and inconsistency with the residential in-fill ordinance. On December 17, 1996, the property owner appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Attachment No. 6). The reason stated in the appeal was to allow an opportunity to revise the project to reflect the concerns raised at the public hearing. Subsequent to the appeal, the applicant met with staff to discuss alternatives to the variances. A revised plan was submitted on March 18, 1997, which reduced the number of variances to two: 1) deviation to the maximum cut and fill; and 2) encroachment in the rear yard setback. Staff forwarded the appeal to the City Council and recommended review and action of the revised plan by the Planning Commission. The City Council concurred with staffs recommendation on May 5, 1997. The revised plan depicts an 8,587 square foot, two story, split level dwelling (Attachment No. 4). The dwelling remains as three levels, however, part of the lowest level has been redesigned as a basement to eliminate the three story classification as defined by the code. The lowest level includes a media room, Persian room, gym and sauna. A four (4) car tandem garage, a single car garage, bedroom, den, dining room, kitchen, family room and 1-1/2 bathrooms are located on the main (street) level. The upper level contains a master bedroom suite, three (3) additional bedrooms and bathrooms, laundry and sitting room. A large deck is provided on each level on the north side of the house. A circular stair is located in the center of the dwelling and provides a transition from the lowest level to the upper floors; this feature has a building height of 35 feet. The proposed building is terraced with the terrain (Attachment No. 4.9). CD97-33.DOC -4- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The second Planning Commission public hearing was held on May 13, 1997 to review the revised plan and the two (2) variances. Six persons spoke at the meeting; two in favor of the project, and four opposed. The property owner and architect explained the changes that had been made to address previous concerns. The Planning Commission denied the project based on findings of incompatibility with the surrounding area and the three story appearance on the north and west building elevations (Attachment Nos. 4.8 and 4.9). The Planning Commission determined that even though the rear portion of the building is terraced back, the architectural design of the proposed dwelling visually impacts adjacent properties because it appears as a three-story, 45 foot high dwelling along the north and west elevations. In addition, the balcony projections on each level intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. Therefore, the Planning Commission determined that the project did not comply with the residential in-fill development policies of the General Plan (Attachment No. 7). D. APPEAL: On May 21, 1997, the property owners appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Attachment No.. 2) to the City Council. The reason stated in the appeal is to allow an opportunity to present the revised project to the City Council and make any amendments necessary to reflect findings for approval. The applicant is willing to make any changes deemed necessary by the City Council that will allow construction of their single family home. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: There are four (4) primary issues with the proposed two story, three level dwelling: 1) three story appearance; 2) rear yard setback; 3) cut and fill; and 4) land use compatibility/residential infill compliance. Three Story Appearance: The proposed residence appears to be two (2) stories and three (3) stories depending upon the viewing angle. From the public street view (Jockey Circle), the residence is two (2) stories, similar to the residences on either side (south and east abutting properties). From the east and west side, the residence is terraced with the lot, similar to a layered cake (Attachment No. 4.13). The northerly, third level building wall is setback 25 ft. from the second level building wall. For this distance, the structure is two (2) stories. However, from some angles, the third level can be seen which gives the appearance of three (3) stories. The structure complies the definition of a two-story building and with the maximum 35 ft. building height requirement as measured from Jockey Circle. There are some design features that could be added to reduce the appearance of a three-story dwelling. These include adding gable roof angles, different window treatments and reducing some deck area. CD97-33.DOC -5- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Rear Yard Setback: One of the issues with analyzing development of this site is that since the original approval of the tract map unit site plan in 1993, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance was updated and changed the method for determining which part of the lot is a rear and side yard. Exhibit A depicts the original minimum building setbacks required based upon the 1993 Zoning Code definition of a rear and side yard. A'conceptual site plan was approved as part of the original tract map (Attachment No. 9) that conformed to setback requirements based upon those definitions of yards. A subsequent unit siting plan (Attachment No. 10) also conformed to those yard areas. Exhibit B represents the required setbacks based on the current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. As can be seen on this exhibit, only a very narrow area of the lot can be developed. Since this is inconsistent with other lots in the vicinity it represents a good example of how the strict interpretation of the code deprives the owner from developing the parcel consistent with other parcels in the area which is a finding for a variance. Another issue with the rear yard setback is compatibility with surrounding residences. The parcel to the north was built with a 34 ft. setback from the westerly property line and the parcel to the south was built with a 10 ft. setback from the westerly property line (Attachment No. 13). The proposed building has a varying rear yard setback from ten feet (eight foot for balcony projections) to 19 foot-six inches in lieu of the minimum code required 50 feet. A portion of the building is proposed at a 10 ft. rear setback which is consistent with the setback provided for the adjacent property to the south. The rear building setback then increases to 19.5 feet to provide a transition and separation between the adjacent properties. A covenant to assure that a minimum 50 foot building setback be maintained from the northerly property line is recommended. This would allow the property to be developed similarly to the original Zoning Code requirements. A lot across the equestrian trail and located southwest of the project site (Lot 3 Tract 11473) is vacant at this time. The lot to the northwest (Lot 3, Tract 11473) was granted a variance to allow a portion of the dwelling at an 11 foot rear yard setback (Attachment No. 10). The proposed residence's side yard setback to the northerly property line is 58 ft; this is substantially greater than the minimum 10 ft. required by the current code and eight (8) ft. greater than the original unit siting plan which depicted 50 ft. (Attachment No. 10). Also, the proposed building envelope is setback farther from the northerly property line than the original unit siting plan (Attachment No. 10.2). Therefore, the project will be compatible with adjacent single family residences. Staff supports the proposed building design and encroachment into the rear yard setback. The irregularly shaped buildable area constrains building design and results in a hardship for the applicant to maintain the code required 50 ft. setback. CD97-33.DOC -6- 07/14/97 2:16 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 • � ' �QtJESTt21P� TI�.AI� -o .: fade. Yard � � 50' R�►r Y Co .-r roe taol3 Zai' • • � - Cade, t5�QvEs-i"V tAN TV-Ai L- i �=-C dalde 13u Ira10 _ -a Sizlt Yard of a ,d mews ac y � CD97-33.DOC -7- 07/10/97 4:56 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Cut and Fill: The site was graded in about 1993 in accord with the original development plan for the site. There are two dirt building pads on the site; the upper pad is elevated to 58 ft. and the lower pad is at 52 ft. These pads are lower than the existing street grade of 64 ft. The proposed grading plan depicts up to 7.5 feet of fill in the front portion of the lot to provide a level driveway (from street to garage) and open parking in front of the dwelling adjacent to the main level 1.5 ft. above street grade. The upper pad will be reduced by two feet, which is consistent with the grading requirements of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. An additional four feet will be removed to allow a corridor connection and stairs from the first floor on the lower pad to the second floor (street level) on the upper pad. Elevations are fixed on all four sides of the property. A 16 ft. wide equestrian trail is located adjacent to the west side of the subject property. It is separated from the subject property by a 6 ft. high wall. The trail has a grade elevation of 50 ft. at the northwest corner of the site and rises to 60 ft. at the southwest corner of the site. Properties located on the west side of the equestrian trail have a lower grade than the subject site. Properties to the north, east and south have been graded and developed. The proposed grading plan necessitates an approximately 43 foot long stem/cripple wall, which varies in height from approximately 5 feet to 7.25 feet, along the southwesterly portion of the proposed dwelling 10 feet from the westerly property line (Attachment No. 4.9). The stem/cripple wall continues for an additional 33 feet but at a 19.5 ft. setback. These stem/cripple walls are proposed to create the main living level (second floor) approximately 1.5 feet higher than the existing grade at the street. This wall is designed into the building and will be screened by the equestrian trail wall. Grading standards within the Specific Plan state that all structural designs shall fit the natural land forms. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. Staff believes that this design complies with the intent of the specific plan. The proposed design portrays minimal cut and fill to allow the transition between the two pads. The fill between the front of the building and the street will minimize drainage impacts on the dwelling. Surface drainage will flow to the rear of the site into an existing drainage system. The building design is terraced with the site to maintain the maximum building height measured from the adjacent curb and from each portion of the existing building pads (Attachment No. 4.9). CD97-33.DOC -8- 07/14/97 9:58 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Land Use Compatibility/Residential In-fill Compliance Residential infill lot developments are subject to compliance with Section 230.22 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The requirements are intended to minimize impacts on contiguous properties and provide standards that ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. The standards require that pad height for new construction be compatible with adjacent properties and not create drainage issues. Privacy design standards include window location and treatment, roofline variation, architectural features to diffuse bulk and mass, and orientation of balconies. Staff believes that the plan is compatible with adjacent properties. Upper story balconies face the equestrian trail to the west and the property to the east rather than the street or private open space areas, however, these balconies are provided as architectural features. Windows and balconies on the west building elevation are separated from a future dwelling west of the equestrian trail by the eight foot setback, 16 foot wide trail, and 25 foot minimum building setback required for development of the westerly property. The proposed building height is terraced to the terrain. Zoning Compliance The following is a conformance matrix comparing the development standards of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan with the original submittal and current plan. SECTION ISSUE = CODE PROVISION ORIG.INAL;SUBMITTAL ', CURR,ENT , , ,r✓ IV. C. 1. Lot Area (Min.) 8,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A 20% of Lots 15,000 sq. ft. (equestrian 15,597 sq. ft. 15,597 sq. ft. lot) 2. Lot width and 45 ft. for cul-de-sac lots 56.78 ft. 56.78 ft. Frontage (Min.) 3. Site Coverage 35% 30% 31.7% (Max.) 4. Max. Building 30 ft. (average); 35 ft. to 37.5 ft. to midpoint of 35 ft to highest Height highest ridgeline highest roof; 39.5 ft to ridgeline, terraced 2 stories highest ridgeline' with the terrain of 3 stories" the site 2 stories 5. Setbacks (Min.) Front Yard 25%of Lot Depth, min. 30 30 ft. 30 ft. a. ft. Side Yard Aggregate 20 ft. min. Aggregate 20 ft. min. Aggregate 20 ft. min. b. north p.l. 5 ft. min. 56 ft. 56 ft. south p.l. 5 ft. min. 10 ft. 10 ft. east p.l. 5 ft. min. 10 ft. 10 ft. 'Variance Requests C1397-33.100C -9- 07/14/97 9:58 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 CODE PROVISION, _ OR IGINALwSUBMITTAL . Rear yard (west 50 feet for lots over 10 ft. for main dwelling;* 10 ft. for main C. p.l. adjacent to 15,000 sq. ft. 6 ft-8 in. for balconies* dwelling;* horse trail) 8 ft. for balconies* Patio Covers Min. 10 ft. from rear 19.5 ft. from rear property 19.5 ft. from rear d. property line. line* property line* Distance between Min. 10 ft. N/A N/A e. main and accessory structures 6. Non-Equine N/A N/A N/A Accessory Buildings Setbacks 7. Private Open 1,200 sq. ft.with min. 20 ft Approx. 4,400 sq. ft.+with Approx. 4,400 sq. ft.+ Space dimension min. 50 ft.. dimension with min. 50 ft.. (Minimum) dimension 8. Parking 7 spaces(3 car garage+ 8 spaces (5 enclosed +3 8 spaces (5 enclosed Requirements 3 open + 1 per open) + 3 open) bedroom in excess of 4) III.D Cut and Fill Max. 2 feet Up to 3.75 ft. cut and up to Up to 6 ft. cut and up 7.25 ft fill* to 4 ft. fill* *Variance Requests Summary Staff believes that the current project is consistent with the purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan because: • The proposed project is a two story, three level dwelling that is terraced with the existing grade surrounding the property. • The maximum building height is maintained. • The cut and fill is minimized and allows a connection between the two building pads. • The building setback provides a transition from the 10-foot setback on the property to the south and the 34-foot setback on the property to the north. • The building will be compatible with the surrounding properties. • The zoning code revisions in 1994 changed the method for determining side and rear yards. As a result, this lot cannot be developed consistently with other lots in the vicinity without a variance for some encroachment into the rear yard setback area. • The lot configuration and grade prohibit the site from developing to the strict interpretations of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. • Similar request for variance to rear yard setback and maximum cut and fill requirements have been granted within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. C1397-33.130C -10- 07/14/97 9:58 AM 3 W � � q _ TO - PHONE hlO. : 3741540 SEP. 5. 1997 11:15Rri P 1 ` • r40tl ?3rir'f-8f 53r FL fiSSoc. 1rfc. / RHYHNE' PHUFIE tJO. 714 '_�b1 69E LIL 1 14AI-.6,E�'j�w 17 1-1 S CIF N`tRAI. PARK rt b AR(:H1TUX"FUR A). C.-.0m Il-Ir`lrf 1-'r'om l49ura (AlItuaa, ALA C insulting Archttoo Date August 21. 1091 Cubiml Architeetural keclucst - Mr 6C MrS Keshavar;ian 18741 Jot;key Circle y asa..ry of Ptasaaad Ittrt�ovatms ApplienM rt:submits plates for a rttw, tv v -story •%ith basement, &,SOO SF home: to be built on a 15,500 SY lot of 1 X741 Rwkey Circle Arceltwe�atal fltaevftwr COmmenb: I LOT COVERAGE proposed building tiwv"nt is 4,68g SF on w 1i- 506 A SF 10t IAM coverage percentage— 30" Max Allowable l.ot C'o.retttse s- 35% UK. 7 Nj1Pfl8F R OF S'IYNRIFS- 1'he propo.,,od desist+ is the "Jaximum allowable t.w-s X10nec over a basement A ha"mem level k define-4 as a flour Nri0i at Ift&.m So,%of the winj perimeter of dw fl(x>r at Ica.t 6* below grade. The ne.", drawings submitted Included a building section and tloot'plans_ to it m cleatr nOv►• that the proposed building conforms.to the alxtve degfini6on UK. N1111,011NG ARIGHT The maxirnuen allowahle bui}t, height per the City of Huntington Reach iK 35'ahove the top of curb. The t elevation shows that the, high point of-the roof i�cxac•tly 34'-?!"starve thti elavaw.m at top of curb At the Imt submittal. it wav the opinion of the architectural --ornmittec that the overall height of'thc building could stand to be tiraut:ed wi"Vout compromising the design For the current submittal. the applicant's architect h+t< brought the top of the roof ridge down n' by decreasiftg the. slope of the roof- and enlarging the flat tool ages +lotvever. due to thb difference ttf e-levati.on herween the td), rofyurb and the graded reds. the ce+mmmee tecta that the height should ba: at no point grower than 3it" atwive the.vxtsttng Paraded pad elevations l It ill ti'- 52 W 1 At the upper pad. where the elevation at grade is Sit W, the roof at no point"n be higher than 43-0'(56' • :35'), at the luwar pad. maintain the elevations as shown on the $015/97 reaubmalpl �:§-., a .- s ♦hs .. .H. 4Y 03• Y" — .0— fenixh fiat f1tu►r- and 77'-Q" at the fini o, secanal n wr. PlIp ase maintain thear elevalums and existing fling plan for your hortom pad Mditionally, the t-op �> ,r •3 TO PHONE 110. : 3741540 SEP. 5. 1997 11:1SFItl P 2 FP4Dr1 Z3r3n—{f5 r $ Assoc. Inc. i P.H`r'WE' PHOf4E NO. 714 261 69ee Pluto �s tested of R'I'-�� PteRse te•v»r. this to a lrvattetitt R7,U" i'hir would t,e sandaent and coatparthte vACh the ►arrrtuthlink' neighbor's tcx4heifht',. a S-Ik.TBAC1►.s l•ypt.:alIV, per the gA I luntingtnn Beath- the front yard crfhack t-. ti°•o of the total tut depth, but rwt less thun ail'. and not greater thnr 40'. the xtdvyarct setbacks Luken togethct should eq�+s1 20, with neither sick. lea than V. and the rttu Whack es; W Ot leafs....C. �5 om SF. Howc%•rt , flu this lot, it is,undemood that apph•fng the standard setback varialices .aMild rCsutt in M uttAuildahlF• Swaicx-a 'Therefoir.. it vuunfv vari4ricc has twicyt tequemesd to appiy Code,the variances sho~i on file 19`?l Zoning ode., rejoining the rtrxr yard as to the north, and applying tht 10' teat yard �-ct►wcie to the north ptvpert litre, and 10' sctbsckz%of all ot}tee property'lines. The a:urreht submittal cnntorms to these rectric:tuortx.(Sc-c AttacheA Exhihil A) Howe.ver the Architectural Re-sew Committee is r kc,ivmg strong{eeedbecA atom V utu.w netghtmms in our tint, as welt a-%Two Bout-S the 17TWL that W4.: rushing to enforce the v:tbuck restrtcttoni,dr.Vvymned by.the Qrevtuusiy approved unit sits plan of 1QVI (Se.r .nnsehed F,chibit AV which chew a 7ti' rear vtud setback. '�f' lctback to the we ia. 1 S' se:tbacl: to the suutli. and 14' %e'thw;ic to the e4sst -,\n allowatxw niny "tw made to acs4pt the existing propost4 10' south side sefbnck i v' east setbtick. and 564•' north stdc %ethwck However, a minimum 20' west sctheclk muxt tw maintained CUT & 1FIMA.: At tilt lust submittal, there waa cones" dxpremad over the <arnaunt of c.ut-and-fill being. proposed for the project_ and how the drainagr would lye handled Chore is a:once.n+ that the natural anc original design tint the gmd+ng should hr applied whenever petysaihle 6 LANDIhX7AP0IG: A ser arate t,leview wilt be requited for landsc:upe., hnrdbcepe. and dratnikyr Any mechunical equepmr_nt retl+iired for tht: prattee►r.,l pool xM spit, and wn% our conditioning units prop wd, must he adegtuately screened and soundproofed from the neighboring propetiees. 7 APPhit'ATI0%/SI(;*4 ATV REti: Stlpulturss Boni the neighbori on either side 19752 & 19711 )ex:kc Circle) have been rcceiYcd,'w4 well as the neflthtiur rim F771 9 r.?c 1 Derby C"irClke Wt. haw: not rea: rued a !signature- }turn the neighlxw who,-;hares the property line to the no at 6 7!,7 Oerhy t'e rcit (AgMaes atim Apjiltcatian is dinappre-)-.•eal. Applicant ahuuld resubraet with the fallowattm hangs:'. `._ _...1 Building height m%ut he brought down so that nr, poem of the tnctf iv +c' A.,, uwth tliyaut tii Shekwrt on shswAl A.7 of the AJ1 Sfy7 revision Applicant tit►ed t. shay. �:xtsting grade: on die etc-A. aubmttal. 1'hc unit :ue plan of 1991 calls Cur.- ?J �rtdack to the Mjrct, 14' to the 'Quill. I l' to the ca�i. aid 7;` to the north T1tte tionieuw net. Iry ithc aron wahl those wthackti stvictly cnhi rccd flov-v*er,the Archilteetural RO;VtewComtrittre t,cels that a reasonable -�:olnprornige is, to allow tltc Applit+utt's propo!ieci setbacks al' 10' south_ 10' tca.St,and 50' rtiorth. and to alh w a Mduction ut th4r went sctbaek from 7.t to 24' "c 20* %%est %ide -wibaek h+uct he adhered to Owatde stair and balconies %houid be eliminated, avid the south portion of the building bmughr down I(V to. the.*.act Additionally, Ontite %tructu.rc sfioukl shift F" to the east to bring the 19'-A" sethack into,aonfo+et►ance. Landscape and hardscape plats not a part of this uppmvil and rnvist ht- *4uhmated cepera►ety Final ttpprot✓ttl watll'd he c:utldittOnl) upon the apprvva) .tie those. plan$ 4 Resubmit architectural application with all atTeCled homio%1ners' signaturc% �< > , �«� .�» «w —� « w. : � ±ram � �� ���m:��_ �«: � ��« �= z�a �x w : ::: � .e\ > : �» �«����.��������§ ��«. . © . a � a ., , :� � � _ . . . . . ���a��» �z � ��� � . z . . �� � � � : �.� . � >� � �� � � � � � .�e . . . + ~ ��»� . �% y® \�\:��^»�w� �� ���? ^�� : ��& ���\ �����? w< \� �� . . : . �2. . x . . . > � �« . �� ��: � - a f - : A � m: « ? �e �:��& ���. : . . : . : . , : . . .. : .� �. .:�. ��Q . , �m :� «© _ ,. . ��- .,. :z�� �: . . . , . . . . � . . . , � . . �. ,�. _ - � : .��:� ��\ �. x ��; �\ �} -�\ � ,a < . . /\ �«�»© _ _ �2+�:_ / °���_ ��� ����»� - - - z - - �- .�%� � :���^ - . . . �.���,.���:x.._ � �. . ��« a.. �w. _. : : .. �y.��» �>g ������. ��� �� _ ���a =:a . :����, ��m � � � ��» ^\\yam^2 �& .�� .may. ������,��� ����G��z ATTACHMENT NO. 4 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79/ VARIANCE NO, 96-27 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for a revised plan to construct an 8,587 square foot, two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed two story split level dwelling is terraced to the site and minimizes visual impacts to adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan results in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling fits the natural land form and is terraced to the site. There is a two story split three level dwelling north of the subject property within the Specific Plan area. Balcony projections provide architectural relief and do not intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. 3. The proposed two story, split three level residential use complies with the provisions of the base district in which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance),the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located, except for the variance request to maximum cut and fill and rear yard setback. Staff supports the variance requests necessary for the establishment of the proposed proj ect. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will not adversely affect the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 Units per Acre, Specific Plan Overlay, on the subject property which prescribes the orderly development of a residential area. It is consistent with the following policies: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. LU9.1.2 b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the: use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-VARIANCE NO. 96-27: 1. The granting of Variance No. 96-27 to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to eight feet for balcony projections and ten feet for the building wall and(b)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation,which includes six ft. cut and 7.25 ft. fill, will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project does not contrast with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and to comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, topography, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan development plan is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to minimize the alteration of the natural terrain. The variance request to exceed the maximum cut and fill and reduction of rear yard setback will allow development compatible with the existing development within the Specific Plan area. 3. The granting of a variance to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to eight(8)-feet, and (b) to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation are necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of the two story, split level home will be accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. The six foot cut request allows transition between the two building pads. The fill request of up to 7.25 feet allows level access from the street and reduces drainage impacts to the dwelling. Surface drainage flow for the lot will be oriented into an existing drainage system at the northwest portion of. the lot. 4. The granting of the variance requests will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project does not contrast with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project does not reduce the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height, or siting of the two story, split level dwelling. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96- 79/VARIANCE NO, 96-27: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 18, 1997 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a. Balcony projections along the westerly side of the building shall not encroach closer than eight feet to the westerly property line. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). b. Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans, as follows (FD): 1) Automatic sprinkler systems will be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the fire Department prior to installation. 2) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be sized a minimum of four(4) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half(1-1/2) inches. 3) The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. 4) The project will comply will all-provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. c. The site plan shall depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow,devices and Edison transformers. The location and screening shall comply with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code Section 230.76. d. Elevations shall indicate the following: 1) Colors and building materials proposed. 2) If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. e. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). f. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. g. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. h. The Design Review Board shall review and approve fencing/wall plans. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A grading plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PW) b. Wall plans shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include necessary homeowner's approval. c. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location,type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) 5. During construction,the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%)by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 6. Prior to final approval of the building permit,the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. b. All building spoils, such a unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off--site facility equipped to handle them. 7. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the eondtions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW ) 2. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 4. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of final action. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 96- 79Nariance 96-27,pursuant to a public hearing, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79Nariance 96-27 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. I i9 0�fv,��G � Cy f� September 5, 1997 The office of City Council Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-79 VARIANCE NO.96-27 Dear Honorable Council Members, On behalf of my family I would like to thank you for all your efforts. On August 15, 1997 1 asked Mr. Zarin to call Ms. Laura Robinson Ottman and change the plans based on what the board recommended and choose between the options that was presented to me at the meeting of August 14, 1997 with the president of the Association, the architectural review board members, and the Association architect present. Mr. Zarin spoke to Ms. Ottman the Association Architect and the recommendations of the board was incorporated on the final revised plans (revision 3) his office submitted three copies by messenger to the Association Architect and three copies to the planning department dated 8/15/97. We were told to present this revised plan for final approval to the board. Mr. Zarin and I were informed that the Neighbors are also attending this meeting. Based on the letter dated August 12, 1997 by planning department interpretation of the city council motion. This second meeting was held at the house of the Chairperson of the Architectural board, Mr. Joe Young on 8/21/94 at 8:30 pm. HOWEVER NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ATTENDED THIS MEETING. During this meeting Mr. Jerry Pabbruwee the president of our Association said that he has met with the neighbors of the adjacent associations that is probably Mr. Mandic, Mr. Chapman and our adjacent property owners and said that we have to make these changes to the plan to satisfy their demands because they are politically powerful and we must lower the building and drive down to the garage and provide a 23 feet setback along the west ' property line. And Asked Mr. Zarin if he had lowered the first " floor or not. Mr. Zarin said this was not what was requested of him based on the August 14, 1997 meeting. Mr. Pabbruwee and t Mr. Watkinson both said that we should end the meeting. If was unbelievable as if these two gentlemen were representing the other association and the marks demands. Mr. Tom Watkinson said that we must lower the building five feet , in otherwords three additional feet from what was agreed at the 8/14/97 meeting. At this point in the meeting The Association architect stated that these new items that the board is rasing tonight are all new demands, these items were not what was agreed on in the last meeting. When I talked to Ms Ottman last she said that she was told that not to speak with me but she said that she is resigning from her position. I am sure one of the reason is her first hand experience with this inconsistent and bias panel, especially the president of the association and Mr. Watkinson. I attended both meetings with good faith to come up with a solution assuming that all parties are willing to compromise, however it seem that it is always us compromising our home design and no one cares because we are born in a foreign country. I just like to point out that first of all Mr. Jerry Pabbruwee was not given the authority by the board to represent the member of the adjacent association such as Mr. Mandic and Mr. Chapman, they were invited to attend but they choose not to do so. In addition the Association did not follow the recommendations of the city council and the letter that was prepared by the city clerk dated July 25, 1997 which said "... to allow the applicant to meet with official homeowner's Association to reach accord", It did not say the Associations. it is singular not plural. lets not forget that the association even did not follow its own rules and regulations but followed a letter dated August 12, 1997 from the planning department which said that we are to hold a public hearing invite all the neighbors from both associations and etc. as if to this date this was not done before. Three times the city invited them and held a public hearing twice with the planning commission and once before you the honorable city council. I believe contradictory to the city council's motion this new public hearing suggested by the planning department interpretation of the motion was redundant. However we welcomed this meetings but each meeting another demand was imposed on us to force us to ultimately bandon this project • and sell the lot. Since the meeting of 8/21/97 1 didn't hear any thing from the and the association architectural board and the association architect. However after my letter dated September 2, 1997 to the Association Mr. Zarin was faxed the letter that was dated . August 21,1997 to Mr. Joe Young chairperson of the architectural board. This letter was faxed to me today (attached►. Now they are asking us to do the following in addition. to all other compermioses that we have made. ' 1. They want to reduce the height of the building another six feet meaning that the roof over the light well has to be eliminated, and the revised parapet height dropped another NINE INCHES as if we are building a swiss watch. 2. They are asking that the set back on the west should be 20 feet. Which is prejudges on their part because the adjacent house has a set back approved for 10 feet and Mr. Chapmans house has an eleven feet set back. And Mr. Mandic does not even have a plan for his lot and he is in the process of selling his lot. Needless to mention only 42'-10" of the lenght of the building has 10 feet set back and the remaining 59'-2" has a 19'-6" setback from the west property line. May be this is a strategy to delay our project and buy some time for Mr. Mandic to get his project approved and if so this county has laws. 3. It is ironic that even the neighbor to the north that is Mrs. Marks has not even approved these recommendations by the architectural board, they didn't attend the meeting of 8/21/97. Therefore they are not respecting what the honorable city council had requested. 4. In addition this request to provide a 20 feet set back along the west property line changes our plans significantly and we probably have to start over. We spent about two years and now we are forced to start over and redesign our project. However since there was some concern raised in the previous city council hearing I would like to suggest to eliminate the two balconies encroaching into this ten feet west set back. Furthermore I also like to say that the basement level at the gym area was raised four feet to eliminate the cut and fill over two feet, which is reflect on the revised plans. In addition the roof parapet was lowered another two feet which is reflected on the revised plans. Honorable council members if you feel that the amount of fill below the drive way which accommodates three uncover parking space required by the Huntington Beach is excessive we will design a structural slab to avoid this fill which costs will be another $ 40,000.00. Honorable council members we can not compromise this home any more. We believe that the people of Huntington Beach have elected you for good and proper reason you are all fair. And we like to ask for your direction, and believe that you will not bent the rules nor you integrity, just because the previous Mayor Mr: Mandic and Mr. Chapman are politically powerfully. We are new in this neighborhood and do not know any one. Please take this into consideration when you make your final decision. We would also like to publically invite the Association management, and architect, and the members of the architectural board to attend the September 15, 1997 hearing. We believe that you are just. Thank you very much for you consideration. Very Truly Yours, Bahram Kasravi 9/7 /p 7 CC: The Honorable Mayor Ralph Bauer Mr. Howard Zelefsky Mr. Scott Hess MS. Susan Pierce City Clerk Connie Brockway Laura Robinson Ottman Zarin-Afsar & Assoc. Inc. Ellis Central Park #9 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79Nariance No. 96-27 Appeal (Jockey Circle Residence) Continued from the August 1.8, 1997 meeting) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 15, 1997 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS> REV[EWED RETURNED FORWARDED:: .. Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial rCity Clerk ................ EXPLANATION FOR RETURN Q ITEM: . . Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use Ui _. vl Vim• � .`�-= .-��:al , ; i l�lli 11LEb:; ci'1 Jay and Lynne Davis 6782 Derby Circle , L 1997 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j W W - Home: (714) 842-64,41 Office: (310) 981-403-8 a N � £_ Ju 21, 1997 Honorable City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: 18741 Jockey —Appeal-Variances requested (Three Story House)--OPPOSE Dear Honorable City Council Members: We are writing to reiterate our opposition to the above mentioned variance requests. Even with the changes made to the plan, this house still has the appearance of a three story house. We believe that the integrity of the overall appearance of this neighborhood should be maintained, and the height and setback variances requested will result in an oversized house which is too large for the lot. The variance on the west side will place the house too close to the fence, thereby losing the "estate feel" of the neighborhood, The house should also be built on grade as was the original plan for this lot, This house will not only be out of place in our neighborhood, but the surrounding neighbors will be forced to look at this beast every day. Additionally, the plans do not meet our Association requirements. We are requesting the City to stop approving these variances to assist us in maintaining the integrity of this neighborhood. We spent over $1 million and an incredible amount of time and effort to live in an exclusive, desirable neighborhood. Every time the City makes a decision that alters the overall appearance, and therefore, the desirability, of the neighborhood, the value of our property will decrease. For example, the Matterhorn and variances approved at 18711 Jockey Circle have lowered our personal property value already. The setbacks, height restrictions, and other requirements in this area were established for good reasons. Please do not continue to approve variances which erode the integrity and appeal of this neighborhood. Thank-you for your consideration. Sincerely, �d mr"rt �.d h Jay Lynne Davis tea. - 4,9,t,. ge.,,. . P� e'a" Liu" 4 je CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH F� 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 25, 1997 Gilda Keshavarzian Mahavesh Keyranazar 9544 Nightingale Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Ms. Keshavarzian and Mr. Kayranazar: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 21, 1997 closed the public hearing and continued the decision regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79, Variance No. 96-17, two story split level house at 18741 Jockey Circle, to the August 18, 1997 City Council meeting. The motion adopted by Council is as follows: "A motion was made by Garofalo, seconded by Dettloff, to continue decision on the appeal filed to the Planning Commission denial of revised Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79, Variance No. 96-17, to allow applicants to meet with official Homeowner's Association to reach accord. " Enclosed is a copy of the action agenda for you and your Homeowner's Association. Sincerely, d � Connie Brockway City Clerk cb:mh Enclosure: Action Agenda Page No. 7 (Tale phone:714-536-5227) t.. (7) 07/21/97 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 ****REVISED PAGE**** D-3. (City Council) Public Hearing -Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian To The Planning Commission Denial Of A Revised Plan -Conditional Use Permit No. 96- 79 -Variance No. 96-27 -Two Story Split Level House - 18741 Jockey Circle - s/w Ellis Avenue & Saddleback Lane (420.40) Communication from the Community Development Director Public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required Recommended Motion: I Of Plannencl At Hearing Closed -- Continue decision to 8/18/97 to allow applicants to meet w/Official Homeowner's Assn. to reach accord) (7) 7 1- Stio�1 IfPS$— C a� September 11, 1997 to = c City Council �_ 4 City of Huntington Beach --- al .n 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 California, 92648 n Ref: C.U.P. 96-27, variance 96-27 n • r GL9 � Dear Council: On Wednesday, September 10, 1997, the Board of Directors (BOD) of the. Country View Estates Home Owners Association met and reviewed proposed construction plans and variances for a new home on Jockey Circle in the "Edwards Hill" area. The reason for the review was that the Jockey Circle lot directly interfaces with several of our association's properties and views. In fact, from a visual perspective, our property owners have the dominant view of and proximity to the proposed home. Prior to our meeting, I met with Ms. Susan Pierce in the Huntington Beach Planning Department to discuss the Jockey Circle property. She updated me on the status of property and said that the City Council was planning on deliberating the issues surrounding the property at the September 15`h Council Meeting. She also recommended that if our association wanted additional input to the Council, it should be by letter. At our BOD meeting, we reviewed the City Staff reports concerning the proposed Jockey Circle construction and unanimously voted that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's decision to deny C.U.P. 96-79, variance 96-27 be upheld. The City Planning Staff stated at the August 18, 1997, City Council Meeting that, "...the greatest impact of the Jockey Circle project will be on the properties to the West..." (which is our HOA) . Despite this, the applicant has made NO effort to contact or meet with any member of our association or our- BOD (as directed by the City Council during the public hearings) . .t: 0 Our board's primary concerns on the proposed construction are as follows: • Rear setback variance (80 percent reduction) unacceptable to adjoining neighbors and equestrian traffic (i.e.. from 50' norm to 10' at ground level and on 8' at balcony level) • Three story construction from Western perspective is excessive; it will impact privacy and create visual high-rise blight • Overall mass of project too large for the lot size and topology. By any rational standard, the proposed home would clearly be overbuilt for the lot • If the proposed variances are accepted by the City Council a precedence will be set. It will materially undermine the neighboring property values and penalize existing association members who have carefully built to the existing setback and height standards while dealing with varying topologies The Ellis Central Park Homeowner's Association (HOA for the proposed Jockey . Circle home) met and recommended to the Jockey Circle applicant that he build to the 1993 Approved Unit Siting Plan. They said that they would concur with these variances. As a compromise, the 1993 Siting Plan would be acceptable to our HOA also. The specifics of the Plan are as follows: 1) 30' front yard setback 2) 15, Southerly setback 3) 23' Westerly side yard setback 4) 50' read yard setback 5) 10' Easterly side yard setback 6) Building pad elevations of 58, and 52, 7) Building height, 35' maximum (measured from pads not from curb) The above requirements are from the Approved Tentative Tract Map (see attached) which was approved by the City Council after considerable public input. The Plan provides substantial building pads, livable setbacks and reasonable expectations for utilizing the lot. The Jockey Circle applicant should have been aware of the setback provisions before investing in the lot and in architectural work. If the setbacks were unsuitable from his plan then he should not have purchased the lot. Based upon the applicant's unwillingness to comply with the 1993 standards and with the will of the two impacted HOA's, we at the Country View Estates Homeowner's Association recommend that the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 96-79 and variance 96-27. Sincerely, Gordon M. Watson President, CVE HOA cc: Susan Pierce, Planning Department attachment I �,Quf�St�ih� �iu►iL - � IS 72--,/ /017 �, i3w 1a�ng a�t4 l -41 ,��,•tr�' C� � a� ;d� ,CAI. : se• OQvf!OT9lAw OWL-Res I, Sol LL <jidt J� _ r �fsd st,Fioat,�s CiRGL� 7 Scat�RepoR- t?it0196 9 (pcsr237) JI .._• e--- FINDINGS FOR DENIAL J • ate., CONDITIONAL USE PERK UT NO. 96-79/ o w,, VARIANCE NO. 96-27 J C�W - - r ` I1 DES FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERK UT NO. 96-79: Z p.. 1. eoATitional Use Permit No. 96-79 for construction of a 8,587 square foot, two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling emphasizes bulk and mass on the site and visually impacts adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan does not result in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling appears to be a three story, 45 foot high dwelling along the north and west elevations. There are no three story dwellings within the Specific Plan area which is developed with one- and two-story dwellings. Balcony projections intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. 3. The proposed two story, split three level residential use does not comply with the provisions of the base district in which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance),..the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the_district in which it would be located. The variance requests necessary for the establishment of the project have been denied. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will adversely affect the General Plan. The project is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 Units per Acre, ` Specific Plan Overlay, on the subject property which prescribes the orderly development of a residential area. It is not consistent with the following policies: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. LU9.1.2 b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods(i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the: use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 L�-�� (97CL513-3) All FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- VARIANCE NO. 96-27: 1. The granting of Variance No. 9&27 to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 8 feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling (appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation(up to 6 foot cut and.7.25 foot fill) will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. Although there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, topography, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan development plan is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to m;nim»e the alteration of the natural terrain and will allow development in compliance with the Specific Plan. 3. The granting of a variance to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 8 feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling (appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation are not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of a custom home can be accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved site plan or unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. 4. The granting of the variance requests will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project reduces the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height, building height, and architectural design of the two story, split three level dwelling. (97CL513-4) ;; ACHMENT NO. -a _ :vILLAGEWAY MANAGE, :11-:2-50 15:56 ; VILLAGEWAY MANAGE. - 7143741540:# 2 ELLIS CENTRAL PARK#9 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O.Box 4708 Irvine,CA 92616 Z cn September 8, 1997 Bob Keyvanezar 9597 Nightingale Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92709 -o C.G7 T RE: 18741 Jockey Circle,Architectural Application Dear Mr.Keyvanazar. The Architectural Committee met on August 21, 1997 and considered your application. Your application was disapproved. the Committee recommends the following. I. Building height must be brought down so that no point of the roof is 35' above the existing pad elevations. Maximum building height of 93' at the upper northern pad must be achieved. It appears that this can be easily resolved merely by the elimination-of the cupola over the stair. Maintain the south layout as shown on sheet A-7 of the 8/15/97 revision. Applicant needs to show existing grades on the new submittal. 2. The unit site plan of 1993 calls for a 23' setback to the west, IS' to the south, 14'to the east and 75'to the north. The homeowners in the area wam these setbacks strictly enforced. However, the Architectural Review Committee feels that a reasonable compromise is to allow the Applicant's proposed setbacks of 10' south, 10'east, and 50' north, and to allow a reduction in the west setback from 23' to 20'. The 20' west side setback must be adhered to. Outside stair and balconies should be eliminated, and the south portion of the building brought down 10' to the east. Additionally, entire structure should shift 6"to the east to bring the 19'-6"setback into conformance. 3. Landscape and handscape plans not a part of this approval and must be submitted separately. Final approval would be conditional upon the approval of these places. 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures. Sincerely. VILI.AGEWAY MANAGEMENT,INC. Jac Zullinger, CAM® Property Manager On Behalf of the Board of Directors JZ/hab cc! Scott Hess,Seaior Pl=ner,City of Huntington Beach Architectural Review Cornninee D �u.7G �r»r»uni��iDh - • • t-r +rdr �rr»rt» rsr sr»sr rrr>r ' rr� _:%�:.r� �] :,-r"'•-.-_.M,d,�r�.�.,_ ram«,._. sa. I r 1 — - N- ...... ..... ®9..........::::..::hi::�:::�::;:^iiii::.::.:L:iii:is i::i::•i:•::•iii •ii::.:iiii:.ii:.iiiiiiii:�.-_..:..:::...:::.:::::::::::. ..... - -.::::::::i.<.i::.i::v:::::.:i::::::.::•:.. ......iij;> v..:................... .......Y-:::::.�::::::.... .................................... ... ....... ��pqp.. ..................................................... :•ii;i:(:i::i:::i:i::i::i::i::i::: :::::i::i::i::iii:i:;::::;;:.:....._ :.....:::.:�::.b::::::...... :•is:::i:ti:::::::::::ii::J:y::i:::ii:: ::::::::: :':......... :.:......... p01....::':::ii :':< ::':::'::':':''::j:':'iii:::<}:^iiiis::i`C;:;;:;:;i::2: `:?:::::<:::ii::::i::i::iiii::i ':::i::::::::::i::::.::.:i:.:. ::::::::::::� :•:::.iti:•i}:•iiii}iii}iiiii.... .... ...:... L : : ....................... :;%::::2 : :;:' •.;:';::i:2t:i::;t:::::::::;:::::::s:is:z::>s:;:::;;:::;;::;r ::?:::::iii:i;;:i::'' >E »: ® y History ♦ December 10, 1996 - Planning Staff recommended denial and the Planning Commission denied three story, 39.5 foot high dwelling ❖ Incompatible with neighborhood **** Inconsistent w/infill requirements _2_ History (cont'd.) ♦ May 13, 1997 - Planning Staff recommended approval and Planning Commission denied two story w/basement, 3 5 foot high dwelling. ❖ Incompatible with neighborhood ❖ Three story appearance ❖ Inconsistent with infill requirements -3- History (cont'd.) ♦ July 21 , 1997 - City Council continued decision on appeal and recommended applicant to: ❖Meet with homeowner's association ❖Involve neighbors **** Reach accord Homeowner's Association Central Park #9 Recommendation * First meeting - 8/14/97 �.•Reduce height **** Reduce cut and fill Second meeting - 8/21 /97 **** Plans revised to reflect 8/14/97 direction ❖Revisions denied -5- Homeowner's Association (CP#9) Recommendation (cont'd.) * Revise to depict: ❖ Maximum 35 ft. height from existing pads ❖ 10 ft. south setback •.� 5 0 ft. north setback ❖ 20 ft. west setback •S 10 ft. east setback **** Delete outside stairs and balconies _6_ Country View Estates HOA Recommendation (adj . neighborhood) ♦ 15 ft. south setback ♦ 50 ft. north setback ♦ 23 ft. west setback ♦ 10 ft. east setback ♦ Maximum 3 5 ft. height measured from existing 52 ft. and 58 ft. building pads RECEIVED CITY CLERK C11Y OF HUNTINGiOli „_ACIi,CALIF. SEP 15 4 17 PM '97 September 15, 1997 The Office of the City Council SEP -1 51997 Huntington Beach ., 2000 Main Street DEPA ,IWE �t 4- _ Huntington Beach,CA-92648 Reference: Conditional Use Permit 96-79 Dear Honorable Council Members: We understand that a letter was sent to the City Council,dated 9/5/97,by Bahrain Keshavarzian. His letter is emotionally charged and contains many accusations that are untrue and stem,impart, from a lack of understanding of our approval process. We initially met with Mr.Keshavarzian to discuss ways his plan could be adjusted that would reduce the impact of his proposed house on his neighbors. After our first meeting with Mr. Keshavarzian we met separately with his adjoining neighbors in order to understand their concerns. A second meeting was held with Mr.Keshavarzian in an attempt to work out a compromise. When it became apparent that the approval process was misunderstood,the committee wrote down the recommendations so that Mr. Keshavarzian would better understand the process. Those recommendations are consistent with what was discussed at our first meeting with him. It is unfortunate that the letter sent by Mr.Keshavarzian is so derogatory to our Association,but we understand the emotions that directed it. Sincerely, 't'j#'-� Jerry H. Pabbruwee Ellis Centra Park#9 Homeowner's Association September 15, 1997 The Office of the City Council Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Conditional Use Permit 96-79 Dear Honorable Council Members: We understand that a letter was sent to the City Council, dated 9/5/97, by Bahram Keshavarzian. His letter is emotionally charged and contains many accusations that are untrue and stem, impart, from a lack of understanding of our approval process. We initially met with Mr. Keshavarzian to discuss ways his plan could be adjusted that would reduce the impact of his proposed house on his neighbors. After our first meeting with Mr. Keshavarzian we met separately with his adjoining neighbors in order to understand their concerns. A second meeting was held with Mr. Keshavarzian in an attempt to work out a compromise. When it became apparent that the approval process was misunderstood, the committee wrote down the recommendations so that Mr. Keshavarzian would better understand the process. Those recommendations are consistent with what was discussed at our first meeting with him. It is unfortunate that the letter sent by Mr. Keshavarzian is so derogatory to our Association, but we understand the emotions that directed it. Sincerely, Jerry H. Pabbruwee Ellis Centra Park#9 Homeowner's Association t6, NJ 5t 5I d3S 'JIIVO `IQV:a NOIONIMH jC ALK) l � 03Ai3338 L T �'�Inmu/taet`- 7-1vrJ SENT BY:VILLAGEWAY MANAGE, VILLAGEWAY MANAGE..- 7143741540;# ; ELLIS CENTRAL PARK#9 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P. O.Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92616 September 8, 1997 Bob Keyvanazar 959.7 Nigbtingale Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92708 RE. 18741 Jockey Circle,Architectural Application Dear Mr.Keyvanazer: The Architectural Committee met on August 21, 1997 and considered your application. Your application was disapproved. The Committee recommends the following: I. Building height must be brought down so that no point of the roof is 35' above the existing pad elevations. Maximum building height of 93' at the upper northern pad must be achieved. It appears that this can be easily resolved merely by the elimination,of the cupola over the stair. Maintain the south layout as shown on sheet A-7 of the 9/15/97 revision. Applicant needs to show existing grades on the new submittal. 2. The unit site plan of 1993 calls for a 23' setback to the west, IS' to the south, 14'to the east and 75'to the north. The homeowners in the area want these setbacks strictly enforced. However, the Architectural Review Committee feels that a reasonable compromise is to allow the Applicant's proposed setbacks of 10' south 10'east, and 50' north, and to allow a reduction in the west setback from 23' to 20'. The 20' west side setback must be adhered to. Outside stair and balconies should be eliminated, and the south portion of the building brought down 10' to the east. Additionally, entire structure should shift 6"to the east to bring the 19'-6"setback into conformance. 3. Landscape and handscape plans not a part of this approval and must be submitted separately. Final approval would be conditional upon the approval of these plans. 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures. Sincerely, VII LAGEWAY MANAGEMENT,INC. Jac Zullinger, CAM* Property Manager On Behalf of the Board of Directors JZ/hab et: Scott Hesa.Senior Planner.City of Huntington Bowl Arehitecntral Review Committee -� ��•. . ._-i., .. �..�. (7) 09/15/97 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 D-2. (City Council) Closed Public Hearing -Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian To The Planning_Commission Denial Of A Revised Plan -Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 - Variance No. 96-27 -Two Story Split Level House - 18741 Jockey Circle -s/w Ellis Avenue & Saddleback Lane (420.40) Communication from the Community Development Director. Communication from Bahram Kasravi applicant, dated September 5, 1997 in support of the project. ** Communication from Gordon Watson, Country View Estates Home Owners Association President dated September 11, 1997 in opposition to the project. Public hearing closed on July 21, 1997 with decision continued to this date. Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Staff RQGQ--MIMe!3d@!iQEY Approve GenditiGRal Use Permit No. 96 79 and Varianrn No 96 [Denied appeal and sustained the denial by the Planning Commission. 6-0 (Julien: Absent)] (7) 4--s 09/15/97 -City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 7 Administrator to submit the 1998/99 Budget (second year of the two-year budget) to the City Council in August of 1998 substantially in the form submitted in the two-year budget. (CITY COUNCIL) CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL FILED BY GILDA KESHAVARZIAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REVISED PLAN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 -VARIANCE NO. 96-27 -TWO-STORY SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE - 18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE - SOUTHWEST OF ELLIS AVENUE AND SADDLEBACK LANE (420.40) Communication from the Community Development Director. Communication from Bahram Kasravi, applicant, dated September 5, 1997 in support of the project. Communication from Gordon Watson, Country View Estates Home Owners Association President, dated September 11, 1997 in opposition to the project. Public hearing closed on July 21, 1997 with decision continued to this date. APPLICANT: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar REQUEST: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two-story, 35-foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A) and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. LOCATION: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single- family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Staff Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and conditions of approval as set forth on Attachment No. 4 to the Request for Council Action dated September 15, 1997. (CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 97-63 -ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTO DEALERS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (460.30) Communication from the Economic Development Director • 9 / 15 /907 08/18/97 -City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 13 (CITY COUNCIL) DOWNTOWN HARDSCAPE (SIDEWALKS CLEANING) (830.20) Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff referred to a memorandum she had written to Mayor Bauer and the City Councilmembers dated August 18, 1997, Subject: Downtown Hardscape Cleaning. Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff presented the Downtown Cleanup Committee's report. She presented options from the report and informed Council that a City Attorney opinion dated October 24, 1996 (RLS NO. 96-738) - Steam Cleaning and Sealing of Public Right of Ways was attached to her communication. (CITY COUNCIL) MAYOR BAUER'S REPORT REGARDING POLICE HELICOPTER (530.20) Mayor Bauer reported on his tour in the police helicopter that he recently had the opportunity to take. He spoke regarding the speedy response and coordination with ground units he had observed. He gave an example of the helicopter pilot observing a driver running a red light and informing a ground unit of the violation. (CITY COUNCIL) CITY BUDGET REVIEW SCHEDULE - REPORT BY CITY ADMINISTRATOR (320.20) City Administrator Uberuaga reported on the schedule for Council meetings and public hearings on the city budget. He spoke regarding some of the items which will be discussed such as department requests; curb, gutter and sidewalks; slurry sealing of streets; underground oil tank removal and remediation; and refuse collection services cost. CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING -(HEARING CLOSED ON JULY 21, 1997 WITH DECISION CONTINUED TO THIS DATE) -APPEAL FILED BY GILDA KESHAVARZIAN TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REVISED PLAN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 -VARIANCE NO. 96-27 -TWO STORY SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE - 18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE -SOUTHWEST OF ELLIS AVENUE AND SADDLEBACK LANE - DECISION CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (420.40) The City Council considered a public hearing item on which the hearing had been closed on July 21, 1997 as follows: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Property Owner/Ap elp lant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A) and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. 177 Page 14 -Council/Agency Minutes -08/18/97 Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, at the request of City Administrator Uberuaga, reported on the status of the meeting with the Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board and the appellant. He stated that recommendations were made including reducing the bulk and height of the structure. A motion made by Sullivan, second Green to continue decision on the appeal filed to the Planning Commission denial of a revised plan - Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 -to the September 15, 1997 Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS REMOVED The following items were requested by Councilmembers to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration: Bid Award -Warner Avenue Landscaping Project from Algonquin Street to Edwards Street - CC-1026 - C. J. Construction, Inc. Substitution of Tract Bonds (American Motorists Insurance Company) and Subdivision Agreements due to Purchase by Turnberry Huntington Beach, LLC of PLC Land Company Tract Nos. 15037, 15081 and 15085 - Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Consideration of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Recommended Positions Regarding: Various Assembly and Senate Bills - Support AB-92 and SB-500 - Oppose AB-1070 and SB-1156 Bid Award -Appropriation from Water Reserve Fund Balance - Fiber Optics Cable from the Civic Center to the Water Operations Building - CC-1049 - BNB Engineering, Inc. Professional Services Contract between the Redevelopment Agency and Donahue and Company, Inc. for Appraisal Services - Montgomery Ward Building - Huntington Beach Mall - Authorization for Waiver of Errors and Omissions Insurance Requirements CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS APPROVED On motion by Harman, second Green, Council approved the following Consent Calendar items as recommended by the following roll call vote: 178 Page 12 - Council/Agency Minutes - 07/21/97 V l4e_ On motion by Sullivan, second Garofalo, Council continued the public hearing on Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-6 to the August 4, 1997 City Council meeting. The motion carried by unanimous vote with Councilmember Harman out of the room. (CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FILED BY GILDA KESHAVARZIAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REVISED PLAN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 --VARIANCE NO. 96-27 - TWO STORY SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE - 18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE - SOUTHWEST OF ELLIS AVENUE AND SADDLEBACK LANE - HEARING CLOSED WITH DECISION CONTINUED TO AUGUST 18, 1997 (420.40) Mayor Bauer announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A) and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, presented a staff report. City Clerk Brockway announced that the following communication on this item had been provided to the City Council: Communication from Jay and Lynne Davis dated July 21, 1997 in opposition to the Appeal and Variances requested for 18741 Jockey Circle, Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -79 and Variance No. 96-27 Mayor Bauer declared the public hearing open. ---� JAMES B. ZARINAFSAR addressed Council in favor of the appeal. He presented a videotape to the City Clerk titled To City Clerk, Part of July 14, 1997 Letter from Zarinafsar and Associates, Incorporated and exhibits including a communication from James B. Zarinafsar dated July 14, 1997 titled Planning Commissioners Mr Tom Livengood, Mr. Fred Speaker and Mr. Gerald Chapman and a 27 page document not dated which included drawings. He displayed the previous model of the home and the revised model. Using large diagrams he presented a detailed description of the project including proposed revisions. 7/eXt 97 )Vk"AE6 07/21/97 - City Council/Redevelopment A ency Minutes - Page 13 GILDA KESHAVARZIAN gave reasons in support of her appeal. She spoke regarding their i efforts to design their house stating that they had visited neighborhoods with beautiful homes in Newport Beach and Beverly Hills, visited showrooms, looked at magazines and talked to those who could help with the project. She spoke regarding their efforts to meet with members of the neighborhood to make the project better for everybody. MARK NITIKMAN spoke regarding why he believed the variance request was not only unfair but legally not allowable as findings have not been met. He stated that others in the area have had to design to meet requirements. Mr. Nitikman stated that this lot is in the 1993 site plan and not governed by the 1997 code and it is not a justification. He stated that it would be injurious to the surrounding property owners. JANELLE MARKS stated her concern that the house will tower over her house. She stated that she does not understand why the appellants do not have to follow the rules which they followed. BOr MANDIC presented reasons why he opposed the approval of the appeal. Mr. Mandic pointed to the chart and showed areas of his concern. He stated that the whole idea of a Specific Plan was for view corridors. Mr. Mandic informed Council that his is the adjacent lot and informed them of how it would impact his property. He urged the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission denial with their findings. ----� CARRIE THOMAS stated that other owners had to comply with requirements. She stated that it was her understanding that the heuse was supposed tG built 9F; 1 V2 lots but was just built en eRe let homeowner to the south was given an option to buy a lot and a half to build his home and he designed his home based on a lot and a half. She stated that the home was approved on a lot and a half and after the approval the homeowner decided not to purchase a lot and a half and a huge, monstrous house resulted on one lot. She stated these are the types of things being encountered. She spoke regarding the requirements of the Specific Plan. Ms. Thomas addressed Council regarding the difficult driveway requirement that she had to meet. She spoke regarding other development problems occurring in the area which she did not understand. GERALD CHAPMAN addressed Council and listed the four findings which must be found in order to approve a variance. He spoke regarding the requirement that all four findings must be met in order to grant the appeal. Mr. Chapman presented reasons why he believes the findings cannot be met including that it is possible that a residence can be built on the property. BOB KASRAVI stated that he had been told by persons that he had to have the approval of Mr. Chapman. He referred to a wooden model of the proposed home and spoke regarding his discussions with Mr. Chapman. He also informed Council of his discussions with the Marks' family. There being no one to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by Mayor Bauer. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, responded to questions of Council regarding the matter, including the City Attorney's opinion regarding the 1993 vs. 1997 zoning due to grading which has been done. The distinction between stories and levels was discussed. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dettloff, Mr. Hess reported on issues involving adjacent parcels. In response to Councilmember Sullivan, Mr. Hess reported on the concerns of the Planning Commissioners which caused them to deny this request. Mr. Hess responded to Councilmember Harman's Page 14 - Council/Agency Minutes - 07/21/97_ I question regarding what the view would be from Mr. Mandic's property. Councilmember Harman stated that he believes the equestrian trails were intended for open space and view corridors. He spoke regarding safety concerns relative to the horses due to the building being so close for a substantial distance to the equestrian trail including "children will be children" and throwing things off balcony; horses looking down into the property, and the smell. Mayor Bauer spoke regarding the matter and stated that he would like to see the proponent of the project,go to the official Home Owners Association to reach a solution. Planning Director Zelefsky stated that this is feasible, but he is not sure of the home owners' stance on the issue. ---�j► Mayor Bauer presented a suggestion that the solution may be to meet not lust with the adjacent neighbors but that the homeowners' group on its letterhead give some indication of what it would find acceptable or reach some kind of agreement with the project proponent. �- 0 Discussion was held between the Mayor and Planning Director Zelefsky regarding holding a joint meeting between city staff and both affected homeowners' associations involved in this proiect: that this would provide the elements to reach a solution. ---�► A motion was made by GarGfate Bauer, second Dettloff to continue decision on the appeal filed to the Planning Commission denial of a revised plan - Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 - Variance No. 96-27 - to the August 18, 1997 Council meeting with the suggestion to the staff that they facilitate what the Mayor has lust suggested. Following discussion, the motion carried by unanimous vote. (CITY COUNCIL) A MOTION TO ADJOURN FOLLOWING ACTION ON CERTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS A motion was made by Green, second Garofalo that Council would adjourn after consideration of agenda items including Resolution No. 97-79 - Refuse Service Rates, agenda item regarding Letter of Understanding - Bolsa Chica Development, the agenda item regarding Specially Noticed Hearing - Goldenwest Street Right-of-Way Widening, and Ordinance No. 3368 - 72-Hour Parking. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Dettloff, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo NOES: Harman, Bauer ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS REMOVED The following items were requested by Councilmembers to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration: Bid Award - Pavement Coating Company - For Renewal Of Contract For Slurry Sealing Of Residential Streets - MSC-388 Appropriation for Worker's Compensation Claims Administration and Data Processing System and Related Computer Technologies Approval of Ten Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subgrantee Agreements and Waiver of Insurance Requirements Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 283 - Support for Section 202 Application - Bowen Court Senior Apartments v LLAGEWAY MANAGE. : 11-:2-50 15:56 : VILLAGEWAY MANAGE. - 7143741540;# 2 ELLIS CENTRAL PARK#9 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O.Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92616 September 8, 1997 _ rn . 2'J�C7 Bob Keyvanazar w ;,< 9597 Nightingale Avenue C:' Fountain Valley, CA 92708 =� LO T RE; 18741 Jockey Circle,Architectural Application . Dear Mr.Keyvanazar; The Architectural Committee met on August 21, 1997 and considered your application. Your application was disapproved. The Committee recommends the following; I. Building height must be brought down so that no point of the roof is 35' above the existing pad elevations. Maximum building height of 93' at the upper northern pad must be achieved. It appears that this can be easily resolved merely by the elimination*of the cupola over the stair. Maintain the south layout as shown on sheet A-7 of the 8/IS/97 revision. Applicant needs to show existing grades on the new submittal. 2. The unit site plan of 1993 calls for a 23' setback to the west, I S' to the south, 14'to the east and 75' to the north. The homeowners in the area want these setbacks strictly cnforrcd. However, the Architectural Review Committee feels that a reasonable compromise is to allow the Applicant's proposed setbacks of 10' south, 10'east, and 50' north, and to allow a reduction in the west setback from 23' to 20'. The 20' west side setback must be adhered to, Outside stair and balconies should be eliminated, and the south portion of the building brought down 10' to the east. Additionally, entire structure should shift 6"to the east to bring the 19'-6"setback into conformance. I Landscape and hardscape plans not a part of this approval and must be submitted separately. Final approval would be conditional upon the approval of these plans. 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures. Sincerely, VH AGEWAY MANAGEMENT,INC. Jac2WI:irlsgrer, CAM® Property Manager On Behalf of the Board of Directors Jz/hab et: Scott Dean.Senior Plainer,City of Huntington Beach Architemn-al Review Cormninee D Gr�c-fG (�r»I"u n �ey•vI LAGEWAY MANAGE. � 11-�2-50 15�56 vILLAGEWAY MANAGE. 7143741540;# 2 ELLIS CENTRAL PARK#9 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P. O.Box 4708 Irvine,CA 92616 ro H September 8, 1997 im C iy m Bob Keyvanezat w ;m 9597 Nightingale Avenue �' T Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RE: 18741 Jockey Circle,Architectural Application —' Dear Mr.Keyvanazar. The Architectural Committee met on August 21, 1997 and considered your application. Your application was disapproved. The Committee recommends the following: 1. Building height must be brought down so that no point of the roof is 35' above the existing pad elevations. Maximum building height of 93' at the upper northern pad must be achieved. It appears that this can be easily resolved merely by the elimination-of the cupola over the stair. Maintain the south layout as shown on sheet A-7 of the 8/1S/97 revision. Applicant needs to show existing grades on the new submittal. 2. The unit site plan of 1993 calls for a 23' setback to the west, 1 S' to the south, 14' to the east and 75' to the north, The homeowners in the area want these setbacks etrictly enforced. However, the Architectural Review Committee feels that a reasonable compromise is to allow the Applicant's proposed setbacks of 10' south, IWeast, and 50' north, and to allow a reduction in the west setback from 23' to 20'. The 20' west side setback must be adhered to. Outside stair and balconies should be eliminated, and the south portion of the building brought down 10' to the east. Additionally, entire structure should shift 6"to the east to bring the 19'-6"setback into conformance. 3. Landscape and herdscape plans not a part of this approval and must be submitted separately. Final approval would be conditional upon the approval of these plans. 4. Resubmit architectural application with all affected homeowners' signatures. Sincerely, VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT,INC. Jac Zullinger. CAM® Property Manager On Behalf of the Board of Directors Jz/hab et: Scott Hem Senior Planner.City of Huntington Beach .Architectural Review Cattnnime C Lrc-fG &P"/"u n l idi e n -. -- -- - - --- -. September 11, 1997 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 California, 92648 Ref: C.U.P. 96-27, variance 96-27 LAM Dear Council: -i On Wednesday, September 10, 1997, the Board of Directors (BOD) of the Country View Estates Home Owners Association met and reviewed proposed construction plans and variances for a new home on Jockey Circle in the "Edwards Hill" area. The reason for the review was that the Jockey Circle lot directly interfaces with several of our association's properties and views. In fact, from a visual perspective, our property owners have the dominant view of and proximity to the proposed home. Prior to our meeting, I met with Ms. Susan Pierce in the Huntington Beach Planning Department to discuss the Jockey Circle property. She updated me on the status of property and said that the City Council was planning on deliberating the issues surrounding the property at the September 15th Council Meeting. She also recommended that if our association wanted additional input to the Council, it should be by letter. At our BOD meeting, we reviewed the City Staff reports concerning the proposed Jockey Circle construction and unanimously voted that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's decision to deny C.U.P. 96-79, variance 96-27 be upheld. The City Planning Staff stated at the August 18, 1997, City Council Meeting that, "...the greatest impact of the Jockey Circle project will be on the properties to the West..." (which is our HOA) . Despite this, the applicant has made NO effort to contact or meet with any member of our association or our BOD (as directed by the City Council during the public hearings) . Our board' s primary concerns on the proposed construction are as follows: • Rear setback variance (80 percent reduction) unacceptable to adjoining neighbors and equestrian traffic (i.e. from 50, norm to 10' at ground level and on 8' at balcony level) • Three story construction from Western perspective is excessive; it will impact privacy and create visual high-rise blight • Overall mass of project too large for the lot size and topology. By any rational standard, the proposed home would clearly be overbuilt for the lot • If the proposed variances are accepted by the City Council a precedence will be set. It will materially undermine the neighboring property values and penalize existing association members who have carefully built to the existing setback and height standards while dealing with varying topologies The Ellis Central Park Homeowner's Association (HOA for the proposed Jockey Circle home) met and recommended to the Jockey Circle applicant that he build to the 1993 Approved Unit Siting Plan. They said that they would concur with these variances. As a compromise, the 1993 Siting Plan would be acceptable to our HOA also. The specifics of the Plan are as follows: 1) 30' front yard setback 2) 15' Southerly setback 3) 23' Westerly side yard setback 4) 50' read yard setback 5) 10' Easterly side yard setback 6) Building pad elevations of 58' and 52' 7) Building height, 35' maximum (measured from pads not from curb) The above requirements are from the Approved Tentative Tract Map (see attached) which was approved by the City Council after considerable public input. The Plan provides substantial building pads, livable setbacks and reasonable expectations for utilizing the lot. The Jockey Circle applicant should have been aware of the setback provisions before investing in the lot and in architectural work. If the setbacks were unsuitable from his plan then he should not have purchased the lot. Based upon the applicant' s unwillingness to comply with the 1993 standards and with the will of the two impacted HOA's, we at the Country View Estates Homeowner's Association recommend that the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit 96-79 and variance 96-27. Sincerely, - - \ Gordon M. Watson President, CVE HOA cc: Susan Pierce, Planning Department attachment o uf-5ts 0i <iLA 1I, , tote— .Y -_�C uu s N ---1, Ioca GLE !- WMT91AN fMIL.gee p Ir 10� � -7 1 CIIZGL� --^ — re�uiied ss.+iioa�,lcs i /!//// �n�wGllw,�ir7� var�ACG St'3ffRepoR- 12119/96 9 (pcsr237) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-19 Council/Agency Meeting Held: .S-�S/97 IV A"'" yO Deferred/Continued to: �yf -Al ®'�Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Cle 's Signature 7 Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-19� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION z 2 T9 SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrato PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director SUBJECT: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 (SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE - ELLIS GOLDEN WEST AREA) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for the City Council's consideration is a request by the applicant, Gilda Keshavarzian, to refer Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 back to the Planning Commission for review and action because the plans to develop a single family residence have been substantially revised. The original plans submitted by the applicant depicted a three-story residence with variances that were denied by the Planning Commission. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the decision, revised the plans, and eliminated the request for a height variance. Since the Planning Commission has not seen the revised plans plus the revisions address issues raised by the Planning Commission, staff supports the request to refer the revised project back to the Planning Commission for review and action (recommended action). Funding Source: Not applicable CD97-19.DOC -2- 04/23/97 4:31 PM RQUESFOR COUNCI AC T L TION MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-19 Recommended Action: PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Refer revised Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 to the Planning Commission for public hearing." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: Motion to: "Direct staff to schedule a public hearing for revised Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 at the next available City Council meeting." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92709 Property Owner/ Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahvash Keyvanazar A ellan : 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Location: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 with revised plans represents a request for the following: A. To construct a 8,587 square foot single family residence which requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6) pursuant to Section 241.18A of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO); and B. To permit construction on a 15,597 sq. ft. lot with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point pursuant to Section 230.70C of the ZSO. The 15,596 sq. ft. lot has a grade differential of 14 feet. CD97-19.DOC -3- 04/23/97 4:31 PM ' *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-19 Variance No. 96-27 with revised plans represents a request for deviations to the development standards of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan in order to construct the 8,587 square foot residence as follows: :...::::::::................E:::::.:........... :::: .: .....................::::::......................:::::::::..:::::: : C�.s�`P.::.:::.::.:::::::..........:::::::::...:.:.: y'.. ,�..E�TIC 1 :<::::>::>::::> ::><:::::::>::>:::::>::;::;;:: RE .UIR.EIIlIEN '......... ....... . .............. ........... ............. :.:........::.:::.....:::...........::::::::::::::...........:::::::::.::::::...:...:::.:.::.::;:.::.;:.:::::::::::.............................0....................................................................................................... .................. 1. Rear yard setback 10 ft. for main 50 feet for lots over IV.C. 5c dwelling; 15,000 sq. ft. 6 ft.-8 in. for balconies 2. Cut and fill Up to 3.75 ft. cut Max. 2 feet III.D and up to 7.25 ft. fill B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY: On December 10, 1996, the Planning Commission acted to deny the project. In addition to the cut and fill and rear yard setback variance requests, the Planning Commission considered a three story, 39.5 ft. high dwelling in lieu of a maximum two story, 35 ft. high dwelling. During the public hearing five persons spoke, two against and three in support of the project. The property owner stated that a split level home terraced with the existing grade was impractical for his family. From the street the dwelling would appear as two stories and the other level would be called a basement. The project designer stated that a setback transition was proposed for the dwelling to attain compatibility with existing homes in the area. Those against the project stated that the project does not maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and it does not ensure compliance with the specific plan primarily because of the three story aspect of the residence. The Planning Commission denied the project based on incompatibility with the surrounding area, three story appearance, and inconsistency with the residential in-fill ordinance. C. APPEAL: On December 17, 1996, the property owners appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Attachment No. 1). The reason stated in the appeal is to allow an opportunity to revise the project to reflect the concerns raised at the public hearing. CD97-19.DOC -4- 04/23/97 4:31 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-19 D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Subsequent to the Planning Commission's denial, the applicant met with staff to discuss alternatives to the variances. A revised plan was submitted on March 18, 1997, which reduced the variances to (1) deviation of the maximum cut and fill and (2) rear yard setback. The revised plan depicts an 8,587 square foot, two story, split level dwelling. The lowest level includes a media room, Persian room, gym and sauna. A four (4) car tandem garage, single car garage, bedroom, den, dining room, kitchen, family room and 1-1/2 bathrooms are located on the main (street) level. The upper level contains a master bedroom suite, three (3) additional bedrooms and bathrooms, laundry and sitting room. A large deck is provided on each level on the north side of the house. A circular stair is located in the center of the dwelling and provides a transition from the lowest level to the upper floors; this feature has a building height of 35 feet. The proposed building is terraced with the terrain. Staff recommends that this revised project be referred back to the Planning Commission. This action will allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the revisions and to determine if the project addresses their concerns raised at the public hearing. Then, if the revised project is not appealed, the Planning Commission's action will become final. if the project is appealed, it will be brought back to the City Council for a public hearing and final consideration. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Attachmentls): City Clerk's Page Number .. . . ................. ............... .......... ....... ... ...................... ................ .. ........................ ............... .............. ....... .. 1. Appeal letter dated December 16, 1997 . . 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan CD97-19.DOC -5- 04/23197 4:31 PM PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the- below NOTicE NOTICE,OF- entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of CONSENT CALENDAR,+ BEFORE'THE the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a CITYd6bNCl� OFeTHE CITYOF a. ; newspaper of general circulation, printed HUNTINGTON BEACH b NOTICE IS HEREBY and pu lished in the City of Huntington GIVEN .th'atIo May 5 _NOTICE IS 'HEREBY 1997 af7:00§PM'inthe Cd` GIVENrtha> is, item is cat- Beach County of Orange State of Y�_ egoricatly,exempt-from the, r r Council Chambers 2000�f provislons of thq'Qildornia- Main :Street 4.Hu'ingtorn' Environmental-0uality Act` California, and that attached Notice is a Beach,the,City�Councifwill ON-FILE copy of the; 4 consider,forwardinguio I. proposed request and,re• .., true and complete .'copy as was .printed Planning" Commission for;. yised-project is-`on file-=in •J r� ;public hearing the following; the_ -Comm unit y,'Developc.:: and published in the Huntington Beach planning andzoningtitem ment -Department 2000 1 APPEAL_=0F PLANNING' Main Street H Win to and Fountain Valle issues of said COMMISSIONSDENIAL Beach -California, t92648, J Y i OF. CONDITIONAL USE for inspection by the pub= newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: PERMIT,,NO -96.79NARI• , tic --' ,ANCE 'NO. 96.727 (THREE ALL INTERESTED PER;- :STORY HOUSE)=-Appellant SONS•are invited Ito attend Gilda Keshavarzian & Mai said meeting andi express havesh Keyvanazar op inions:- or. --submit Tevi- •plicant: Gilda KeshavarzlaApn deuce;tor or :against the Request: to refer a-revised'- application during the pub plan to$the«Planning"Com_5. tic comments section of theme, April 24, 097 imission for for their consid• meeting; It there::area any eration.The revised:plan is further questions please for an 8,587 square feet, 'a call=the Planning Aivision ah-% two story;35 toot-high,sin-_1 536 5271.=and,-.refer to then. Iglu family dwelling with II above _,item. .Direct ,your ;variances-,to-;-permit an-:jwr' en'communications,ao; ' eight.:(8),•foot setback 16 the City.Clerk, i,:;, lieu of minimum,50 feet - A new.nohce will be sent declare, under penalty of perjury, that land to exceed the' MaXV io you indicatin Pl g.,4he an;; ,mum two (2) toot cut and ning Qommissioi heanng. the foregoing is true and correct. fill grading limitation..The date ,fig>Zt�. revised plan.eliminates the. Connie ,�Broakway,: need for the original height City_Clerk Clty.�of Hung variance. The tentative City Clark Beak., Aun-'-! Planning-Commission hear irig date is May 13 1997 ,Maln-Street, 2nd Floor'''l Executed on April 24 , 199 Locahon::18741=Jockey Huntington Beach,Cal t; Circle.(at th -the terminus of ornla 92848- (714) at Costa Mesa, California. Jockey°Circle,souwest of 5385227 Ellis Avenue and .Saddle; Published =Huntington back Lane)ProJei Pla'riner: g ach-Fountaln 411ey In=,_i Susan_P_ierce �deperident Apnt 24;190 554 ( 2 Signature RECEIVED CITY CLERK i:dTY OF NUNTINGTOh 88"-Cll, CALIF. O�c 17 10 37 AM '96 DECEMBER 16, 1996 CITY CLERK HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 RE : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 VARIANCE NO. 96-27 DEAR CITY CLERK; WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS LETTER OF NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE CITY CLERK IN REGARDS TO THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 10, 1996, RELATED TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79, AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 . APPELLANT GILDA KESHAVARZIAN, MAHVASH KEYVANAZAR 9594 NIGHTINGALE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 AS THE APPLICANT OF THE ABOVE REQUEST, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT FROM DAY ONE OF THE DESIGN PROCESS WE KEPT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INFORMED OF OUR PROPOSAL . WE HELD TWO MEETINGS WITH MR. SCOTT HESS AND SUSAN PIERCE, A MEETING BEFORE THE INITIATION OF FINAL DRAWINGS, IN WHICH WE FELT THAT WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND ANOTHER MEETING AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE DRAWINGS IN WHICH WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL NOT SUPPORT OUR PROJECT . IN ADDITION WE HELD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO INFORM AND INCORPORATE THEIR CONCERNS IN THE FINAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMM-I--S,S-[ON FOR APPROVAL . ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" IS THE NEIGHBORS SIGNATURE OF SUPPORT AND APPROVAL FOR OUR PROJECT. HOWEVER AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE STAFF REPORT BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TWO ,.NEIGHBORS THAT EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT SPOKE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL . WE WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE OUR PROPOSAL TO REFLECT THE LATEST INPUT AND CONCERNS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE NEIGHBORS, AND PRESENT THE REVISED PLANS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. VERY TRULY YOURS; GILDA KESHAVARZIAN APPELLANT/ OWNER CC : THE HONORABLE MAYOR RALPH BAUER MR . HOWARD ZELEFSKY MR . SCOTT HESS MS SUSAN PIERCE i For your review and approval please find attached the plans of the proposed dwelling located at 18741 Jockey Circle, Huntington Beach. Thank You. Approve ;"Name Address -------=--- -- --- ------------- ------------------------------------ --- --------- ------------------------- 7- t- 1 C12 C< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------;--,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------------------------------------- _________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • • DM 38L SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP - 34-5-II CITY OF . HUNTINGTON BEACH ,& ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP n,a\ 33 - t 31 I I � ,,,I i^II � ���g^� I � ICI—�-•,1I'G IIf---'--""11IW��_'�Y�s���^ s ~ 4 I o �p� / / I •�f I I I I .. r 'uu..uWuuuutjtl' lln, _ I `i �� Mlllnll nl!Mll linll ll!1 I I .nnnnnn�{}nnnnm -------I-- ------r----- I I fTfttiTTTTIT mMITT7Y11 MIII III III IIG I11111111 III � kc JA .t7 7-1 5. WNMM MMOi MttMhnl � I l I IIIIIIIIIII Iilllllll11�1 �_____ r� 1 ji � i ate..-.-.:. � ( • -�---• • �: I z J i Ct . I / F 4 W a IW [; O O [9 CgRFf as.a• ,•u S u 6Jec.+ groper x AVE. o 0 o sou •�/.• o s e 0 0 0 o en7hi u o u o0 0 0 o u o 0 0 0 0 0 o u o ou u o u u u o O O o 0 o u oou o 0o u a,r uu u•o 0 o so • o e • o 0 0 0 0 r o o u o O o ou ou o 0 0 e u 000 0 00 Wa1TIT'10 uooDGtr:TG PRf•ICi �— f I A PI• / i �.�.� .• e d Is . / t •r,.......er••..r•�.r comme -- — -- ---- , -�•�_ j L_�— --M-- YAbW BMW iif.i i:i ..••• � 1 , • \ uw w CARS ...«....�:rw.�:••:.�.'� , ------ o000 _ _ I -- a yrr� mm"m •mu%ce .00 1 r 'll �• .. rq -(D _ as C rev nub /' st... •r,en. • 1 / `�� Lor Mr-eft: 14590.6 Som I OILDIMO Poor P"Ir: 46". -0 �4FT.,••wr u•aaw ., . .ura so. { cv ot, c FLOOR. ArEA: Obel.o-8n�► I t•►Loos., 1152*0 •1►� �� \ ,1• 1 1 14 MWIL, %14&0 t R -DIT\ PLANI YJLmrin 1,114.0 a& t_ LGGAL DGOG[IPTIOM Losw ••>.y�yy' LOT 1/ TRACT R I641" 4eera—. wr.rlj. IA21 CD 4 ; gg g 1* - M R ON 6 t su M j, g 0 g O 1M1i "R1 11ga p MY l_ 0314 1 gn KIBIZ_ ,1 , , NQ - h m I• 1 • . ss , mNY4 n "'M X.Yr ga 2 1 ```-' 8 1983 town NA ij W 112 P.- �,2 ill Pip M 91 l0AsaA1 1 l m F • k0 it I Ile - -p o - ENrgM ,mil t N iw mai� ............... WA� . 1 5, ........... L allOT 0 it Il laffl 1 lP JE . W . -soil � ` , M . SX . iN Mr I01 , fv. Z 0 t0 ; aw l f l I1AN 1 A" 41 1 o ' V icn p l4je T = ,� , Pl A V 0 5 1MkR.;o M46 E M NIK g AI NI A Svp- p -;7-pO po - 1 ; M 7 • A 4 ,,1 oar„V N P4 g. U� 1;-'X, g-4-F;& 111 oil 1 29 MW W ij . ......... -�� City of Huntington Beach P.O.Box 190-2000 Main Street i * Huntington Beach,California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH From the desk of. Connie Brockway, CMC • City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-5404 Fax: (714) 374-1557 yip-9� 40� _ 74 Z17' fie' 94-9 7 . PCs S '04 Ij - �'II2� ,�- �-/ 97 cw czff- Pas-S 4,3 ypc'hf-_ oy\- _ he,1-b ,-v//S t h 10i ccn>e-,-f 6ale, ,&r Pu4b'e /1ty4'c,-- CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Pumme 11, ARINS RE UEST • SUBJECT: 4-5 -J DEPARTMENT: �� yr ��r/ MEETING DATE: C/ CONTACT: �i �''Ce PHONE: N/A YES NO ( ) (lf ( .) Is the notice attached? Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(an or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? I ( ) ( ( ) Are the date,day and time of the pubk hearing correct? If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? (►� ( ) ( ) . If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ) ( Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (✓" Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) (V� Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and ccuracy of the W-u mail'n list? /u.ucis tc�c?r� rC�a-rr d' �u�a.c CuSe / <C�l , uqu57� /G, /G'rf�itlS•'� Ctcr�Crt� rea,1�,/5 r� >`Zc.. !`fi'i�1�. ( ) (✓) ( ) Are the✓applicant's name and address part of the mailing label ? r ( ) (✓f ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing label? (►/S ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission pi of the mailing labels? (✓S ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attach ? Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. ilms only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date L y 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications .._.............. 0 ...... .............. ............. .......... ..... >.... .... ... `>.. ML •;. .... ..... MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 Community Development Code Amendment #97-1 - Amending the Composition of the Environmental Board Community Development Zoning Text Amendment 96-6 - Amending the City's Sign Code Community Development Zoning Map Amendment 95-1/Neg. Dec 95-4 - 7661 Warner(at Nichols) - (Central Baptist Church) from Residential Med. High Density to Public/Semi-Public) Community Development Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of CUP 96-79 Non-Public Hearing Notice o Consent Calendar Item NUMBER OF HEARINGS: TODAY'S DATE: 04/18/97 3:06 PM VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: Ray Silver Assistant City Administrator 4/18/97 3:06 PM CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBM 1 WARM RE UEST i SUBJECT: —}- DEPARTMENT: L�6�i2.m , �Pr�/ I MEETING DATE- I CONTACT: �. i �G PHONE: N/A YES NO i O V f ( .) Is the notice attached? i Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(an or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? Are the date,day and time of the pnbk hearing correct? ( ) ( ( ) If an appeal,is the appellant's name included in the notice? (✓f ( ) ( ) . If Coastal Development Permit,;does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ) ( ►'� Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (✓� Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and ccuracy of the mailin list? -tAi 1"e-1s wgrl-pr a"eR by �u.satic- G�ase d�'1ic�ccs t /G, �>9�u�s%n9 c /firif coves al tdr c�r�/�'s�f e. `p Are the Uapplicant's name and address part of the mailing label ? I ( ) (✓f ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing label ? (✓� ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission p of the mailing labels? (✓S ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the Resident labels attach ? Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date y 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications I I I ' i NOTICE OF CONSENT CALENDAR BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE �m CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 5, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will consider forwarding to the Planning Commission for public hearing the following planning and zoning item: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 96-79/VARIANCE NO. 96-27 (THREE STORY HOUSE): Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian& Mahavesh Keyvanazar Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Request: To refer a revised plan to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The revised plan is for an 8,587 square feet, two story, 35 foot-high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight(8) foot-setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The revised plan eliminates the need for the original height variance. The tentative Planning Commission hearing date is May 13, 1997. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) Project Planner: Susan Pierce NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that this item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request and revised project is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said meeting and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application during the public comments section of the meeting. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. A new notice will be sent to you indicating the Planning Commission hearing date. Connie Brockway, City Clerk - City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (97CCSOSc) Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach *' Office of the City Clerk ftu�M r P.O. Box 190 TO Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SENDER FORWARDING ORDER EXPIRES %N411N6 _ David D. Dahl 6F, 505 Park O� Avenue_`N(,ORPOR41 Balboa Island, CA 92662 O� �UUN TY cP� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 tU� Huntington Beach,CA 92648 To SENpER ;; .. •�� . , FORWARDING ORDER EXPIREL15/01 _ _ 2 AUTO Central Park 4-9 �<JTINGTp 505 Park Avenue • y Balboa Island, CA 92662 Q� �HCOfl POgq CFO (7LA 7 1`909 Po �� cpUNTY Ca` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING City Connie Brockway, C y Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk _ P.O. Box 190 TU4. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TO SENVER FORWARDING ORDER EXPIRE _ Ellis-Central Park #9 123 Agate Avenue #B INGTp Balboa Island, CA 92663 / `,CORPOgq JFO �(�� J • Q �puNTI ca \ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING rvco II lI�II II l.I:IIIliI,Illi lllllllll 11 111 I I I I I lI II I III II I II II 110 220,05 1 W10 22101 2 110 221 02 3 RE,,hld I Brindle onald I&Enpily Ann Brindle •Ronald I &Eer�nily Ann Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St 18851 Gold west St 18851 Gol&nwest St Fi'µntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 03 110 221 04 5 110 221 05 6 Ronald I&Emily/Anyn Brindle Ronald&Emily Brindle CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC 18851 Goldenw t St 18851 Gold nwest St 2000 Main St Huntington ach CA 92648 HuntingWn' Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 06 7 110 221 07 8 fc / ! % 110 221 0 Ronald&Emil Bri d e Ronald I l dle�Emily � `Ronald I n Brindle 18851 Goldenwesj�5t 18851 Golden w t Sty 18851 Golden est St Huntington Bich CA 92648 Huntingto each CA 92.48 /"1'Iuntington each CA 92648 110 221 09 10 110 221 10 11 110 221 11 12 Ronald&Emily rindle Ronald I&Emily Ann Brindle Ronald &E ily Brindle 18851 Golde est St 19782 Scenic Bay Ln 18851 Go enwest St Huntingto each CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntin ton Beach CA 92648 110 221 12 13 °�"� 110 221 13 4 - 110 221 19 �0� 15 �oe �` Ronald I roily Ann Brindle Ronald I&Em' Ann Brindle Ronal Brindle 18851 G denwest St 18851 Golden est St 18851 Gol nwest St .�� Jimto gptm Beacj Huntingtoneach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648/—E' 110 221 20 110 221 21 17 110 221 22 18 Ronald L&E/achCA Brindle Ronald I&E y Ann Brindle Emma F Scouller 18851 Golden 18851 Golde west St 8302 Indianap9lis Ave Huntington B92648 Huntingto Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 110 221 23 19 110 221 24 20 �"""`. 110 221 25 21 Ronald I&E y Ann Brindle Ronald I&E ily Ann Brindle CITY O UNTINGTON BEAC 18851 Gold west St 18851 Gold west St 2000 in St Huntin93 Beach CA 92648 Huntingt n Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 26 /st 2 159 352 05 23 159 352 06 24 Ronald I& n Brindle Courtney Dubar Gerald L Chapman 18851 Golde 6741 Shire Cir 6742 Shire Cir HuntingtonA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 352 07 25 159 352 08 26 159 352 15 27 Gordon M Watson John D Mackey Donald B Jankowiak 6732 Shire Cir 6712 Shire Cir 6711 Shetland Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 352 16 28 159 352 17 29 159 352 23 30 Jack C Collins Robert P Mandic Jr. David D Dahl 6731 Shetland Cir 1112 Main St 505 Park Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 eve f i _> 159 352.26 31 ,159 352 28 32 159 352 29 33 David D D Gene N Hill •John Fisher 505 Par ve 6722 Shetland Cir 6692 Shetland Cir N ort Beach CA 92662 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 402 06 34 159 402 07 35 159 402 16 36 Michael Pust David T&Michelle Mai Michael D Burdge 6711 Pimlico Cir 6721 Pimlico Cir 6731 Pimlico Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 402 17 37 159 402 18 38 159 411 04 39 John A Thomas John &Kimberly Nguyen Gary&Robin Hybl 6741 Pimlico Cir 6751 Pimlico Cir 6811 Derby Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 411 05 40 159 411 06 41 159 411 07 42 Joseph&Felicia Young Brett Austin A Kubelka A Dds Money Purchase 17292 Apel Ln 15 San Sebastian 10951 Chestnut St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Newport Beach CA 92660 Los Alamitos CA 90720 159 411 08 43 159 411 09 44 159 411 10 45 KUBELKA BARTON A D D S IN Ronald K Marks Arnold&Therese Brender 10951 Chestnut 5311 Glenstone Dr 6772 Derby Cir A Wsia CA 90702 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 411 11 46 159 411 12 47 159 411 13 48 Jay B&Lynn B Davis Ronald&Virginia McDevitt Chen-Fu&Shu-Chen Chiu 279 Santa Ana Ave 27 Rue Cannes 18671 Jockey Cir Long Beach CA 90803 Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 411 14 49 159 411 15 50 159 411 16 51 Gelso&Teresa Dispalatro RYE JAMES&IN Jungchou Chang 14358 Trumball St 9488 Honeysuckle Ave 18721 Jockey Cir Whittier CA 90604 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 411 17 52 159 411 18 53 159 411 19 54 Howard&Jane Yata Mahvash&Gilda Keyvanazar James J Christiano 18731 Jockey Cir 9594 Nightingale Ave 18752 Jockey Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 411 20 55 159 411 21 56 159 411 22 57 David&Candace Melin Michael McFadden Carl&Elise C Hartman 3230 Lilly Ave 8401 Cape Newbury Dr 18722 Jockey Cir Long Beach CA 90808 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i 59 411 23 58 159 411 24 59 159 411 28 60 ,Zaymond& Rowena Wang Jerry H Pabbruwee ELLIS-CENTRAL PARK #9 HO 8712 Jockey Cir 18702 Jockey Cir 123 Agate Ave#B iuntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 159 41.1 29 61 15941130 62 • 159 411 32 63 E,LLIS-CENTRAL PARK#9 HO ELLIS-CENT L PARK#9 HO ELLIS-CE RAL PARK #9 HO 123 Agate Ave #B 123 Agate ve#B 123 A e Ave#B Newport Beach CA 92662 Newp Beach CA 92662 Ne ort Beach CA 92662 Ja.vnes Za,-ih 15941201 64 159 412 02 65 82 au(�o,1t David O Schiller CENTRAL PARK#9 2602 E 20th St#203 505 Park Ave Signal Hill CA 90804 Newport Beach CA 92662 /S" A(ar�JJc7r2 f J . Pe th,f- �ccz� �9 �� IJ fa�•�� c,+? 9Z(cy� �usz�,�'S L�? f3�,d c� LJ� 91��D J� Pty of Huntington Beach P.O.Box 190-2000 Main Street " Huntington Beach,California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH From the desk of. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-5404 Fax: (714) 374-1557 -,4o � Gl �` may. G[�c�f-ciLcr l�ih .( cz� 7Z' L Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �� •`� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ;, '. , - • - ,r,, ��;�;.;,�::�? c:�••I}•}��! i�•lt?-mot.�. :;�'='� �1_ i�3�T��,, s.. . - . - - t-935 92648 9998 J`� HUNTINGTON BI-ACH CA _. ... ✓� )V) 1 ��pNTINGTpH� 159 352 17 29 O �pGORiOR�lFO F Robert P Mandic J . 1112 Mairi St ' Huntington Be ch C L I 9 ����� may,• '`t;'i� ".;.-. I LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ---- ------ /110 220 05 1 011022101 2 • 110 221 02 j 3 Ronald I Brindle Ronald I &E ' y Ann Brindle Ronald I &E��'zly Ann Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St 18851 Golds west St 18851 Gold6nwest St H,.intington Beach CA 92648 Huntingtdn Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 03 110 221 04 /- 5 �/110 22105 6 Ronald I&Emily Brindle Ronald & Emily Brindle CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC 18851 Goldenw t St 18851 Gold n vest St 2000 Main St Huntington ach CA 92648 . '744i�inWn Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 06 7 / 110 221 07 8 u'°'° fit `1i]� 110 221 0 Ronald& Emily Brindle Ronald I BF dle Ronald I n Brindle 18851 Goldenwes�,St 18851 Goldenw t St �8851 Golden est St Huntington BEh CA 92648 Huntingto each CA 92 48 Huntington each CA 92648 110 221 09 10 110 221 10 -)a-P 11 110 221 11 12 Ronald &Emily, rindle Ronald I&Emily Ann Brindle Ronald & E ily Brindle 18851 Golde rest St .. -Fr— /8SS/ 18851 Go enwest St Huntingtoneach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 �4p�'� Huntin on Beach CA 92648 tvr=s T 110 221 12 13 "ay 110 221 13 4 ,je �- � 110 221 19 15 Pp �"� j Ronald I mily Ann Brindle ' Ronald I&Em' Ann Brindle / Ronal Brindle !/v 18851 Opt, enwest St 18851 Golden est St 18851 Gol nwest St o aej� Huntingtoreach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648/� r 110 221 20 110 221 21 17 ,/110 22122 18 Ronald L&Emily n Brindle Ronald I &Emily Ann Brindle Emma F Scouller 18851 Goldenw t St 18851 Golde est St 8302 Indianap9lis Ave Huntington B ach CA 92648 Huntingto Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 110 221 23 19 110 221 24 20 �`�' 1102212 21 Ronald I&E ' y Ann Brindle Ronald I&E fly Ann Brindle 9 CITY OId NTINGTON BEAC 18851 Gold west St 18851 Gold west St 2000 St Huntingt Beach CA 92648 Huntingt n Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110 221 26 /each 2 59 352 05 23 ✓159 352 06 24 Ronald I& n Brindle Courtney Dubar Gerald L Chapman 18851 Golde 6741 Shire Cir 6742 Shire Cir HuntingtonA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ,/159 352 07 25 ,/159 352 08 26 ✓159 352 15 27 Gordon M Watson John D Mackey Donald B Jankowiak 6732 Shire Cir 6712 Shire Cir 6711 Shetland Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ✓'159 352 16 28 2 159 352 17 29 159 352 23 30 Jack C Collins Robert P Mandic Jr. David D Dahl 6731 Shetland Cir 1112 Main St 505 Park Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newpef mac-h-CA 92662 07i 5 aw,�/c� 7 "� B q� s�9 zd �/ �� �a.�� • �a ,�g �, .,� 159 352 26 31 *�59 352 28 32 •✓159 352 29 33 David D Gene N Hill John Fisher 505 Pa ve 6722 Shetland Cir 6692 Shetland Cir N ort Beach CA 92662 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 A59 402 06 34 ✓159 402 07 35 V 159 402 16 -36 Michael Pust David T&Michelle Mai Michael D Burdge 6711 Pimlico Cir 6721 Pimlico Cir 6731 Pimlico Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 402 17 37 ✓159 402 18 38 ✓159 411 04 39 John A Thomas John &Kimberly Nguyen Gary &Robin Hybl 6741 Pimlico Cir 6751 Pimlico Cir 6811 Derby Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Aspk Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159 41105 40 +�"0 ✓159 411 06 41 159 41107 42 oseph&Felicia Young .� Brett Austin FA#e oA) A.Kubelkagk Dj)s++F e 3-7 - 1-L-n ?o 8,K 'o6 7 X 15 San Sebastian 10951 Chestnut St Huntington Beach CA-92_649- Newport Beach CA 92660 Los Alamitos CA 90720 9026 u 7 159 411 T u P 43 ✓159 411 09 44 ✓ 159 411 10 45 KUB y A BARTON A D D .IN Ronald K Marks Arnold&Therese Brender 10 - Chestnut &NJ-0 5311 Glenstone Dr 6772 Derby Cir Rtesia CA 90702 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ✓159 411 11 46 �/159 41112 47 ✓159 411 13 48 Jay B&Lynn B Davis Ronald&Virginia McDevitt Chen-Fu&Shu-Chen Chiu 279 Santa Ana Ave 27 Rue Cannes 18671 Jockey Cir Long Beach CA 90803 Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ju.Nc— 159 411 14 49 159 411 15 7�. 50 159 411 16 51 Gelso&Teresa Dispalatro RYE JAMES - 44� Chang 14358 Trumball St 9488 Honeysuckle Ave 19721'Jockey Cir Whittier CA 90604 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92648 v/159 411 17 52 159 411 18 53 Xl 59 411 19 54 Howard&Jane Yata Mahvash&Gilda Keyvanazar James J Christiano 18731 Jockey Cir 9594 Nightingale Ave 18752 Jockey Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley CA 92708,,,E�tXo Huntington Beach CA 92648 o ✓159 411 20 55 159 411 21 56�0�i' , ty ✓159 411 22 57 David &Candace Melin ichael McFadden Carl&Elise C Hartman 3230 Lilly Ave D� v 4 18722 Jockey Cir Long Beach CA 90808 H+uHiington Beach-C—A-92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 LOit/� $cf3C/� 9oSr� ✓ i59 41123 58 �/159 411 24 59 159 411 28 60 Zaymond & Rowena Wang x Jerry H Pabbruwee ELLIS-CENTRAL PARK #9 HO 18712 Jockey Cir 18702 Jockey Cir &)� c4q��Ck-92_66-2- 3 Agate Ave #B (4untington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 �66 1XAve 159 411 30 62 . 159 411 32 , 63 ERK#9 HO ELLIS-CENT L PARK#9 HO ELLRE RAL PARK #9 HO 1 123 Agate ve #B 123 #B N662 Newp Beach CA 92662 Ne h CA 92662 J159 412 01 64 159 412 02 65 Jo-vases Za✓iVj S2 # David O Schiller CENTRAL PARK#9 � Dk Pont Dr, Z-2SL 2602 E 20th St #203 505 Park Ave 9z( 1 Z Signal Hill CA 90804 §Wm � A 926 J .. T>orcth� �t,'t�(kz-� iL(Ria' I�•2 f J . P[�,'t- "�� G�G 1Z,'na(� Iv, /flSfr( G�ctd�:t�utsi- 51- , r . %8s-a r C-�lle���� lSr S ,a cz J - Council/Agency Meeting Held: 01091 Deferred/Continued to: 9115/97 ` ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved El Denied �� ity Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: August 18, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-33a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development DirectoPF SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 (JOCKEY CIRCLE RESIDENCE) (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 21, 1997 MEETING) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27. The applications represent a request to construct a two story, three- level, 35 ft. high structure with a ten-foot rear yard building setback (eight-foot for balconies) in lieu of the minimum 50 ft. setback and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of more than three feet between the high and low points on the site. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. At the July 21, 1997 City Council meeting, the neighbors expressed concerns regarding the height and massiveness of the proposed residence. Subsequently, the City Council continued this item to the August 18, 1997 meeting to allow the applicants to meet with their respective Homeowner's Association (Ellis-Central Park No. 9) to reach accord. It was recommended that the Homeowner's Association meeting involving review of the plans be a public meeting where all interested parties could attend, including an adjacent Homeowner's Association, and express their concerns and comments. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33a On July 25, 1997, the applicant submitted their architectural plans to the Homeowner's Association Board for their consideration. On August 6, 1997 the Board met and referred the plans to their architectural review committee. The Committee is in the process of reviewing the plans. As of August 11, 1997, no meeting or action by the Committee has occurred. They expect to decide whether or not to hold a public meeting, and make a decision on the plans, in the next two weeks. Staff recommends that the City Council continue this appeal for one more month to give the applicant additional time to obtain Homeowner's Association Board consideration. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 to the September 15, 1997 City Council meeting." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and of approval;" or 2. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings." Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number ............. 1. Letter to Gilda Keshavarzian dated July 25, 1997 from Connie Brockway, City Clerk 2. RCA dated July 21, 1997 CD97-33A.DOC -2- 08/11/97 2:41 PM -=zu3 �A.� - � � :._.._.�� -_a � _ - -'� '�•x 4N*.tea'��`t�'z'�'=��'� - ��Sr� Y ¢� i, ^ITY OF Hl.JlilTll�lC�T®1!! BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF)'HE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 25, 1997 Gilda Keshavarzian Mahavesh Keyranazar 9544 Nightingale Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Ms. Keshavarzian and Mr. Kayranazar: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 21, 1997 closed the public hearing and continued the decision regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79, Variance No. 96-17,two story split level house at 18741 Jockey Circle, to the August 18, 1997 City Council meeting. The motion adopted by Council is as follows: "A motion was made by Garofalo, seconded by Dettloff, to continue decision on the appeal filed to the Planning Commission denial of revised Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79, Variance No. 96-17, to allow applicants to meet with official Homeowner's Association to reach accord. " Enclosed is a copy of the action agenda for you and your Homeowner's Association. Sincerely, Connie Brockway J U L i City Clerk cb:mh co"n"�iNI.TY DEVE-_cr;:��aT Enclosure: Action Agenda Page No. 7 Y.' y (Telephone:714-536.5227) i (7) 07/21/97 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 ****REVISED PAGE**** D-3. (City Council) Public Hearing -Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian To The Planning Commission Denial Of A Revised Plan -Conditional Use Permit No. 96- 79-Variance No. 96-27 -Two Story Split Level House - 18741 Jockey Circle - s/w Ellis Avenue & Saddleback Lane (420.40) Communication from the Community Development Director Public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian . Proper Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar i Request: Appeal to Planning Commissions.denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and'the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane E Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act`which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required Recommended Motion: Plannancl St s i e� f t . E[Hearing- Closed -- Continue decision to 8118197 to allow applicants et w/Official Homeowner's Assn, to reach accord) (7) e QZ 4 RECEIVED FROM Z ate,:, aLal AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE + _. COUNCIL MEETING OF "7-XI-9) d-j OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK 1 f t, 1' L J �J J 1 `� t - G ilSt�w�u�NG 11d TS 4 m — . J -9; J &YOST. �ws. � � C� •' � Za�ilT�.D•.rt. � (� Proposed residence for: KESHAVARZIAN'S 1 8 7 4 1 Jockey Circle - - Huntington Beach, Calif. -._... S6 T G L .d �► T S. A/er+In ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT SITING 9J s - PROJECT DATA I11CAL 05cm"K N: LOT 4;WICIr lM4N IE SINr.E FAMILY'RES.JEN E C"CUPANCY : R-3 I C':NSTRUCVDN TYPE: V SPP:NKLERED i BUILn!NC AREA CELLAR 672 S.F. FlRST FLOOR 3.550 S.F. SECOND FLOOR 2,200 S.F. SUB TOTAL 6.390 S.F. A DECKS 900 S.F. i _CAR Ct 7 2110 S F. TUTAL: 8.39C S.F. I.CT AREA 16.480 S.F. �^ ^----- ---—c LCtT COV7iRAC= 29 (35%MAX) ' �eelooe y i DacK f � 0 0 _ QATH cLo56r N p1 u GARA GS - FA.P71LY F.00H JAMES CHRISTIANO'S RESIDENCE 18752 JOCKEY CIR. HOUSE TO THE SOUTH EXHIBIT "D" \t 1 3.5 5.7 6.5 6.9 .3 8 9 • va RIM H em $ y . n.0 n..aeim Y U 7ro rx• t. r.ro a.o L J wr ' � aoao a oa a a,rr..wu o 00 o a o0 0 0o a o0 w rs.uaiyy�p • SOUTH ELEVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18752 JOCKEY CIR . J A M E S CH RIST_IANO ' S RESIDENCE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH EXHIBIT "D-1 " i. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LU UN 2000 MAIN ST. g�g,�� saa•en•It V ALL INSPFCTION REniJETI (Y0M Y9ACAES.8t*D BY 3t30 P. Z FOR THE FOLLOWING DAY'S INSPECTION. LU W R U I L D I N G P E R M I T Permit Numbers 19-037312 PC a63 RO 0319 N hBldq. Addro%%t 18732 JOCIk'EY Tracts 13439 Lott 19 Blocks NA LU NEW BUILDING Duildinq Uset SFD - NEW cc Ownort Contractors JAMES CHRISTIAN7 mo CONT ACT PR) K 6362 K IRk LUND C IR saiW N h H.B. CA 92647 Ph. c )842-3619 • 4'.�� �Vi�Do I 1l�N t.tsr rC Ac+CH. L// IY Z 28836 VIA DE LUNA top Q LAGUNA'NIGUEL CA 4636 . V Ph. f7141939-3083 -------------------------------§ts Ng_ 13704------------------------ Remarllss NEW 2 STORY SFD W/ATTACHED GARAGE 6-800 S:F. DECK W TO INCLUDE 4 FIREPLACES Y Sq.Ft. Res/Corns 3730 V = Garage t 1200 No. Storiess 3 Valuations 439300 O U Miss. s 800 No. Familiest 1 Bldg. Codet NEW Desc.t � Dec. Groups R3/M1 Dec. Loads Zones EBWSP N Public Building? NO Constr. Typet VN Census Codes 101 Bldg. Uses S.F.D. park. Spacess N W Enlitleslenllsll-----------------------------------g94*141_PerLD112—N-0------------ U0 Aeelications_lt/12/93_ Planchecks_1t/12/93-GHG 0293723 ----- ----------- --- ------ n Q Authorizeds Buildings 03/29/94 SM Plannin9 s 03/25/94 6K Public_Works------------------- D ts�uedt_04/2�/94 MV__118_037312___ R�L�as�ds_04/c3/94 MV------------------------ r PERMIT FEES DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT ----------- ------ ------- ----------- ------ ------- INSPECTION 1834.30 RAACO23430600 ISSUANCE 20.00 RAACO23430600 PLANCHECK 1687.74 tt PAID ti PENALTY 0.00 RAACO23493000 LIBRARY 1042.50 RAACD2347t100 PARKS k REC. 0.00 RSKCD23435500 CONSERVATION 43.93 GAA 00020116 P/PLANCHECK 130.00 !! PAID SS PC ADJUST 607.20- RAACO23470500 MICRO COPY 28.00 GUU 00022355 TOTAL FEE 2361.73 Issueds 04/25/94 MV 08-037312 Releaseds 04/25/94 MV Ctff"llc Tt OF mull,"m Poor vxw mo•s comptimmoN tNtUIWLc[ ooptoMPiDlo OttAAartlM I ITIIa..res�e.t+.u utra..a r th.a---•b dw nnaae soar.e{toot a.n.l 1 Itp.eY Itw.w•e/t w.w-a Iqw.r taw.eb.Law.lar b M Ibbwb ea.aon low 1 1 t/wY•V 'ti 0-.Y.ttR.O M�.b.11�1. OMM.Y�0 1 rlr.OI!Ob►at7 twl-,e..ry Iwr.ev.en w b tree-b re.et b abe.-.Csp-..uoe lw 7079 so larbb alto/laftnsb Cal M'et"s L'unr.new IS01.w a ar.w b l'wale. t M aaaltw a.rl.-aaaa a-ow. a ar ay 0.m—as b a aarab r wbw tlta 4:111ft v t0•C(10 a-R fjh•. -•- b air a.-b b of a IVw mum-am all to a tlal!Y/Y.a M Nam"a ab a-Oft-%� •'r•a.er C-Mti a[ee ft -,wI ft a.C.a ratret b CY'tA', I Loam U.ICAO. of/ .Iw tealrl MOM a Lwow a a m .osM-�A a•a-l.aV Caw.ed Ap tallbittt tTw.e--K.Oeo.ee a.••l•p1M III, ar am�b cow a ow rm b awls ala~ate/m aw b we d"m a aM .l...eelea A.o.-1 _ _ UCIF"M CONINAC'"M DICLAROIDN a.-ebam N w. m If 11saw 70313 ar ow amrrua bI a pomw scorn ab folltae 0 !V ttt.f♦.pM.-al f"M.Mv� -C N C^.a-9, w ytle•Wwl Cr -a a aw OaMP CM .V ItOa at-1 M q.0a0 bra I11001 t .1 w-..A A.y%; ;z e11t.O r 1 ar e.a.r aI 111.Clem-" d m W. tLMw -a Le Cr 4?0441 M�Ct..a.-~Cl d.G-aM b Y-It" •'U.e&—rw-lib 0 Ce..arev D.p la-dab 11w In*b a-we-dmm." t s0 a.seep-pw1 tut0- l'l-.w a pmr Ir ow olm".a aletwe ew aloe-bbw-aeb❑1Mta..•01.—e.e.e[..Yp••?O.'•l.•e.N 1 M a lteretae arele..fl a a AO.t-aa a1gb.Yw/a~b a� / M.-w M ntr-.- :os1_f>wew arse-}..avr C•sliesa aq aw1O11-e.-Ilw ala OuaCll aI�a-Osaew.ea al!D.b aITm sox Poll agammm MLL9anm OPItr a el. w••tuwwra . l ee slew w 111raattsb caw no CaOml lewd V ww la Clad► - Q s w sere dam".t u.m a weww altos.pw r cows=b net amm eeewv a aaSlOISI.t--O a/a1/11 b ala COa�I.L4 lw ❑ 1 a-ae.I.a Brea-yt !1 rc b ala taww - Dab C�.- COhBT-XTm LEhom AGINCY I h-.atl at *am b•eO...la;letl-ewteq.arlY b.ti o-b-eR-Cl M+aMt b.IR/e Ihr a--M.Ym-a19.e J00:CY CI 1.. '' L .Ad 1 C- 11. 1--0 e-=0G ry pep tM-..a0a..ebe+-oe.eq..er t q..b meepl. aawl w-e Mr l.1. .ptl-a b geaha •�M�e1se...'/����Irp "•'.� tle.l.Y b M.Clow woven-.a mm",b wlpt taapalrl'/CONalbYT10N OlGMa110N d eOw-M to we..fr..v a tJrMifib.V NfMa -.oatJA a Aa. ae.�r..-a tneu-e.a.eeaN.e Cam w~eye 3 l.0 CI � No. 064154 = x le-pey ta.Lf70:ff7l" Dp._ _ a++� [a.a+r•r..M tP0 Afi� oI awewet o.d woe. n ab- b-d kp n tmp 180 Aal'l.Inhall be MA WHITE COPY-INSPECTOR.BLUE COPY-COUNTY.CANARY COPY-OFFICE.GREEN COPY-APPLICANT PINK COPY-TREASURER Uj •'� �` -' INSPECTOR 1 9 DEGK t 0 J in H. 6�p bAT r•F Co a r 4 r F�� 11 leata�i6N 'p1 NING 1p 7 F.F. W1 ACT u„L (67.1 " DAMES CHRISTIANO' S RESIDENCE 18752 JOCKEY CIR. EXHIBIT "D-3" Tor eF FLAT 0—F AWF 68.40 FLAT fl—F ELS. G7.0 P- lie O 4J �1 �is ri�►Te s AY! �i7.4' 32'-a 37•o {Y.TYM I W/►t N G1� I►v4 za.a' EMAD ALI HASSAN RES. 4461 LOS PATOS EXHIBIT 'D-4' ;.-.14UNTINGTON BEACH 3 Stories Is 1 Too Many, Panel Rules the top of hishome. "The appellate court has ruled on this, and either we take that seriously, Scores of neighbors have opposed or we denigrate what we do up here, him. A state appellate court has ruled because it's been tainted and tarnished against him. And now, city planners, by what went on in this process," .too, have weighed in against Emad Ali Planning Commissioner Susan Newman Hassan, who is on the brink of being said. — forced to knock off 9 feet from his Commission Chairman Kirk Kirkland three-story home. was the only member who dissented. The Planning Commission on Tues- "To me, it is particularly abhorrent to day rejected Hassan's request to keep all make a homeowner rip out the top 39 feet of his house overlooking Hun- one-third of his home,"he said. "It was tington Harbour, despite the city's 30- permitted by the city,rightly or wrong foot height limit in the area. ly, but it was permitted. Mr. Hassan That sets the stage for the City followed the rules." Council next month to decide whether Commissioner Ken Bourguignon ab- . Hassan'must dismantle the top of his stained from voting, saying that the multimillion-dollar residence more than panel was asked to apply current codes six years after it was built at 4471 Los to a home.built six years ago. "The Palos Ave. grounds for this vote are totally out of Soon after Hassan built the house— line," he said. "In all the years I've sat with the city's approval—in 1985, his up here,I've never been so frustrated." neighbor,Charles Reince,filed a lawsuit Hassan was similarly frustrated dur- w against the city,charging that the home ing Tuesday's testimony, raising his should not have been allowed because it voice and pounding his fist on the is taller than the zoning code allows. speaker's podium. The city decided the house was legal "All I wanted to do was build a under a more lenient building code, the beautiful house," Hassan said. "I've only time in recent years that the city followed the letter of the law all the has applied that particular code, a city way. I'm just a home investor. I never r official said. Reince challenged that believed the American dream could application of the code and a state become a nightmare." appellate court earlier this year agreed But Reince, who said an appraiser that the city had erred. The state recently determined that his property '.Supreme Court declined to hear the value has dropped $50,000 since Has- . case,upholding the appellate decision. san's home was built,blocking his ocean The court ruling sent the issue back view,contended that the appellate court .*into the city's hands.City staff members ruling supports his position. He argued j ` eommended that a code variance be that the city is now obligated to rectify a granted to allow Hassan to keep his 6-year-old mistake. home as it stands. "The judicial route was the only one I At Tuesday's Planning Commission had available to me, because the city :.=hearing, a host of neighbors joined wouldn't listen," Reince said. "The city Reince in denouncing Hassan's home, had gone blind and deaf." which they described as "a huge edi- Reince's attorney, Jeffrey Richard, fice," "a monstrous hotel" and "the Tai added that he believes Hassan's "only ! ..:Mahal." Reince this.week submitted a proving point is that his house is built, petition to 1he_city opposing the house, and nobody has the gumption to do signed by about 120 area residents. what is right.I hope the city is ready to Five of the seven Planning Commis- have the courage to make up for what si<on members sided with the opponents, was done in 1985." and voted that Hassan should remove —JOHN PENNER Home."s . thipdstopy could h flooped. ,� � Planning commissioner rules man's finished home. doesn't meet code `The city has gone deaf and blind." By Robert.Barker bors and allegations of illegal ac- ing 9 feet' from the top of the Reince said a stop work`oidei stars Writer tion on the art of ci staff mem- building) or to ant a variance to was issued by a city officral�uisl$�S ,; P ty g) when it became clear the bpil, ! '* A three story.,budding that,.crit tiers. allow the height limit to stand. would exceed the ci 's 30 fb. 1 ics likened to an "incredible hulk" Retired Dentist Chuck Reince, Planning Commissioners refused h'' `• . and a "Taj Mahal" has failed to 45, claimed that city officials al- to grant the variance Tuesday.Ile height limit for single.:famtl resi. t 9 f by . pass muster with the. Huntingtonee lowed the house to be built to il- dispute is cFrtain to go to the City dences K ; ; legal heights so that it blocks "100 Council. He said the.former la'iu'iiri Beach'. planning 'commissioner, g g P �Y raising the, threat' that owner percent" of his family's view of the - --I've spent a ton, of money and rector went on vacatio. tnd�tth ;;; Emad Ali.Hassan will.have. to. rip sea from his second-story kitchen. I've lost so much faith in the city's work was allowed to rbar)ttrietice,i The state Court of Appeal ruled y The director. then e f ted.:'tt. tb j off the third floor of:the structure staff, Reince said Wednesday. P , .;.j to Comply with city zoning laws: continue even though ,t�tere�-;W$is p y tY g this year that the city acted im- He was victimized by an end t;y+ x;ti The house, 'overlooking the properly in issuing the building run," and the city broke its word . no revisions, Reince saii1ttii '�titrYt . ocean; and; Catalina .Island: from permit, on guarantees the building would The structures gene ,1:,,d3j a . , R. high' ground on,Los Patos ,Drive, The court told the city to abate be held to a 30-foot limit, Reince tor, Frank Mirjahanger,yys sifting, touched off a fight between neigh- the violation (remove the offend- said. ` See HOUSF_%Badt page '! HOUSE: American dpeam turns nightmare From Al Architect Don Hartfelder said ing, a city report said. on the Planning Commission at the original zoning requirements Donna George, a neighbor on the time the permits were ap- were "really grey" because the lot Courtney Lane, called the Hassan provcd, he said, has a slope. The main question, housc "a brooding presence" and Hassan, the building's owner, it's said, "is where is this basic "an incredible hulk" and said it in- said he did nothing wrong. benchmark (where the height is vades her privacy. "I never knew building a house measured from the ground) going Donna Klein, another neighbor, could become such a nightmare. to start. The building complies who likened the house to the Taj What have I done wrong. I have with the (California) Uniform I ' built a beautiful house. I've done Building Code." Mahal said the house was built something beautiful for the city. The Appeals Court stated the illegally with an illegal permit." t"I never believed an American city acted improperly by applying The city's staff recommended, dream could become such a night- the state building code instead of though, that the permits be grant- ',`; mare:" the city's zoning law to the build- ed for the existing third floor. VV IIIYH J1. `LOAMHUNTINGTONCV BEACIVN .CA 92648 C""1A°" E"FLQPWNT r09''' 190 CALWOI/M 976" BUILDING PLANCHECK FORM Permit Numbers B-040339 13 39 PC t 376 RD N319 Bldg. Address: 6732 DERBY 1C!10,C(n. Tracts ! Lot s 01C. Blocks NA EXIST. BLDG. Building Uses SFD. NEW Owners Contractors M/M MARKS (NO CONTRACTOR) SAME AS ABOVE J Ph. l )846-8488 Designers 7 BRENT1 A SEARS 203 ARGOIINE 210 LONG BEACH CA Ph (310)438-9938 ------------------------------------- --=---------------- Remarks: SO�.Sr NEW 2 TwYMI/ATTACFED 3 CAR GARAGE IG t l Z 5 r L14C{C., a 4 ge> Ft. Res/Coma �• Garage : Stories: 2 Valuationt o 00 Mis s ( Z No. Familiest 3 Bldg. Code P*W' � l Desc.1 Folly 5/�ij�kG - Occ. 8roup: Q9�H/ r_(�c. Loads .. Zones Public Buildin NO i U onstr. Types V9 1 Census Codes 101 Q Bldg. Uses S.F.D. Park. Spacest . Ent itlement i s): 8 �__ _ Coastal Per it?NO A2Rjicstign=_Q6/24/94 Plan ecks 06/24/94 N8_ 0297 Authorizedt Buildings 31 5 - Planning: - r • ------------Fire_N-mi--l __ -��-"" Pudiirc_Works Issuadi--------------------------------_ PERMIT FEES DESCR IPT ION AMOUNT ACCOUNT DESCR IPT ION AM"T ACCOUvIT INSPECTION 1341.00 ISSUANCE 20.00 PLANCHECK IM4.72 !! PAID !! PENALTY 0.00 LIBRARY 791.70 PARKS i REC. 0.00 CONSERVATION e9.87 P/PLANCFECK 130.00 !! PAID !t _ MICRO COPY 10.00 TOTAL FEE 1383.72 .r 1 ' cEffTwx E or ExEmPTm snotl wow--s cowle"sanew WOURAfSCE OWNER-DULooI OECLARWrI w ITN Mcaen n--Il 4t1 D.Carabte 111r pmr"- d a.'mre.r aoet.f tOCI r.mrnel 1 rlw.br aw-stir 1 w amw.ew w.Cobm7 Lrew-Ls or ro%ft" aaaw(oob I a.1wr wf- A amb.ID 5xi m.l..-a.b.wcr.nr am-s.L ia, I frl-f W.-tn fw ?"S 1 eLtsu fe nowt Caw AM m'r Or rem.-09�Ma as a on"O m mown 0•ra+w 0-00 !0 a a.oero.lEfln b wbr.m r Carlonte a Let pt. A00fewq rW wet ulmeta m I.bwr A eb.t't m0 b a rR ae Sews-nr amtfr tQTCE R't f•rti1CA-IT r tr nr.-q r,COW or Ee.ca- Mad r..'b a��ftef b Is AWN OMM b 7 e qas rrllerel rmr 7■fof-s War✓t s•Ysbra 4 We w.nb�m-Cabrur Oro.lwma m w tabor Cast.I'm'-ma Iarrimh aG Vet.er I—na.acw Llwtovr Lr1lfr V rpmew OF low'wsq -10 goo" roan 1 o1 Claus s ar ro m rr awr"e wrrf e.e.teo-l.a..e flee WW Rat Coos or for ti b aQ ewep, ear r•bra b ti agprr UC N"M CEM11rfC10fM OECLANUffCOt 40WOMM A W.stew.ar Senap rOST.S sl w fOls. b e W.W r1�s So 1♦4er 1 trrr-bp em'.rrrr 1 w Rr.btl,.Iet rr t W m CrOr r I-!•'we0f a..fbcfb.room of e a ow own"m.rr-s ow fe Famous mum/sso0lt or-.e- a w 4rw r/re-tnm'wot Coca rro-„nw f w u mte.w eIm-m ❑ t e aort.m tti mbr..Iv m 1-Il r.eb.am..e..4e=ww s ae-bttmbn a/e>.w Lammas yfra'e ct cum .m.&we no row b tir mere Or awns as am isms ro",flares w genam OEM Os+.era pa We Cmeesre ls+fml 6fr aar W SIM Is SO mnW a/AWWWWI►."Aft ar f4 aaraw rttmm =aift eweMaass Mae*%no hms e mt e•. war'.ar Outs gas wm wows ❑t w-naw Was,we fewt-0 maksia naft anI fw.here f0'arm m-•aa.t'-e mr.%.Nmw 1 u.arOr m CV,~b et It 111♦rr so s wpplar f wvV -c"^0 w+w Ort''w1olw c C.S . �� tl.Deer e'o ism PI ECfC 1 t ter m aletrwm w.aeuesr Ir se we Softo OF tmr7 OW as w w Sole m wmM. b Soo abbe-a/we ! ❑ l e a.rer 9/Sot NINON w a-denSq asfbawr Sow rmoue m.faraw b i~wr is a PLANCHECK t PLANCHECK t PLANClEOC ! o '" .: Dan 4t us fm nrarartf Cat rbe caraefr.Lbws um arar w st b ar waa of tars-►woo&M Or fee.ar swum few awls b em►elf ap t PLANCHECK t PLANDECK t PLAN0 ECK wfsrrl emsr I narrtr vw Sat e w Cosatasa LAW! PLANOaM ! PLAICfEOC t PLANCHECK !f eK b N maws t ! PLAN0 EDC t PLANCFECK t PLANCHECK t COr'QtvUC'O"'cE•d0 K�1cti ! PLANC?EOC t PLANCHECK t PLANQECK t 'tire w.-•It _ap sett„mw.e�.wnq s so ara OF am assr r-er t PLANt:TECK t PLANCHECK t PLANCHECK t -.-�.y•..'.�w.e.rsn••.r err..•.w s...w-.•lam..-mom,+.ems>c�sw pl.nNw.y.•-r1 w--attn ti.p...•�...n.-!�!�'•�+r�A.•'91'IrAr\ Ye".r[\��Cer.4mtATtf.".O[RA�1A EXHIBIT ~"E-1 GRADM SPECIFCATION • I. N[CRA&m 1RA(8l ww M aQGMDIAT!wImpe C/rr arms lR67A/BEAfN aAOAVC frAVA4W,MD ffrrO'rArXW MO rAf R7f O B C CMPRW M Af ([ CYTFRfwrrlD or 771 arY tlAENlYER'B1A'LAwC LYFK/A['I f efFD.Im,Rr"#f r0 rATCVY('wwr,'a.,W/AVR,1CD REREJrW RrOT(rNCSC f7MVLMA05 Of ; AYMAtm E Ar AC lABAITFAYAG Q4A.'C ! 1. RCJNN/K NMI WYl B(RlBtlRlD IASIFAf FACIACWfVI/ArC A1WC PAWYR/Y ( IWff AAYCwfl WA[!C!•BVrAR7rf w fw/WraroRFRt!YC!!Of weal ATMNN RDl A Ap7YY(rrY fTR!lrofAwrwmr z4waRf Bfraw5tAtr/ACANYC(AS'frAwr/LAY AfYRMIrAwSrWlwrwATo FAOM iAFCIIr BaRO/NL'OCPAR7IEWl BEFORE 41 /, fONf rRVf7tlN OF AYrNN/Mf WADJ A ��-"Z'"'�� 5. NtWAf/(./MfIRANB(lRIf7l,YTGf rW/AW AND A•lFVSC fNN(B(RfBpTO MIOR ,� I '�• ncan/Ar �` ACRAOWC f[Awrr mrsr of Afump rAOM mrarr PVBUf wLMNr or~rAwAY or �^•� 4 SHIRE CIRCLE 74'6RADr M#TRrrZW M/AR T06R•I&W W� . (PRIVATE DRIVE) I 7. N104POREAWTAU O(IfTFR&Wf WCE7ArtlA'AP/OR rO COA(MEACI"CRM/NG -- - • 8 tl/f VNrf VWIBCA'05rfEPFR/NAN 1F(ZTKRIl0Vr4'TO/FAO/YER/KfL. �% S T/ll maw smw BCNOSlrrPER rN 2FFFr NOR/rawOC/O,FLAYr ATRrlrw `^p ANO SNNII MIT N01"Ll-SS W"90Y^COMNrr/ON r0 FNF w rd"i- 'I!�Iji 10 F/!l SW1 BFCOMPA'rEO TWACVCQVT PFR WNWWrl YAfrN O/SS IORPIR ••.L +�,j} RFCJWAIf"rr,Nf AIR fA'l f ewarFR It &Ifr fAW1,W fCAYrMNLfO BY Wi RIA 12 SARI/MIFA'B//IFY CNN!Bf AWWrA'WV ON/,SSrf/rF /I fOr/rYC/71 CRAXW1A4NI/At1dAOI/Rf MAIR T09,fg;/NN/AG6RA0/NC LV A• 4 �7 4 1/ AVNA°'NCAIDF frAKICS MY/DBf WgrVV BYLYf/GY FAL'/NFe-•9 OM[Y O \ /,��, ,t A•vl l5 IrN/llo(rArRrvmf/B/L/rYOFINFCwm&-7OR m#rRNY TNFFS/MArEOr y, D/FbY//!/fT fNONN•wNFW f1RVR 7DCOA1NfAYMC(Y MY WYMNW rNFAWJrrr V W a O _ •fit •y '1 I7 awTArr PV$'K wmKf OlPA9BNt'Nr Fll7lf1534-S411 fDR WJfCf!/ON zN `` 1 rs wo(,tAr�'+'r+•N rwr[5 �^ V /A RFAWW VF6F/ArATN MO OFRRIS Z 'yrF. IvwrRt.vr.rn oi.w° ' iAlnr�� N /Da rM�n•^,.AYnSI Bur D•Ni Jfr OW(K d' /S P/o" f[/JnG',,r/[SAA!(oE fYAE/FIFOARICFN/RIO^J#VM AYNS b Pr.! (AT rfffAAO(DA'M/FO/0M lfAJ r wY.OF/.YL'w4slAAf OFNflrY �� , 'I l�Sr12 _f Y IAL J^ 21 4SWr f0E WNC BF4[MO(M WrIAL4 WIrN COW Ff~SAlW Hrrl-WIN 4WD fAN11 7 ill` 21 7/S SWCR1000r r#fmir ANO AIRYIAC Mnf iv!(BF YM/F/rO B•w wr m W Z N h �/ NO•I!'li'N /900' ��,/ I' I t.r..rr. rlr.+A A'7rtlOM MOR7WCCDgTFNr AND COMPR(7FDMlEASr Mri.CAu fMC/r-Y �Clp,b + _II INfPFr'r/p'/XNR l0 lYL r[fnNC OIIDAEIPrIF CVrRRS ANO PR/OR/D INC' <Qa �`- 1 r.nr�-. .• % •�-�--._..-1` Af O aw C(MS D WCCRFCA/!RISE. Z I V / r •.f7 71 AfIYz(L8^N")DY.ffMRl flan rlRIS�Y TNF(OAY'f!'lKW/NBIAIALSK f MFA N V AV07NCMIID AW4 W •aI 1 1�' a Ia� / _,],/ I A �• +4 AM. °A1, 21 PRATfrGRL•R4WeZ7ArFfE.AC/lfNSFVfVRW&WOIEVCNFFRSNAOCFRnFY �3a,W 1 -.- „ ° 4A l/RFAvO CRq OF'N/fNfD f[[qf FORMf O= 8 ref 'I' Yjr I I 1 i� k c ,.,. •rs 5°' °/1Y4 ,o' vl CY/]/6NOVND 24 ASOR ff'rC✓NFfR JWL C(ROFY 6"12W'CANfrr CfW WW1FO flrR StAYRFPoRr. W QO Q a 25 7MMC(21111FEROP,IIR I A-"Wo 6 IAW Cf'Nnf'Y TNA/NL 6RAA'S N O a G (xwl/ROC/fn fYR!,w'M'R0rF0 CRIO/NC RAM If. FAI CRMXY6'/NJNY/WN.ftAYTRCI rNF OfMR/AlfMrd'RZWAr WORA'5 rMOPWCD PINISn CNC NL'fR/ML•lW':f/GN.471J1,516,5.11 .15a1a C+rflaurOt r+:luvfa"'ua/6,11{4 .•�.4r'� 21 Mf(RY2L,Af 7wrW/L'0 aC/ABFRIS ma AAO MFAIRCO BY: J M1' �` Y %r I•I�,'`'' Y SECT/ON AA 9712NCA61NffR1NC 4 �S+t r o W r •�,.)�A'� 1 r.. Ifil R Ar"FY fr •11 41 { , AWPA.CR 12806 PMONf: (800)i3O-f331... PRIVATE EAGP EER5 NOT)CES TO CONTRACTOR 5'0 2 N1� OI1'� iDNI F#fFf/f71WAF0(OCAftBYArMrYVLYRCRNNO PNCf M frWIC/YRFf AvWff ON q f 1 r S' Ir r /J. ( f j TArw1YgVfMFOBLA/NFO BYA crARCVW RMILAB[F Armor to Ty BFfr OF WR xwwr CL 7Rf ME AD FY/f/YNC!?H/7/Ff f1fFP/Rf fN01YN ON fNf7F RANT V ' nO Aamr A ! C M ,'fr'1 s'. wA I'MaWrRACfxR/SRF01WED W WE OVf PRFOCYAAW, MtdMRF5 M AmTFC v LOT 3 ... al 7MC Yf/L/T/f75NOWgAYO M'VOINFR UNFS ORTFRYfTORFfA10r 1wM'N[W V!. 'e x.,,ratAr[r NIWumn F'- . +�• P.YOPOJCO R'D/OCNCf r2fy _ r Nf UV^u `.� AV TO CONTRACTORS jo v nr nnA Aac Wni. ArvJ It Fr•9110 _ 51OF-tOv N I PAD A9 r0 •, AISAt t/ r &WjrSW4&Ar1Offf1Wa1RfwffAYZW RR/(RfON 1RArf1Y/WIOVWRftA/FOrO n[S JJFI. v. t ( 'i { L�a•.. •- k. RMf f,KY(!W PII IC Lf PW?FC7,,7.N AL fMA rZWS MF jg9fWfX4CV RM! Q OO, Ili p i i nWOAR NO IAT R/B!/CV PAS77EC/FO.AlL Lan IRK rAPf AV wBCONnfWCIDRf -](k b24 A l A V y N 15t 5 ` y°I f+' WAI COARY R/rN IME^OfA/MftlNN MD NER(M RlCM fr10Nf'OF fRE V f W -1-- F I ,ns r j .rmta f.0ast� '�t OfiRRYREMTOfIRBOR,ANO WIN rNC3rME Ar,'•L'%ORN/I DEAK/tlFnr OF m2(1 / _ �T PRO.WSLO %INSn GR.rNY'.� fy 1#,wvRA*RHArIO*mwrmerwN werramm.. LOY QAJ,{ /r an fNG/AffR YA*I Wr Bf RISPoNf/DIE WAVY WWI 1W AW 1wr1 K/ORS 1 r A� I/ -i 1 A •'.\ I O bl % s R�. �\ OOYt A[fri[N Lp•''- me Am2r Rrrafsawm Anrr wrrN rNf^;Yr fAnMN fnrt'rr WNo hlWlrN �y' M - 4►1.p y� R-.�,'� / �.� \\ wilt ISb J5'fi •QCOIW!/OMf'Ar MTO SOrHRrMfM/(V LgBOR,W A>Y THE f/R/l'OrCTVDAN/R \ 1-�'•: _ 5-'T / A 1__ �O• �� amwrArrrra'/AnOf/%rtArrgrro[r•I[wf,aunrorfw,amo, - -l1-Y4 i (0#TRWTAf FOR(NCR fluff rNArffF WAII A55-1%WEAI0IDRA'EYFRlSAWFo/t1 Sn>o r4/ Mrn. . N 0^aL'li- N /80 A0' rrI r.+ <... �..L__ __ M1 .. IOR DB VIC 1r*&1lpYf 0/Mar rAE awwrEOI"("Wf/RLCT/OA a,AY.f/rwifer. •gar ., n fA/S/.CIfCYA4D T:',-:'' wC(VO/RCLIRrY rWf&RAOIf AIOALWR/V./NRl rMif AYVD/AI ANNl JNA![MHY COYRN&viIY MO ROT Bf!/M//r0,'O NORM¢wORNIRC/[Y/AY•qN0 rMf/r (0/V/RAC1OR SN.911 OFff"NO./N12FMMfYAm AW rn twwff MO FA'C/NfFR 7ECTLON_A_B_ NRRStlff f fROM RNI(RD 114"Ir n AYAI OR NLf6f0.IN(YwA'ECf v#W//N rle racy RRrD9A(W[lr aF NORR Lw rN,I fKOSFrr.creep T a/r,r f/A%v rr A%f/NC Q fO.E NFC!/6'FN(`E CF/Nf Or`rrfw OR rNE FA6/NEFr O GERALD CHAPMAN RESIDENCE /�W V I �1= • 6742 SHIRE CIRC Q O 4 a EXHIBIT 'F^ a2: a) LEGEND EARTH WORK Aml�y.. (D 00 •• ll._l r0UI Crl�/'[I.L'lAIION r'lll I vOl1IM(fRlil .r , ��• ...4\\ 0 W 2 •� •� Tr M1L LI fLLYA r10N Clli IYP'UNCiRILY AJ.', • ' BENCH MARK HB 156-69 EL.-69.221 SOIL REPORT BY •� rc 10r Or CORD ,•\II1�/�55a .. 0"N 2 4OMI0, CAP A ff M!'.1'Ol C1115 AYES I R 'e" uNC FILE NO 87-141 ra"e r A00rr'NO'N W{fLLIS AR,AlS!!/! ACrIDN ENGINEER/sG -- ! CCNICR 11Nr _ I31'E Ore(u•1515D9 v,Ae•N ar MI w[R!N Rao y n r n¢n rorNr Hz1 N.MRDLEr 5[ PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISIpV OF: Or•a[I11 1 Affl NDwWL�• rs'A/7f•N AA• u45 iurxR nr,xR APPROVED �79EET�1'ANAIEM,CA.9rB08 If u/µ�09'1CL/t1 f rmr ARL( ell /N ATDP 5 u JI['.M N4l09'0EA/mr CM/N'rF!ACSI(lY.0 OrAC!M: PSpNE:(800)8]O-9]]I r1 r-sue At5[ur LeV11 u1M AIEAAR VICIYMAP lascar ; • ___ '' L `'I1.,.L. A/I•/;/ Mf DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS `DATE INDER JIT CHAUHAN RGE 28466 DATE 8612BB m X 95=o vv - .v o•!/ /i�I✓ /e0.10 /�aE7.I-,�J. /1�R►: w' '7 • l� _ ..� ,�y'�1� .� �. ����a `--. �� '�,.•' I i/yJ ,YJ � •� ,�.,i' ��� a rtr�rn AW }.11� � ` ! ( � l� �W'►Ya Roo►"( rt � / • � �Aif l 2 ��J 'till rfif- 00 � Ed uEs�R/�N a r Q/fT.3•t t'I � � � �,ri►jt EsMT. �1j �e L�. wc. ,v O,.f!'/c-w 7R0e' / ?e'wioE ,v e "AII- ll'E, ll e/ Any '►� Mwt rAs.57 - S d .+y GERALD CHAPMAN RESIDENCE 6742 SHIRE CIRC EXHIBIT "F-1" y .l ti -�w .n ^^- NEW HGLSE l; � � 4 •a 0 N 0 H O GERALD CHAPMAN RESIDENCE — 6742 SHIRE CIRC EXHIBIT '•F-3'• i. ieT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2004)MAIN ST. DCVrctor-ecnr S[OOT AV C•F• HUNTINGTON FE ACN.1;A 92648 wo 6ON r•o Cstwow,LA 426" 471.1 S36 5241 @UILDING PERMIT Permit nuDoer: B0021?-7 PC Rt- '3 i' Bldg Address: 6702 SHIRE Tract 11473 Lo'- 3 Block NA Ct NEW BUILDING Euilding Use r"• Owner CAr t rac'.:.r GERALD 1 . CHAPNAN '�'_'1-_F7 i EXGU"aN c;O 17u91 BOLTON ;:43i0 14)ULTC"4 FK;dY H6 t• LAGUNA HILLS CA 32653 PH. (714)z46-u2a1 PH. ( )."51)-8390 City 1.1c. A108414 Architect or Engineer HA -----»-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ccmments: SFD-GARAGE-BALCOiIES CL1787-16 - CE86-92 Public Building ? NO Sq.Ft: Living 632F ':u.St " !s Valuation ;10945 Garage 917 ar:i11- Suild.Code NEW Descr_pt: SFD,GAR„F;LCC4..: Occ Grp: Con su.Type Oc^_.Load :. . R127U Census Code 101 Bidg.Usage RFD Parking Sps. Planning Action: CE t':.ast31 Permit? NO Appl.Date-06/24/37—Landuse -Sy---') i1/37 Auth.---.---1'/1-.3'----------- ------ PC — ECD 08/2u/$7 ---PC --eipt-t-------224517------------------------------- Rei Issued — y 12/15/87----Issue Receipt-I 22^1631---------- -_ _ - - ------ + ----------------------------------------------------------------- INSPECTION FEES Description Amount ^2scrlptio-1 Amount ------ ------ ---------- ------ Inspe^_tion Fee 1332.6(1 Prxes.•ing 10.00 Plancnezk dtio.19 Library 7P4.50 Conservation 25.97 SCHL FEE 3207 9492.00 MICROFILM U223 23.00 penalty 0.00 'Total Fee 12474.26 ow04-K&DE a Dect+n+nM 1r0m,rwsc,7wrr6•rnnnuuu,.r. 1•«.*..wr rir,1 w•+o re.,,,.Caa•r0.lOml W b w,m•.r rrww Ira •o71S1 r«.�. wa n••....•. w •+r a.rr a mr+. weer ..-.w • 1 row I.n„N•w•totl.:•ti I• u r.rw .trtlr�r 7twrwa pw•„ r cwu••• •,w. .r.r.• mm•alr �•a•r w •n •rw wrr b n Crrwrmv..rawr• 7M0 uE G . • IM• +a/w M•b/,[wr b www M,ti m Im I •Vr. .1•Yw.F+ w1 i,• . •.•a.•WrY/•bra.•rOM.m,..•ml C•rnc•w.t•rr.•V IC-~rl w.+,•le _(io... ,ca-..m.•.q•••,6•r,a♦000,w aft—]a rr r,mb.•..•a•r..s•Cam '' b.+•s om,•+rtl•b.we �. •..np rr•tl,a• •nr rr sar .r wr •,.Atrr •.w•.w•r••b•NI w S•r,.s• ]If q w •Imew v • ram••. .,w.ee. w P•eur fi•rn •w wrrr waawa am.w••, r w•�-.wn�r�•..v.r w.wow s+w IYoe- Cab. •-6m .a../i T ✓7 •wra.e.��j+�.I _ ..s•..ra..e•.w w•or.m..w.w m wr s.a•,.m•+an.w m '�T-7 w .a .• en++�m w,w.,s cw..a b.w es •e..,ati..w...�s LY w,rfJTr 0r Fa[ri•IV'.wCII r0Rrw1 AM•...m ,ti Ca•r.r,n. la.«.• lr Y. atl aar. b M ,.• aI f,�7ew•yylr}1 M.1r••wc1 prow,. w•0.•.rr u •v,+-•,•war, wtl••rr a... row rr. r-.wr er wn,.tl, I r,r rv,,...b w w„r..••w owl•b or wwwm s'r•1{1001 a wl • , ••e'Y'w•+ a•ssw Mw •ur• wpm�r. A .+ .wosr o _.`.w,w'w .+.+, r.•.w ww•w.a w w. .. wn.ti ow+w•••.a 1 w,nr, w w n••wr. 1„•rrr•r.r a p-.•gwr •artl ww.w .orrwrr..a•. a•r•w w wam w w�ww m m r r.mm.w•.r mw•a Calww.w t•.r w+wwwr ••a•r•,ti tr wn s o+..9 tr•r b M wr hr,i/ ,vw r rw owrob r w Hm. •e1wtA____.^._... . -------_. awmwrr M*Wr oar•ew r aw,mwr IOrI1 •, •/.r r:a..• . -w -,rr ti Cw,wr.b tl[aw,••b• a Om eras w or.c1 'y 'na•,rr.w..• ar, rw.b•«a C..a rr Cebrral•La•rm lr Yba• r w IrM. C,w,w-n,n wrw•w • w taw Cam w M wow, I••. a mow. Ir r+.w ..r Oaw•'•. ww r.a w .•maw• rrrww IN A .wrq�.YO,wmy.w•A Yr m M m mw•.r al.rp ••/• ••• yr Pr•r•. ww•ear.mrwl•I r•r.•rear,•M Gwrr♦.r tLSMPD fArr4C�W 1w.]♦Yr41 w.�,•r,ws rs_._..�.�-_._.__.___. -__.■&PC.W M i•mtl� r•rw-•.1 w d:.r•wmr w.rrw tl Corm.••w•mmr,wl,em.•• Tm .. +v,�1 tl n.,mr a tl r.row•r 1w,raww•c•m w w rw•..u ro« L vV .•v, cvw*ru�rd LEMMAaprr.Ca 1 1 ft-,/bn PM rw••rlr.cm•.,r,rY�&M-b w PPt— •tl w•� ;•7r M•�,�/ ,s Crr �-� b•btl,r,.rwm•Yr11lr.tor,C+f L�wr•ni•f ._D.r �� Lam_ .r,sr.wm.____._�.__._. ____-___-__�_...___-__ . 1«ww•e rww•awmo�•aw.e...mrw•• a..e..,.....n.••vr.r t.ea r.wr..._.___...... ._ _.___. .___.______._.._-_.._ 1 Va•1 om 1 r�rrr",r•aw•r,../,•wrr•,w m.••+row.•eo,Rl 1 p...w.r r.q,.w. .',.O w ♦ .aw•.w, carww• •:Sws )M, 6mar ti wT r ewwr.w.,e,t .•1.,wer•.wb Nw,rw•.••.1 N rM,r wr,ar,ra, r•r •ww,.-•a... .wwwrw•a a...• wr sw•w�..r..rr.w wal,ww b ler.w A Mwrs•r•a a••. WMTE COr INN PFCTOR.BLUE COPY-COUNTY.GOLD CONY -OMCE.GRFFN COPY -APPLICANT EXHIBIT "F_4" I '%'I.• nmCuomen� lA ,ry Cun'litional Pace LinnCr Conditional Use Permit CUP Resign Review Doird DRS - General Plan Amendment GPA Precise Plan :;r'-1:pAL APCLICATION: Street Ali nnenL PPSA Fianning CommiRsion Site Plan Amendment SPA a N Board of toning Adjustments .,, Site Plan Review SPR Special Si n Permit SSP Use Permit UP Anp if-ant or Authorized Agent /7 Q� 6• ; Zone Change ZC �_ y FAA Zone MRi ) inq Address 4FR iron,rental Flood Zone 61m� D� � Exempt ND Oil District s+ Redevelopment Are city tare p I Al uist Priolo Area - Date�T�—y�4f Coastal Date Accepted Telephone Number exempt cDP HUNTINGTON BEACH Property Owner Categorical Cxclusion DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Mailing�dres -(1Gnership Verification ' �'��� : :`� • 0 c1te �2L 2 �C*tter of Authociaation zip P.O. so 190 Tans, P dust i f iest ioH UntingtOn BOXII. CA 92P r Telephone Number lPraiect Planner Concurre t Cases: LUPn9 '2- fi' 114-1-1 ~'3 _ P ev ous Cases: PURPOSE: _X-t-) O&. rtcw�� sM,#rhid/ %&Mae- n�.o�eeere Pursuant to: In. Lieo of: Ll� LOCATION OF PROPERTY: ?.- • Street' aedteRs:_ 7�� �/✓//«r [._�. • Name and diztance to ne"test intersecting street: '. LEGAL DESCRIPT'ON: • Assessor's Parcel Number �•+ a'�1•��e Acreage • Tract //y—_73 Block Lot e section, Township Range have read and urderetood Please Print Your Name . all Rtatempnt , including the filing requirements on the reverse .ride of this application. I am the property owner or authorized agent of the subject property. I hereby afLirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statem•ntR, facts, and attar ments are true and correct. -%igwAture mt- Prorarty owner or fithorT20d Whent Date r- v u 1 0 1 T huntington beach development services departmont STA f f - -REPORIE - I TO: Planning Commission j FROM: De•ielopment Services DATE: April 21, 1987 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-16/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION r NO. 87-25 8PPLICANT: Gerald Chapman DATE ACCEPTED: 17891 Bolton Circle April 8, 1987 Hunt . Beach, CA 92649 �NDATORY PROCESSING DATE: . REQUEST: To permit a building June Sp 1987-. height of 28 feet to the midpoint of the roofline ZONE: Q-R1-(2.7)-0-8,000 :.. and to allow encroachment into the 100 foot wide GENERAL PLAN: Estate ~ ` open space corridor. Residential LOCATION: 6742 Shire Circle EXISTING USE: Vacant, ,. (Country View Estates) Subdivided Land ACREAGE: 30,389 square feet �s ( . 69 acres) 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Conditional Use permit No. 87-16 for: .increased building '._ height based on the findings . and conditions of .approvel. outlined ;ia, ('y this report. Y, Deny Conditional Exception No. 87-25 for encroachment into the ' 00:- foot wide open space corridor based on findings outlined ,in.-this � ., report. - Z,0 GENERAL INFORMATION: ,. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-16 is a request to permit a buildinq-:=': height of 28 feet to the midpoint of the roof in= lieu of the ma=ilam.- `:_ a allowable height of 25 feet. .. Conditional Exception No 17-25 as;:a: F: request to allow a fireplace .to encroach 1- foot and. a- pati6'4lab: to td'f'-�__ encroach 4 . 5 feet into the 100 foot wide open space ."corridor:Aocatet�; " _ in front of the proposed single family- home located in .Count 17.-VIGIrg 3 Estates. AIMK EXHIBIT F-6.1 -----� ':r,,_ re were no other persons to speak for or against the project and t-he public hearing wo.; closed. The Commission felt that because of the size, . shape, and the 100 . , toot open space corridor and 25 fcot equestrian and drainage easement present on this property that the applicant would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity if not allowed the reduction in rear yard setback. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE BOTH REQUESTS OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-92 BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher , porter, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES : Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None MOTION PASSSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - THE PLACEMENT OF FOUR FEET OF FILL WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR: 1 . The placement- of 4 feet of fill within the 100 foot open space, corridor will not be detrimental to the property and improvements in the vicinity of the open space corridor. ' ' .. '.'. 2. The placement of 4 feet of fill within the 100 foot open space`.`..:`` . corridor is in keeping with the visual character desired for the estate residential area. The newly created slope will. be much gentler and the form will appear to be natural... 3. The granting of Conditional Exception .No.' e6-92 wili ' not adversely affect the General Plan of .the City,�.V ;. Huntington Beach. I►C FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN' RLAR YARD SETBACK: - AC - l. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, and the presence .of the 100 foot open space corridor and 25 .foot equestrian and drainage '' easement, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is. ` : found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed: b other properties_ in: the vicinity_. and .under Identical:- sons classifications. - 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. 86-92 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same none classifications. The portion of the EXHIBIT "F-6.10" R - --fir--- -- -- -- ----------�'r— -- -- -- �— mw.a r..•+..�...r. L r:t Noe F'd .lrr�; S.!'. se P _ ._ aYr .4`t.9 — — rjr 4w 1' ® ©, • � I I Ill HIM nmi'l 1 I ew s.ar., w ® I1 I .. ...... . .... I I 1 I ! I I I121 1 i 0664 frrF FF ooa LI �----� �----� 0 ls.. la.w7..e+.l �, (� � rarwraawl i Ir I,Le. awr ` O — asnv ra.we rr , $s!s a J-60 arr *-how lny Crp. of • I { I - a �a I f �rG �II.�T /Lwar►rL.►.•/ 1 .•. I.. Is.�r — Isar t IaN♦. ,u.,. . - -- -- - - as :1 r rr d, ''•,• ®rnvn 10 'o I tlF 7 splD a+oM tail's Oa.wm M/. , 1 1 TT LLJJ •.roos»rc m"'reI "DoMM 1 YI ti 1 _ _ N�Ia11116► t - - sompoff-...»Ir It, Islas Ah"Cbw . / Y IMmom G..q cw. , mill man mil o.low. '•.1 `� • .�a71 M �ea1R�.11a. o .A/N, T..Lu• TT► awif" ....�. - cn.c•.t{ .wt aw Tr{.�Tar� iV'tr uL V<{•. 1 j� \ I t•�tra•O.t.��af^1 ,....... ...ti.....r.... f ♦� t.� Yr•{VMaMf� fit' � .\.� I 1�)./ L.•..firr N.aNp..V�C•{I. a.=mIL IF 0~4 ILOO• rl/L.J orarnn•L {uu:vw.fe AF . I Ifror� 01r� •N�O�tYK ,..........rw....... Q IL.LT 14� - — man vr" _ - . O fR MI RM I ❑ ■..or ■�a.r�Tl.r �.Irfn n.r� rota �:IV` A7 [�.111.AI/�• n nn a o a IGOG 11 �- R. c±tis••��m�.—. AS 6V 1•I�owf. iy YIIYM .` ■O�.L "1rff4�P1 4Mllil.a3� 1 \ _ Na Wad .Yao f rya ; o i FIll LJ lJ 1 a I +orw.r Iatl .w.aw�.lwa x - I a a P9 - 1 - :PtiiL -. DOD 1 00❑ 1 • Ly/Yc� aYlrr fl�r f..l M•.If.■ .WOII�TY IIC ' 1 I TLZn 1 - ❑ Fill El a 1 PLIll El west TL/►a 1 ❑ . !i EMLTITiLN A ATi7 — Ell4.9 WME lc.*.e i A10 - - 24�, C ' It - as a w �� w.�^ U •aaaxa �aasTt i ._ ._ aaa1MV/111YIfa U...�6.6.can. MMK aaAf •Nr.la _ II II /���� •{aaya - N{,II�t. Ij tj IJ� 1. StLT,o.r A.^ .. 1 MCOIA ^00" All .. .. .. ._ Sy""'+.-.!Yo."M. �,�,•-.,�,e..�.,.�.,.•:.�q.,.�._.:..r-y..,.�.sa..!n.p�.-+-?w..tr....-.*��'wr ":..r.y..�..•..s7".-...g_.•mx:...�-.-7as?.�.«..,...�.-;p.•.,-t•[:r..�,r^�;�a�,...-..-.vn:�..P,,,•^,�t..^�; - _ _ OIM6a' i G.I'STIMO NOOOCC 6TL •CMCC ' Q Li C T 2 I ,• AI`t -- I 'C AD G�I"I PI T 7 ZARIN&ASSOCIATES ...........1..... _.,...................... hD Li//PTO.. -+ 1 II KESNAVAALANS _ _ 1 a 7 4 r .iocw cne. A. Kr' 6+ roi1,T �I' TO O�of itATl AG ^`^Sn!J ii.GL .L. M.y.IT GLnLnT . n.ic. v m ce—a,.Gr : o.n +/1L/q(, s s. b'bi .cu:w++u ar.Drt c.nr costuazD rLr.�n'G FROM FHorIE rao. Pos �res� Sept. 2 , 1997 '-1 Ei,iis Central Park 09 n Vi l lageway Management, Inc. 2 a-cc., Homeowners Association In M P.O. Box 4708 tsa r,or<' Irvine, CA 92616 n GO r RE: 18743 Jockey Circle CUP 96-M 6 VAR. 96-27 . Pear Mr. Phil Young, It has been over one month and nine days since the date of the Jlily 25, 1997 City council letter in regard* to our project . X have had -two meetings with the President of the AnFinciation and the Architootural board and Ms Laura Robinson oLtoman the Association Ardhitect. Please provide as a copy of the minutes of both meetings dated 8/14/9? and 8/21/97 and fax the copies to 1-562-411-1257 . And inform us of the decision of the board and the progroan of our. project. Needleac to mention that the next hearing is Saptember is 1997 before the city Council . Thank you Vary Much. Schram K aravi CC: Honorable Mayor Bauer City counoil City Clerk Michael T. Uberuaga Melanie S. pal.lon City Attorney Howard Zelfsky Scott Hesr Susan Pierce Zarin-Afsar & Assoc. Inc. Laura Robinson Ottoman Joe Young _9iron Konsta►ntindis Tom Watkinson Jerry Pabbruwee TO PHONE NO. : 3741557 AUG. 26. 1997 1:21PM P .1 PROt:1 Fi55Ul:. lriu. RRYAJE' PHONE HO. 714 261 6988 City of Huntington Beach 4 2000 MAIN CTnECT CALIFORNIA 92W DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building . 536-5241 Planning 5WS271 August 12, 1997 Oilda Keshavarzian Mahavesh Keyranazar 9544 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Subjech C:ondithmal 1lrr. P ei-pnit No. 96-79 tiro! Z�urhiavee No. 96-27 15ear ivis, xesnavarzlan and Mr. &cyranaaar: 'I'lie City Council ofthe City of IIundngton Bench at its regular meeting held Monday, July 7.1, Idg7 cloned the public henrinp and oontinuod the deeiaion rrggrdil]g CoWiti(nual Um: I'vtmil N,1 96-79, Variance No. O6-17, two story split level house at 18741 Jockey Circle, to the August 19. 1997 City Council meeting, •l he. C'ctiuncil's L0111.nuaticc Was intended for you to meet with. the Homeowner's Association] to rL'ltCl7 A�.�.i,li(, Lr additiuu, 1.11e Cuunuil 1Cuommunded that the Homeowner's Assorlctatton or tile til l lomvownur'a Atmooiution rovie"ving bady� 1S2414 a pubh%. Lan tAirat; pliUl its Wkillg Plital t(l:ll(3!I MI your plans. Notification of the meeting should include all the homeowners within your %U�dl�llFlt)1], at: lvAll n. the propmy-wvaxn :""' .^ 'y?nt}'���• f,,;rtillit � i f:tC'�9�3.�tir{"yl/ai'If((5"t1i.l cs itf .' an adioining Iloineowner's Association. 1'hi5 wnnld a111iw those property oumere the all ihjy tti) exprem th6i kwuuuulus wid L01111nct1ts relative to the proposed residence. S Should you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 536-5554. Sinc erely, Scott Hess, A1t:11 R Senior Planner V Z A R I N ASS0(___LATES LE70M 11 Co F 1TLEzra� R2 K0TTQL 21 82 DUPONT DRIVE SUITE 224 I R V I N E CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 1 2 i DATE / .� I JOB YO- - Phone (714) 2 6 1 6 9 8 8 Fax 1714) 2 6 1 - 6 9 0 1 ATTENTION RE: TO REF O zCilts,n-4 1�5 a2 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE -- COUNCIL MEETING OF- D-3 i OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ---- -- - CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK WE ARE SENDING YOU = Attached C- Under separate cover via�Ar-►(� the following items: Shop drawings Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples D Specifications _l Copy of letter = Change order COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION i I f THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval E. Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval r-ror your use Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution As requested Returned for corrections [I Return corrected prints For review and comment FOR SIDS DUE 19 _ O PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS_ _ NJ r COPY TO SIGNED if -nc!cscres are not as noted, k;ndfy notif at once. FAX FROM: 0 CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK J CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • P O Box 190/2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH (714) 536-5227 (714) 374-1557 FAX Date: 8/26/97 Number of Pages (including cover page): 4 To: James Zarian By: Mae Henry - 536-5209 Deyuty City CCerk ?O Fax 26 J6" . Phone: Remarks: Urgent For your review Reply ASAP Please comment Per your request Attached is a copy of the minutes for the July 21, 1997 City Council meeting concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79, 18741 Jockey Circle. If you would like further information regarding the action taken by Council, a copy of the video for the meeting is available at the Central Library for checkout or you can purchase a copy of the video tape from the City Clerk's Office for a charge of$35. Please contact Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director, at (714) 536-5271 with your questions while Scott Hess is on vacation. Page 12 - Council/Agency Minutes - 07/21/97 ➢`� � �t � / Q Ice On motion by Sullivan, second Garofalo, Council continued the public hearing on Zoning Text Mpf, Amendment No. 95-6 to the August 4, 1997 City Council meeting. The motion carried by unanimous vote with Councilmember Harman out of the room. (CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL FILED BY GILDA KESHAVARZIAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REVISED PLAN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 -VARIANCE NO. 96-27 -TWO STORY SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE - 18741 JOCKEY CIRCLE - SOUTHWEST OF ELLIS AVENUE AND SADDLEBACK LANE - HEARING CLOSED WITH DECISION CONTINUED TO AUGUST 18, 1997 (420.40) Mayor Bauer announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A) and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three (3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, presented a staff report. City Clerk Brockway announced that the following communication on this item had been provided to the City Council: Communication from Jay and Lynne Davis dated July 21, 1997 in opposition to the Appeal and Variances requested for 18741 Jockey Circle, Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -79 and Variance No. 96-27 Mayor Bauer declared the public hearing open. JAMES B. ZARINAFSAR presented a video tape to the City Clerk titled To City Clerk, Part of July 14, 1997 Letter from Zarinafsar and Associates, Incorporated. 122 07/21/97 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - Page 13 GILDA KESHAVARZIAN gave reasons in support of her appeal. She spoke regarding their efforts to design their house stating that they had visited neighborhoods with beautiful homes in Newport Beach and Beverly Hills, visited showrooms, looked at magazines and talked to those who could help with the project. She spoke regarding their efforts to meet with members of the neighborhood to make the project better for everybody. MARK NITIKMAN spoke regarding why he believed the variance request was not only unfair but legally not allowable as findings have not been met. He stated that others in the area have had to design to meet requirements. Mr. Nitikman stated that this lot is in the 1993 site plan and not governed by the 1997 code and it is not a justification. He stated that it would be injurious to the surrounding property owners. JANELLE MARKS stated her concern that the house will tower over her house. She stated that she does not understand why the appellants do not have to follow the rules which they followed. BOB MANDIC presented reasons why he opposed the approval of the appeal. Mr. Mandic pointed to the chart and showed areas of his concern. He stated that the whole idea of a Specific Plan was for view corridors. Mr. Mandic informed Council that his is the adjacent lot and informed them of how it would impact his property. He urged the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission denial with their findings. CARRIE THOMAS stated that other owners had to comply with requirements. She stated that it was her understanding that the house was supposed to built on 1 1/2 lots but was just built on one lot. She spoke regarding the requirements of the Specific Plan. Ms. Thomas addressed Council regarding the difficult driveway requirement that she had to meet. She spoke regarding other development problems occurring in the area which she did not understand. GERALD CHAPMAN addressed Council and listed the four findings which must be found in order to approve a variance. He spoke regarding the requirement that all four findings must be met in order to grant the appeal. Mr. Chapman presented reasons why he believes the findings cannot be met including that it is possible that a residence can be built on the property. BOB KASRAVI stated that he had been told by persons that he had to have the approval of Mr. Chapman. He referred to a wooden model of the proposed home and spoke regarding his discussions with Mr. Chapman. He also informed Council of his discussions with the Marks' family. There being no one to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by Mayor Bauer. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, responded to questions of Council regarding the matter, including the City Attorney's opinion regarding the 1993 vs. 1997 zoning due to grading which has been done. The distinction between stories and levels was discussed. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff, Mr. Hess reported on issues involving adjacent parcels. In response to Councilmember Sullivan, Mr. Hess reported on the concerns of the Planning Commissioners which caused them to deny this request. Mr. Hess responded to Councilmember Harman's 123 Page 14 - Council/Agency Minutes - 07/21/97 question regarding what the view would be from Mr. Mandic's property. Councilmember Harman stated that he believes the equestrian trails were intended for open space and view corridors. He spoke regarding safety concerns relative to the horses, due to the building being so close for a substantial distance to the equestrian trail, including " children will be children" and throwing things off balcony; horses looking down into the property, and the smell. Mayor Bauer spoke regarding the matter and stated that he would like to see the proponent of the project go to the official Home Owners Association to reach a solution. Planning Director Zelefsky stated that this is feasible, but he is not sure of the home owners' stance on the issue. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Dettloff to continue decision on the appeal filed to the Planning Commission denial of a revised plan - Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -79 -Variance No. 96 - 27 - to the August 18, 1997 Council meeting. The motion carried by unanimous vote. (CITY COUNCIL) A MOTION TO ADJOURN FOLLOWING ACTION ON CERTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS A motion was made by Green, second Garofalo that Council would adjourn after consideration of agenda items including Resolution No. 97-79 - Refuse Service Rates, agenda item regarding Letter of Understanding - Bolsa Chica Development, the agenda item regarding Specially Noticed Hearing - Goldenwest Street Right-of-Way Widening, and Ordinance No. 3368 - 72-Hour Parking. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Dettloff, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo NOES: Harman, Bauer ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS REMOVED The following items were requested by Councilmembers to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration: Bid Award - Pavement Coating Company - For Renewal Of Contract For Slurry Sealing Of Residential Streets - MSC-388 Appropriation for Worker's Compensation Claims Administration and Data Processing System and Related Computer Technologies Approval of Ten Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subgrantee Agreements and Waiver of Insurance Requirements Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 283 - Support for Section 202 Application - Bowen Court Senior Apartments Amendment No. 1 to the Water Facilities Agreement between City and McDonnell Douglas Company and McDonnell Douglas Realty Company 124 TO ��llss«J Date 97 Aga PLEASE R Y TO Signed Yt r v x n 08/18/97 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 5 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms is located near the Speaker's Podium. D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing - (Hearing Closed On July 21, 1997 With Decision Continued To This Date) -Appeal Filed By Gilda Keshavarzian To Planning Commission Denial Of A Revised Plan - Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 - Variance No. 96-27 - Two Story Split Level House - 18741 Jockey Circle -s/w Ellis Avenue & Saddleback Lane (420.40) Communication from the Community Development Director Public hearing to consider the following: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian Property Owner/Appellant: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyranazar Request: Appeal to Planning Commission's denial of a revised plan for an 8,587 square foot, two story, 35 foot high, single family dwelling with variances to permit an eight (8) foot setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed project requires a revision to the previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A and will be on a lot with a grade differential of more than three(3) feet between the high point and the low point. Location: 18741 Jockey Circle - at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required Recommended Action: Continue decision on the appeal filed to the Planning Commission denial of a revised plan - Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 to the September 15, 1997 Council meeting. [Approved continuing decision to 9115197] (5) c-7 s" I"Z]- ZARIN & ASSOCIATRS , INC . CES� S T R U C T U R A L ENGIN E E RING :=cCE1VED FROM + 7(4ADE A PART OFTH5 RECORD AT TH Jul 14 1997 COUNCIL MEETING OF — — —�� -�7 Y , OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach i� City Attorneys office L Honorable Gail Hutton 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Planning Commissioners Mr. Tom N. Livengood, Mr. Fred Speaker & Mr. Gerald Chapman. Honorable Gail Hutton: Mr. Tom Livengood in his application for appointment to Citizen Committees, Board & Commissions dated 11/30/94 has stated on page two, in response to the question why do you wish to serve on a volunteer. board or commission & how will your qualifications best serve the needs of the community? He States: " FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS , I HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RENOVATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES, REVIEW OF BLUE PRINTS, ETC. THIS'WORKING KNOWLEDGE PROVIDES A GOOD BACKGROUND FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION." In addition he acknowledges that he does not have any professional license in construction or any other field related to construction (page one of application Exhibit "c"). If his claim is accurate then he has been involved in construction in the capacity of being in responsible charge without a contractors license and his work is illegal and human lives could be in danger. However if his claim is false, it is my opinion that he has mislead the representative and elected council person of the City of Huntington Beach to occupy a planning commissioners position. In addition on page one in the occupation section he states " Director- College Auxiliary Services. Mr. Livengood has been employed by Associated Student Body Enterprises in Charge of Food Services, Vending Machines, and other related tasks. 2182 DUPONT DRIVE SUITE 224, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE (714) 261-6988 FACS. (714) 261-6901 Further he provides the address as follows Long Beach College, avoiding to state his employer,that is Associated Student Body Enterprises which is not part of the college but merely their office is located on campus. It is my opinion that Mr. Livengood's lack of qualification and experience lead to misinterpretations of our plans (Case CUP 96-79 and VARIANCE 96-27) and under his direction the commission ultimately denied our variance and conditional use permit on December 10, 1996. On May 13, 1997 we presented our revised projects to this commission with the Planning Department in support of our proposal and recommending approval. However Mr. livengood labeled our project a three story structure even though the commission was presented a two story residence. Mr. Livengood made the motion to deny our request again and commissioner Fred Speaker call for question, resulted in a vote, and denial of our request. Needless to mention that during my presentation on May 13, 1997 1 stated: "We are open to suggestion if you really see that a better project could come out of this lot". Allow me to point out during the end of the hearing on May 13, 1997 Chairman Kerins stated: " Typically what we have done in the past was we have always asked the applicant if he would want to volunteer to modify the plan per the recommendation that the commission has given tonight , because there was a call for question that was not taken. This sort of disturbs me. We should have a study session...". Mr. Fred Speaker in response to chairman Kerins statement of concern, he states his reason to call for question as follows: " Something that was said earlier, about asking for the question and directing it. If you recall IN DECEMBER, When this project B-1 first came before us. I SAT HERE AND I SAID, CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ? CAN YOU CHANGE IT ? WOULD YOU BE WILL!":`C TO DO SOMETHING ?, TO THE APPLICANT. It was a flat denial on his part. That's why I called for the question. The man has shown very little when he had finally appealed it to the city council. He gave us two feet, and still built a three story structure. That was my reasoning." Honorable City Attorney no such questions was asked by Mr. Fred Speaker addressed to the applicant or me during December 10, 1996 hearing or any other hearing related to our project. Furthermore Mr. Gerald Chapman as Commissioner contrary to his statement to be excused from item B1 on May 13, 1997, due to the proximity of his residence to our proposed project and the issue of conflict of interest, he returns to the chamber and asked a leading question. He states "So the application that was denied tonight could go, could built within the accepted a" and the planning staff replied: he (Applicant) could built either with the approved site plan which was the original site plan" , and commissioner livengood states to commissioner Chapman " this is the set backs" and the staff completes their response by stating: within those setbacks that was established .., yes sir." I believe that Mr. Chapman is not honoring his word and is trying to influence the outcome of the commissions decision. Honorable City Attorney Mr. Livengoods misrepresentation and Mr. Fred Speaker reasoning has wasted six months of my time and considerable damage to my client and my firm both financially and emotionally. Therefore, to minimize the future damaga tc other individuals and families of Huntington Beach that have invested their lives and resources in this City, as the representative of my Firm Zarin-Afsar & Assoc. Inc. would request a formal investigation into Mr. livengoods claimed experience, the validity of voting on CUP 96-79 and Variance 96-27 one May 13, 1997 planning commission hearing based on the call for question by Mr. Speaker and Mr. Gerald Chapman inconsistencies in relation to the conflict of interest.matter. After presenting the facts during oral communication before the planning commission. received a personal letter from Mr. Livengood addressed to me which have returned to the planning commission secretary unopened on July 8, 1997 during the oral communication. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. ZARIN-AFSAR & ASSOC. INC. Z s B. Zarin-afs r, P.E.ident Enc: A copy of his application Exhibit "C." A copy of Exhibits " G,G.1". Video Tape: ( L Summery ii. DEC. 10, 1996 Hearing iii. May 13, 1997). cc: City Clerk - .5/15/97 THU 16:47 FAX 7143741540 COMM DEVELOPMENT 0007 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO d } CUIZEISLCOMMITTEES,BOARDS S COMMISSIONS (Please type or print clearly.) t NAME L3,TjNGOOD TOM N. DATE 11-3.0-94 ` ' Lest rim Middle Inlsal NAME OF COMMISSION, BOARD, OR COMMITTEE LENGTH OF RESIDENCY_ 30 years OCCUPATION DOCTOR - COLLEGE AUXILIARY SERVICES HOME ADDRESS: BUSINESS ADDRESS: 461 mu wLAPA DRIVE LONG BEACH blTY COLLEGE HUNTINGTON BEACH._CA. 92642 4901 E. CARSON i LONG BEACH, CA. 20808 r PHONE , (714) 846-6315 PHONE (310) 420-4591 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND ASSOC A OF ARTS - BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: COLLEGE AUXIL= SERVICES PROFESSIONAL LICENSES AND/OR ASSOCIATIONS en 1 - SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR SKILLS gEMn AIX TE RR nu =TtIGION REAru PT.ANrt q COMMISSION, TWO YEARS AS CHAIRMAN „ i CIVIC AND/OR SERVICE MEMBERSHIPS TOT RP (PAAT PR.F4Tnm! ) RRAMRFR. ny fmmmgga - (VICE PRESIDENT), AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA (VICE PRESIDENT) V CIVIC INTERESTS txrr�Tmr.Tnrt �+ �B g � AVAILABILITY(DAYS&TIMES) rT,B=RT.P'-?RFfF`F;R F:yTi:197hT (CONTINUE OVER) , 5/15/97 THU 16:48 FAX 7143741540 COMM DEVELOPMENT 008 • i- WHY DO YOU WISH TO SERVE ON A VOLUNTEER BOARD OR COMMISSION & HOW WILL YOUR QUALIFICA*nONS BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY? . ,_ .. ,. SKILLS TO SERVE AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER. SERVING TWO TERMS AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDED ME THE SKILLS TO WORK WITH OTHERS AND HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. n1 Eg_MAR-T,Y ;n VrARe_ T RAT/FM, BUN RPSPQNATRT.F. PnR TqV a7N(4ZbTIObT OF EXISTTNr BUILDINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES, REVIEW OF BLUE PRINTS, ETC. THIS WORKING KNOWLEDGE PROVIDES A GOOD BACKGROUND FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. t 1 It is the policy of the City Council to make appointments to the citizen committees, boards, and commissions on the basis of interest and qualifications of the applicant. Additional information concerning a particular committee, board or commission is available from the staffing department. General questions regarding the process should. be directed to pat Dapkus in the Council Offices(714)535-5579. This application should be returned to the City Council Offices, P.O.'Box 190, Huntington Beach, ' CA 92848 or In person to the City Council affices on the 4th Floor of Huntington Beach City Hall, 2000 Main Street(at Yorktown). 1 v BD� Id �hmoo . ' alt . Afs°� • 5 i . Id 4 i . 1 1. 1 `'-XtHIBIT U• July 21,1 997 RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF ->-a-+-17-) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK City Council Office Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Conditional Use Permit No.96-79, Variance No.96-27 Honorable Council Members; Please attached find transmittals dated 5/27/97 to Mr. & Mrs. Marks and Mr. & Mr. Mandic to inform us of their concern in writing and to make any suggestion that will gain their support. Sincerely, rl -afsar & oc., Inc. J.B. Zarin-afs , P.E. President Enc: Two Transmittals dated 5/27/97. CC: City Clerk Mr. S. Hess • 1 ZA R I N' & ASSOCIATES . L[EUTEQ OF MUSUMOVUL 2 1 8 2 DUPONT, DRIVE SUITE 224 I R V I N E CALIFORNIA 9 2 8 1 2 DATE 7 9`, Joe NO' Phone(7141 2 8 1 - 8 9 8 8 Fox (714) 2 8 1 - 8 9 0 1 ATTENTION �cr-) RE: TO - GUI �jVG� 1=—..5TI�, CID t- A-4-QQ C Z WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate.cover via _r__''�"x the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ' fFL.A.1,4S LZX v- U CG J ro t^c 4z 12. P(Zto THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: F 1 For approval F1 Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval CJ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS j'.� J_1-4 '�r`� US L--j 4r- r, 1 r,► c 1= Ad IIz C2 S 'Ttr-2 v v 9- R- -- K�5F-fAI.1[o.e-Z,I i /A L l� F T 1 G 1—� i COPY TO 41-Aa►7 W'\L L GA1 �}�E12 S vt�Po(LT SIGNED: It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us of once. I , ZAR !N & ASSOCIATES L��S4`11C G3 0G� �G3la1a�G�7���Q� + 2 1 8 2 DUPONT DRIVE SUITE 224 I R V. I N E CALIFORNIA 9 2 8 1 2 DATE Phone(714) 2 8 1 - 8 9 0 9 Fax(714) 2 8 1 -8 9 0 1 ATTENTION RE: TO M 1� . - Mes ►-� _1�4 c__ 8-4,6_ 0.00 2 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover vial the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of,letter ❑ Change order. ❑ COPIES DATE No. DESCRIPTION �l__.BP•�� �ra d Z t`�1-i '0 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as-submitted ❑ Resubmit I' copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution (1 As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment U ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS_._.._ - -- ---- -- -------- 'PL>1��Sf= U �h� w e-I-T I t &-j r— �;�r:>!S ::V 4 i=c--�,-��.YAI f-z tk,tskk s o ra t-,4C —( 'S L,G " 'C" l•-1 t l�L I�4 ARx�i'r L�.� N c I—) I,) 1-k F=i-t 1Jo vL-0 i `T I F_ _ra COPY TO en" +G,�—,/F i tt,i�V Aa z��, A SIGNED:"L=cj If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us of once. i r , Council/Agency/Agency Meeting Held: 7/alh-7 BefefFeeWContinued to: &110/97 ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approve ❑ Denied City erk's Signature ro Council Meeting.Date: July 21, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-33 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administr / PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO. 96-27 (TWO STORY, THREE LEVEL HOUSE) i Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahavesh Keyvanazar of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27. The applications represent a request to construct a two story, three- level, 35 ft. high structure with a ten-foot rear yard building setback (eight-foot for balconies) in lieu of the minimum 50 ft. setback and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of more than three feet between the high,and low points on the site. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. The appeal is based upon the applicant's belief that their project addresses the concerns of the neighbors and Planning Division staff. The Planning Commission is recommending denial (Recommended Action - A) because the structural design of the proposed residence appears to be a three-story, 45 ft. high dwelling which is inconsistent with the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan, and does not conform to the character of the existing neighborhood. Staff recommends approval (Recommended Action - B) because the project complies with the intent of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan; the proposed dwelling conforms to the natural land form and is terraced to the site; and the site plan results in a better project. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings." (Attachment No. 1) Planning Commission Action on May 13, 1997 (See Attachment No. 7) THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY BIDDLE TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Kerins, Biddle, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Inglee ABSTAIN: Chapman MOTION PASSED B. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 as requested by the applicant with findings and conditions of approval." (Attachment No. 3) Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and modified conditions of approval;" or 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 and direct staff accordingly." CD97-33.DOC -2- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Gilda Keshavarzian 9594 Nightingale - Fountain Valley, CA 92709 Property Owner/ Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahvash Keyvanazar Appellant: 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Location: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 represents a request for the following: A. To amend a previously approved master site plan (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6) to construct a 8,587 square foot, two-story, three level single family residence which includes a basement (Attachment No. 4) pursuant to Section 241.18A of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO); and B. To permit construction on a 15,597 sq. ft. lot with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point pursuant to Section 230.70C of the ZSO. The 15,597 sq. ft. lot has a grade differential of 14 feet. Variance No. 96-27 represents a request for two deviations to the development standards of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (Attachment No. 5) in order to construct the 8,587 square foot residence as follows: t Ul ::::>::::>:::<:>::::>::::>::>:........:....>::::>::::>::>::::::If GS:P:....:........::::»:::>::>:::>::::>::>::>::>::»>:«::::::: AI t NCE < ``>><:::>::: `«`a 1 E'cif~ "` > » >> > ' << ::.;::.: ....::......:;::....... .:::::::::::::.:.::::::::::.:.:.::.;:.;:.;. ............::::.::......::::..:.::::::::::::::::::::::::.............................:::::::::: .................: ...:............................................. . W.C. 5c Rear yard setback 50 feet for lots over 10 ft. for main 15,000 sq. ft dwelling 8 ft. for balconies III.D Cut and fill Max. 2 feet Up to 6 ft. cut and up to 7.5 ft. fill CD97-33.DOC -3- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION, MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 B. BACKGROUND On September 16, 1996, the applicant submitted plans to develop a single family home with four (4) variances. On December 10, 1996, the Planning Commission denied the original single family home, a larger, three story dwelling with variances relative to height (39.5 feet requested in lieu of maximum 35 feet), stories (3 stories requested in lieu of maximum 2 stories as defined by the code) grading, and rear setback requirements. During the public hearing five persons spoke, two against and three in support of the project. The property owner stated that the code required minimal grading in order to maintain the maximum two (2) ft. cut and fill resulted in a split level home which was impractical for his family. He also stated that the dwelling would appear as two stories from the street. In addition, a setback transition was proposed for the dwelling to attain compatibility with existing two (2) story homes in the area. The speakers opposed to the project stated that the project does not maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and it does not comply with the requirements of the specific plan. Planning staff recommended denial of the project. The Planning Commission denied the project based on findings of incompatibility with the surrounding area and inconsistency with the residential in-fill ordinance. On December 17, 1996, the property owner appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Attachment No. 6). The reason stated in the appeal was to allow an opportunity to revise the project to reflect the concerns raised at the public hearing. Subsequent to the appeal, the applicant met with staff to discuss alternatives to the variances. A revised plan was submitted on March 18, 1997, which reduced the number of variances to two: 1) deviation to the maximum cut and fill; and 2) encroachment in the rear yard setback. Staff forwarded the appeal to the City Council and recommended review and action of the revised plan by the Planning Commission. The City Council concurred with staffs recommendation on May 5, 1997. The revised plan depicts an 8,587 square foot, two story, split level dwelling (Attachment No. 4). The dwelling remains as three levels, however, part of the lowest level has been redesigned as a basement to eliminate the three story classification as defined by the code. The lowest level includes a media room, Persian room, gym and sauna. A four (4) car tandem garage, a single car garage, bedroom, den, dining room,.kitchen, family room and 1-1/2 bathrooms are located on the main (street) level. The upper level contains a master bedroom suite, three (3) additional bedrooms and bathrooms, laundry and sitting room. A large deck is provided on each level on the north side of the house. A circular stair is located in the center of the dwelling and provides a transition from the lowest level to the upper floors; this feature has a building height of 35 feet. The proposed building is terraced with the terrain (Attachment No. 4.9). CD97-33.DOC -4- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The second Planning Commission public hearing was held on May 13, 1997 to review the revised .plan and the two (2) variances. Six persons spoke at the meeting; two in favor of the project, and four opposed. The property owner and architect explained the changes that had been made to address previous concerns. The Planning Commission denied the project based on findings of incompatibility with the surrounding area and the three story appearance on the north and west building elevations (Attachment Nos. 4.8 and 4.9). The Planning Commission determined that even though the rear portion of the building is terraced back, the architectural design of the proposed dwelling visually impacts adjacent properties because it appears as a three-story, 45 foot high dwelling along the north and west elevations. In addition, the balcony projections on each level intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. Therefore, the Planning Commission determined that the project did not comply with the residential in-fill development policies of the General Plan (Attachment No. 7). D. APPEAL: On May 21, 1997, the property owners appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Attachment No. 2) to the City Council. The reason stated in the appeal is to allow an opportunity to present the revised project to the City Council and make any amendments necessary to reflect findings for approval. The applicant is willing to make any changes deemed necessary by the City Council that will allow construction of their single family home. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: There are four (4) primary issues with the proposed two story, three level dwelling: 1) three story appearance; 2) rear yard setback; 3) cut and fill; and 4) land use compatibility/residential infill compliance. Three Story Appearance: The proposed residence appears to be two (2) stories and three (3) stories depending upon the viewing angle. From the public street view (Jockey Circle), the residence is two (2) stories, similar to the residences on either side (south and east abutting properties). From the east and west side, the residence is terraced with the lot, similar to a layered cake (Attachment No. 4.13). The northerly, third level building wall is setback 25 ft. from the second level building wall. For this distance, the structure is two (2) stories. However, from some angles, the third level can be seen which gives the appearance of three (3) stories. The structure complies the definition of a two-story building and with the maximum 35 ft. building height requirement as measured from Jockey Circle. There are some design features that could be added to reduce the appearance of a three-story dwelling. These include adding gable roof angles, different window treatments and reducing some deck area. CD97-33.DOC -5- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Rear Yard Setback: One of the issues with analyzing development of this site is that since the original approval of the tract map unit site plan in 1993, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance was updated and changed the method for determining which part of the lot is a rear and side yard. Exhibit A depicts the original minimum building setbacks required based upon the 1993 Zoning Code definition of a rear and side yard. A conceptual site plan was approved as part of the original tract map (Attachment No. 9) that conformed to setback requirements based upon those definitions of yards. A subsequent unit siting plan (Attachment No. 10) also conformed to those yard areas. Exhibit B represents the required setbacks based on the current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. As can be seen on this exhibit, only a very narrow area of the lot can be developed. Since this is inconsistent with other lots in the vicinity it represents a good example of how the strict interpretation of the code deprives the owner from developing the parcel consistent with other parcels in the area which is a finding for a variance. Another issue with the rear yard setback is compatibility with surrounding residences. The parcel to the north was built with a 34 ft. setback from the westerly property line and the parcel to the south was built with a 10 ft. setback from the westerly property line (Attachment No. 13). The proposed building has a varying rear yard setback from ten feet (eight foot for balcony projections) to 19 foot-six inches in lieu of the minimum code required 50 feet. A portion of the building is proposed at a 10 ft. rear setback which is consistent with the setback provided for the adjacent property to the south. The rear building setback then increases to 19.5 feet to provide a transition and separation between the adjacent properties. A covenant to assure that a minimum 50 foot building setback be maintained from the northerly property line is recommended. This would allow the property to be developed similarly to the original Zoning Code requirements. A lot across the equestrian trail and located southwest of the project site (Lot 3 Tract 11473) is vacant at this time. The lot to the northwest (Lot 3, Tract 11473) was granted a variance to allow a portion of the dwelling at an 11 foot rear yard setback (Attachment No. 10). The proposed residence's side yard setback to the northerly property line is 58 ft; this is substantially greater than the minimum 10 ft. required by the current code and eight (8) ft. greater than the original unit siting plan which depicted 50 ft. (Attachment No. 10). Also, the proposed building envelope is setback farther from the northerly property line than the original unit siting plan (Attachment No. 10.2). Therefore, the project will be compatible with adjacent single family residences.- Staff supports the proposed building design and encroachment into the rear yard setback. The irregularly shaped buildable area constrains building design and results in a hardship for the applicant to maintain the code required 50 ft. setback. C097-33.DOC -6- 07/14/97 2:16 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 "JE5TV-IAN TRAIL � � 50' Rea►r I7vildab(e I Yarc!AmA h�tba►ck Y I io' f >✓ra►t' '*fare,( iD� � ��� a►l�s ME oG�cY� .c% ... bated u an taa3 Zor►i : - . . �tv�s-rr��►�-roc -r-�►��.. NiicWoe A,�oi ACAS'Art y �' oG�cY �% �DIfZd v pain tom[? zcofob CD97-33.DOC -7- 07/10/97 4:56 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Cut and Fill: The site.was graded in about 1993 in accord with the original development plan for the site. There are two dirt building pads on the site; the upper pad is elevated to 58 ft. and the lower pad is at 52 ft. These pads are lower than the existing street grade of 64 ft. The proposed grading plan depicts up to 7.5 feet of fill in the front portion of the lot to provide a level driveway (from street to garage) and open parking in front of the dwelling adjacent to the main level 1.5 ft. above street grade. The upper pad will be reduced by two feet, which is consistent with the grading requirements of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. An additional four feet will be removed to allow a corridor connection and stairs from the first floor on the lower pad to the second floor (street level) on the upper pad. Elevations are fixed on all four sides_ of the property. A 16 ft. wide equestrian trail is located adjacent to the west.side of the subject property. It is separated from the subject property by a 6 ft. high wall.'. The trail has a grade elevation of 50 ft. at the northwest corner of the site and rises to 60 ft. at the southwest corner of the site. Properties located on the west side of the equestrian trail have a lower grade than the subject site. Properties to the north, east and south have been graded and developed. The proposed grading plan necessitates an approximately 43 foot long stem/cripple wall, which varies in height from approximately 5 feet to 7.25 feet, along the southwesterly portion of the proposed dwelling 10 feet from the westerly property line (Attachment No. 4.9). The stem/cripple wall continues for an additional 33 feet but at a 19.5 ft. setback. These stem/cripple walls are proposed to create the main living level (second floor) approximately 1.5 feet higher than the existing grade at the street. This wall is designed into the building and will be screened by the equestrian trail wall. Grading standards within the Specific Plan state that all structural designs shall fit the natural land forms. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. Staff believes that this design complies with the intent of the specific plan. The proposed design portrays minimal cut and fill to allow the transition between the two pads. The fill between the front of the building and the street will minimize drainage impacts on the dwelling. Surface drainage will flow to the rear of the site into an existing drainage system. The building design is terraced with the site to maintain the maximum building height measured from the adjacent curb and from each portion of the existing building pads (Attachment No. 4.9). CD97-33.DOC -8- 07/14/97 9:58 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Lgind Use Compatibility/Residential In-fill Compliance Residential infill lot developments are subject to compliance with Section 230.22 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The requirements are intended to minimize impacts on contiguous properties and provide standards that ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. The standards require that pad height for new construction be compatible with adjacent properties and not create drainage issues. Privacy design standards include window location and treatment, roofline variation, architectural features to diffuse bulk and mass, and orientation of balconies. Staff believes that the plan is compatible with adjacent properties. Upper story balconies face the equestrian trail to the west and the property to the east rather than the street or private open space areas, however, these balconies are provided as architectural features. Windows and balconies on the west building elevation are separated from a future dwelling west of the equestrian trail by the eight foot setback, 16 foot wide trail, and 25 foot minimum building setback required for development of the westerly property. The proposed building height is terraced.to the terrain. Zoning Compliance ' The following is a conformance matrix comparing the development standards of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan with the original submittal and current plan. !SECTION! I WFU- _ R CODE PROUIS ONE OM _ORIGINALraSUBMITTAL _CURRENTf� IV. C. 1. Lot Area (Min.) 8,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A 20% of Lots 15,000 sq. ft. (equestrian 15,597 sq. ft. 15,597 sq. ft. lot) 2. Lot width and 45 ft. for cul-de-sac lots 56.78 ft. 56.78 ft. Frontage (Min.) 3. Site Coverage 35% 30% 31.7% (Max.) 4. Max. Building 30 ft. (average); 35 ft.to 37.5 ft. to midpoint of 35 ft to highest . Height highest ridgeline highest roof; 39.5 ft to ridgeline, terraced 2 stories highest ridgeline` with the terrain of 3 stories* the site 2 stories 5. Setbacks (Min.) Front Yard 25% of Lot Depth, min. 30 30 ft. 30 ft. a. ft. Side Yard Aggregate 20 ft. min. Aggregate 20 ft. min. Aggregate 20 ft. min. b. north p.l. 5 ft. min. 56 ft. 56 ft. south p.l. 5 ft. min. 10 ft. 10 ft. east p.l. 5 ft. min. 10 ft. 10 ft. *Variance Requests \CD97-33.DOC -9- 07/14/97 9:58 AM { REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 SECTION„;; 13S.lJE CODE`PROVISION , ORIGINAL SUBMITTALCURRENT, z , Rear yard (west 50 feet for lots over 10 ft. for main dwelling;* 10 ft. for main C.. p.l. adjacent to 15,000 sq. ft. 6 ft-8 in. for balconies* dwelling;` horse trail) 8 ft. for balconies* Patio Covers Min. 10 ft. from rear 19.5 ft. from rear property 19.5 ft. from rear d. property line. line* property line* Distance between Min. 10 ft. N/A N/A e. main and accessory structures 6. Non-Equine N/A N/A N/A Accessory Buildings Setbacks 7. Private Open 1,200 sq. ft.with min. 20 ft Approx. 4,400 sq. ft,+with Approx. 4,400 sq. ft.+ Space dimension min. 50 ft.. dimension with min. 50 ft.. (Minimum) dimension 8. Parking 7 spaces (3 car garage+ 8 spaces (5 enclosed,+ 3 8 spaces.(5 enclosed Requirements 3 open + 1 per open) + 3 open) bedroom in excess of 4) III.D Cut and Fill Max. 2 feet Up to 3.75 ft. cut and up to Up to 6 ft. cut and up 7.25 ft fill* to 4 ft. fill* *Variance Requests Summary Staff believes that the current project is consistent with the purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan because: The proposed project is a two story, three level dwelling that is terraced with the existing grade surrounding the property. The maximum building height is maintained. The cut and fill is minimized and allows a connection between the two building pads. The building setback provides a transition from the 10-foot setback on the property to the south and the 34-foot setback on the property to the north. The building will be compatible with the surrounding properties. The zoning code revisions in 1994 changed the method for determining side and rear yards. As a result, this lot cannot be developed consistently with other lots in the vicinity without a variance for some encroachment into the rear yard setback area. The lot configuration and grade prohibit the site from developing to the strict interpretations of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Similar request for variance to rear yard setback and maximum cut and fill requirements have been granted within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. C1097-33.130C -10- 07/14/97 9:58 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Attachmen sj: City Clerk's Page Number ......................... ........... _ ..... .......... ........._. ........... ........._.. -........... ............ ........... .......... ......... . ........ 1. Findings for Denial dated May 16, 1997 (Planning Commission recommendation) 2. Appeal letter dated May 21, 1997 3. Findings and Conditions of Approval (Staff Recommendation) 4. Site plan, grading plan, floor plans, and elevations dated March 18, 1997 5. Drawings depicting variance requests 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 13, 1997 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 16, 1997 8. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 10, 1996 9. Original Site Plan for Tract 13439 10. Unit Siting Plan 11. Letters received relative to the request 12. Narrative (original submittal) 13. Adjacent Development Siting CD97-33.130C -11- 07/14/97 9:58 AM t a , FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT NO. 96-79/ VARIANCE NO. 96-27 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for construction of a 8,587 square foot, two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling emphasizes bulk and mass on the site and visually impacts adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan does not result in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling appears to be a three story, 45 foot high dwelling along the north and west elevations. There are no three story dwellings within the Specific Plan area which is developed with one- and two-story dwellings. Balcony projections intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. 3. The proposed two story, split three level residential use does not comply with the provisions of the base district in which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The variance requests necessary for the establishment of the project have been denied. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will adversely affect the General Plan. The project is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 Units per Acre, Specific Plan Overlay, on the subject property which prescribes the orderly development of a residential area. It is not consistent with the following policies: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their.setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. LU9.1.2 b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the: use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 (97CL513-3) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- VARIANCE NO. 96-27: 1. The granting of Variance No. 96-27 to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 8 feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling (appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation(up to 6 foot cut and.7.25 foot fill) will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. Although there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, topography, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan development plan is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to minimize the alteration of the natural terrain and will allow development in compliance with the Specific Plan. 3. The granting of a variance to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 8 feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling(appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation are not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of a custom home can be accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved site plan or unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. 4. The granting of the variance requests will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project reduces the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height, building height, and architectural design of the two story, split three level dwelling. (97CL513-4) g=� ACHMENT NO. -2 i G cpm 7_- a C. az&7 RECEIVED CITY CLERK iIIY OF Iii HUNTINGTON,'EE:ACHPCA.LIFIy,% MAY 11 2 Oz PM '97 MAY 21, 1997 CITY CLERK HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 RE : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 VARIANCE NO. 96-27 DEAR CITY CLERK; WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS LETTER OF NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE CITY CLERK IN REGARDS TO THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 13, 1997, RELATED TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79, AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 . APPELLANT GILDA KESHAVARZIAN, MAHVASH KEYVANAZAR 9544 NIGHTINGALE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 WE HAVE OBTAINED THE SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO OUR PROPOSED RESIDENCE. EVEN THOUGH WE MADE NECESSARY REVISIONS PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF MR. LIVENGOOD. HE MOVED AGAIN TO DENY OUR REQUESTS ON MAY 13, 1997 . NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT COMMISSIONER KERINS TOWARD THE END OF THE MEETING STATED " TYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST WAS WE HAVE ALWAYS ASKED THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD WANT TO VOLUNTEER TO MODIFY THE PLAN PER THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN TONIGHT, BECAUSE THERE WAS A CALL FOR QUESTION THAT WAS NOT TAKEN. THIS SORT OF DISTURBS ME. WE SHOULD HAVE A STUDY SESSION. . ." . I SIGNED AND FAXED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THIS DECISION TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON MAY 15, 1997 CEXHIBIT A-1) . HOWEVER WE WERE TOLD THAT WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL . WE WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS PROJECT BEFORE YOU AND MAKE NECESSARY REVISIONS TO REFLECT YOUR FINDINGS . ATTACHED PLEASE FIND EXHIBIT "A" WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORS SIGNATURE OF SUPPORT AND APPROVAL FOR OUR PROJECT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION . VERY TRULY YOURS; GILDA KESHAVARZIAN APPELLANT/ OWNER CC: THE HONORABLE MAYOR RALPH BAUER MR . HOWARD ZELEFSKY MR. SCOTT HESS MS . SUSAN PIERCE I •lye 1 RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF ^•;i HUNTINGTOM ;.EcCH, CALIF. t .l 7y�G NNY 11 2 02 PM '97 w_ n. For your review and approval please find attached the plans of the proposed dwelling ' located at 18741 Jockey Circle, Huntington Beach. Thank You. Approve ,Name Address TPd ------ --— --�---- -------- - � -------- ---------- ----------- `---------- -------------:_'------, ,.. . fir �---t-----_ --- -------------I 7_ --- ---�=U�--—t --�� 3- ------ 1 •� ell 17 C( l7 ) `/ L C` �__ZZ �,L L �� /2 L ---- =---------------------------------------------------------- - ---------;----- ------------------- --- -- . �'=--. . .. -)'`=- = = -`- ==-------------(�--s -------ice- -- - --- '= --- -=--�1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------------------------------------- *`T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,. ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . ; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------ I P P --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- --. a ------------ -r------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------IW7-------_---------------------------_---_----_---'y_----__--_----_-------_---_-_-__- 1 -------------- -----------a---------------------------_n-�. --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ------ ----- -- ------ - .----_-. __-------- ----------------------. _------J_._-------_. P r , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTHB�T RECEIVED CITY:C FRk HUNTI CITY OF HG-i0H ' ATTN: SCOTT HESS/SUSAN PIERCE ii-EACH';-�q'ttF. Mar 11 2 oz PM '9T Doar Mr, Hoop I just became aware thaL cunuuissioner Edward Kerins expressed his disappointment In reyard to the motion that Was expressed by Commissionor Tom L1veiiyQQd and the denial if our request, and recommended that the applicant should be given direction to change the plans and a special atudy coccion to be set for diesouesion. We welcome this suggestion and look forward Lu aLLend this study Session and make. additiuital appropriate modification necessary to obtain approval of the 4vmmiaaiuciere, the naighbarn, and further modify the plans, sincerely, Gilda and Bahram Kacravi *FZTI616 3X/iV17 jW MW- NT p lr 8 MM y ATTACHMENT NO.3 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-791 VARIANCE NO. 96-27 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for a revised plan to construct an 8,587 square foot, two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed two story split level dwelling is terraced to the site and minimizes visual impacts to adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan results in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling fits the natural land form and is terraced to the site. There is a two story split three level dwelling north of the subject property within the Specific Plan area. Balcony projections provide architectural relief and do not intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. 3. The proposed two story, split three level residential use complies with the provisions of the base district in which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance),the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located, except for the variance request to maximum cut and fill and rear yard setback. Staff supports the variance requests necessary for the establishment of the proposed project. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the two story, split.three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will not adversely affect the General Plan. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 Units per Acre, Specific Plan Overlay, on the subject property which prescribes the orderly development of a residential area. It is consistent with the following policies: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. LU9.1.2 97SR28-11) i iACHMENT 0.A .3.\ b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the: use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-VARIANCE NO. 96-27: 1. The granting of Variance No. 96-27 to allow(a)a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to eight feet for balcony projections and ten feet for the building wall and(b)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation,which includes six ft. cut and 7.25 ft. fill, will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project does not contrast with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and to comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, topography,the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan development plan is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to minimize the alteration of the natural terrain. The variance request to exceed the maximum cut and fill and reduction of rear yard setback will allow development compatible with the existing development within the Specific Plan area. 3. The granting of a variance to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to eight(8)-feet, and(b)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation are necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of the two story, split level home will be accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. The six foot cut request allows transition between the two building pads. The fill request of up to 7.25 feet allows level access from the street and reduces drainage impacts to the dwelling. Surface drainage flow for the lot will be oriented into an existing drainage system at the northwest portion of the lot. 4. The granting of the variance requests will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project does not contrast with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project does not reduce the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height, or siting of the two story, split level dwelling. (97sx28-12) SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96- 79/VARIANCE NO, 96-27: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 18, 1997 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a. Balcony projections along the westerly side of the building shall not encroach closer than eight feet to the westerly property line. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). b. Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans, as follows (FD): 1) Automatic sprinkler systems will be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the fire Department prior to installation. 2) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be sized a minimum of four(4) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half(1-1/2) inches. 3) The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. 4) The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. c. The site plan shall depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers. The location and screening shall comply with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code Section 230.76. d. Elevations shall indicate the following: 1) Colors and building materials proposed. (97SR28-13) 3.� 2) If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. e. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). f. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. g. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. h. The Design Review Board shall review and approve fencing/wall plans. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. A grading plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PW) b. Wall plans shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include necessary homeowner's approval. c. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. (PW) (97SR28-14) 3 'LA 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) 5. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%)by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 6. Prior to final approval of the building permit, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all.conditions of approval specified herein shall be.accomplished. b. All building spoils, such a unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. c. A covenant shall be recorded on the property to assure that a minimum 50 foot building setback shall be maintained from the northerly property line. 7. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the condtions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. Attachment-5/13/97 (97SR28-15) i INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 2. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 4. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No, 96- 79Nariance 96-27,pursuant to a public hearing, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79Nariance 96-27 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. (97SR28-16) Le r • 1 7 � i� Marino WOOOGeGTG ramc-ft — — G Q 1'u G 9 T /C 1 i.A rl•' i ,! A S C, .n•—e rti .••,Y.__—..__ w . TpA •T -- - -- -- ---- / = Leoenn lop go 0033 GYRO �.wM.•w.�ww•«.. _ , I 10 ` � t I - ' - ' ln.+4:r.._:r.0 *.avow •~ , ®~ C ~ J ss..I. .e.,. \`�• �� LOT MtGh: 111516.G wsT DUWnO POOP PUIr: 46"'0 64R. _ �1 ..aard....flr+�....r....n.w IM.• ROO tw FLOOILS 919110 A&ra 10 rLAPS, OIL Pr. � -SITWI rLAI.{ bo,"m in T,771.e SLR LGWL DG!Gl1rT1017 OLOT 4 ( TTLAGT AT IM ��l11 F��s— WAS.P.Ij 3/,5/1 7 1A2! ttllTMO ttCODC�tT! Itl'1Gt � • %C Ii 3 C I- M T ji 1�I 11. I I _ • • - I ! o. I ' I ! III � �� .; v 1 I�r-- ��• \ Stti -— - tasl- (all 17 •� ___ __•� rIsT.+• Cw rwla I�Pto-~s ao.+rua I:Z MorcTO;OF GJALk \\ \ our Jill TTr TT�Cw� 11v ^NMIGO aILwOa wt wY.+lr RT +� PZ Rwt L�i r M. 'IT n t 14c +R w Itr n urartNtT nea. I ar SC xa OJL LRAIL Peer water. tta+VtR4 MADItre nTRR(aMtt Mal CJA fJaayMtLO IRTK P'�t aw� t N • .0 a ❑ I awM _ z[fJo46 emu ur V aoa cw.1 LP 1 -..��b�u►wl .RpM •n rw ID ro� •���A Q ' I m �i� •IO�N.I1.YIr/� Ld LL i Mlna \ (�> OILJ Ss y •4 � I 'Al • �aserneln� 3/1SM7 r Amw::�t • •: �- ----- -- - - - ...---1-— r-- re OW.- _Ve c' t fi M ©. I 3 i I I I I -ao r.w� wlIn CC— ► I ® ! � t � � � ; 1 I, I ® •• ,••••aril - i i �-u I m ® MAU MEET Ir no I r _ bk..// V J ZNWAVA C� raYr°an ' ZS' `��Z I U PI�1��TOf��C • .: • - Ale ,e Fl �p0��M N6 t 1 OYN.1 •IM•i I '7 F ® ® r� i" I -` a. :... 0 - MsaTLL NOIWN Cole am ., Lx _ • •Lr• ewws-rrw - - 1 - I6141 it ".....! AJ AWAY s I I w Draw+a rL..a I.w+ _ l :0m�on "MMv 0. 1 - -- .. ._..._. ■�f' ._.. wars ! !!`.i'a w.r . 3�PA 1 TIP OV11LL ., .....�..- u..caa.a rl.•r•w. T.aslnw) ate•••ru•: Iraa.'� ; . IL I � aaa. iu j \ I aw..�oa•rr.� laa.wl JW +v�• „ l } elan na4 , oaa�an IL acre yM.fd `C A6 I I U ..Mm.nt■s — O L..m �� �ncilawd'2 _... —_ _ a.,., J. .... r'n ❑E A �] ... wi,. ' Rww■«..r POIS2�M�/1� A7 �.} 7011 n Fai .. zad L Vi N1966 Tcwa -y u ll] El a�D A10 affa d M AY,• �A-96r. +Ml6tKT -T-- CA ME TrPj I Im Top ew, r i. ` lCor►t�s �EtllTIN6 f1A.TYa., 6R0\ 6 ey � ;C So `ion bemerg !o`i UXdA�AiJ ;gyp �ra�4e - w..M G !. o an In 0 mo n11 t±uvm%.-mtir. f�r�f i..wor. tea., ...s � --..-__-- ...-----'❑ u Iftirw r o. C.{ RR 1 L� Rr II LEVEL, dO•s•.Y _ ._•L_ rn •-..� Dear we r,w g"A' y A8 O A o I � - 10140 Lry H•-ft 1. bier�o..a n-e►`� f7'1 MfolA POOH 0 All 5 •Y/ IC • � 1 ,rww��Mr tiw.w��M� d I IL �I �\ ❑ \.O.Iiw� w• I Ml�1w. .Mw El ,.7., ' ....if" 't�; X -- ('n F oo�w� ..w•y+W� Ar Al2 ■ m OEM ME m MEMO MEM OEM 1ON MEMO MENEM m s51 10 i%gV ;7-MAN TiRAI L, 101 jow is OWN I • �. • � ��OG�7 iz�jt D�T1C� oG,��Y. •��� � �DIZTIoN 0� ��Sid�'NC� "VFyiTr4t,rN TCII&lL. Ii I 1 r •I I I C I I i Ipp iJt �w � 1 I I' \ i••. G I r. I III � . I` •. ' __ G AMA VY499PINO APEA Excee pi N6 . ATTACHMENT NO. 571 s W� {'l isi::is::::ii::::i::::::ii::::i::i:: a B a me cif::<:>::::. :... :.,:, _. <>> > ................ ......................................... .................. t:...:...: a� nan ....:.: Q :m mkt.::...:::.:::::: .:::::.: .: ::::::.... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.P:.::.:.:::...::::.........:::::::.::........::..................... ......................... .:.................:::................................... .:::.:.:::.::.::.::.:......:..................................................................:.. ................:.. ............................ .......................P........................................................ ::..:....:...::::.:............. ...:.:.::.;:.::::::::.:.::.;..:.......... . TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Direct BY: Susan Pierce, Associate Planne DATE: May 13, 1997 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79/VARIANCE NO. 96-27 REVISED (TWO STORY,THREE LEVEL HOUSE) LOCATION: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Revised) were referred by the City Council on appeal. They represent a request by Gilda Keshavarzian to construct a 8,587 sq. ft. two-story, 35 ft. high single family residence with variances to permit a eight(8)-foot rear yard setback in lieu-of minimum 50 ft. and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of three feet between the high and low points on the site. The revised plan reflects concerns raised during the Planning Commission's public hearing on December 17, 1996, at which time the Planning Commission denied a request for a three story dwelling. This revised plan eliminates the need for the original height variance. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle,west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 for the following reasons: • The project is consistent with the purpose of the Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan. • The design of the proposed two story,three level dwelling conforms to the natural land form because it is terraced to the site. ' • The two story,three level dwelling is compatible with one and two story homes within the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan area. • Balcony projections comply with residential infill privacy design standards. • The two story, three level dwelling does not visually impact adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan does results in a better project. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. (Attachment No. 1)" 1 A7ACHMENT NO. 1 DM 381 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, . CALIFORNIA 0., USE OF PROPERTY MAP I r �= i ! � i :'9 C I`�_; ••--'FYI—�.4'.�'.� �'+J N C F-R 4 / 1 \ a _ 1 1 ( LULlLLwUULjV4A I -lrrr i l aI Pi rrur i",l, 1111111111111MI11 IIIIIIIIII / rnnnnnnrnnrinrrl / I annlnlnl�i1r----- I------' MITI III11111 C11111111111 I WMMM MM0 fnryMh77 I 1 III1111111I 111111111111 ` 1 1_!_i_ j I I i � II -- - I I . I I _ / OF w W u I O J i O G4RF�fCo AV E. ' Su bJec.+ Preperfx e.a GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Gilda Keshavarzian, 9544 Nightingale, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 PROPERTY OWNER: Gilda Keshavarzian and Mahvash Keyvanazar, 9544 Nightingale, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 REQUEST: To consider revised plans to construct a 8,587 square foot, 35 foot high single family residence with variances to to permit an eight(8) foot-rear yard setback in lieu of minimum 50 feet; and to exceed the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential greater than three (3) feet between the high and low points on the site. DATE ACCEPTED: October 15, 1996 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: . ..... . ..... .. .. ....... LOCATION >GENERAL PLAN; ZONING LAND VSE .. .. . _ _ _... .. _ .. - . .. Subject Property: RL (Residential Low Specific Plan 7 (Ellis- Vacant site Density-3.0-sp) Goldenwest Specific Plan) North, South, and RL (Residential Low Specific Plan 7 (Ellis- Single family East of Subject Density-3.0-sp) Goldenwest Specific residential Property: Plan) West of Subject RL (Residential Low Specific Plan 7 (Ellis- Equestrian trail Property Density-3.0-sp) Goldenwest Specific Plan) West of Subject RL (Residential Low Specific Plan 7 (Ellis- Single family Property (across Density-3.0-sp) Goldenwest Specific residential and equestrian trail) Plan) vacant parcel Staff Report-5/13/97 2 (97SR28) �.2J PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 Revised represents a request for the following: A. To consider revised plans to construct a 8,.587 square foot single family residence which requires a. revision to the previously approved master site plan(Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6A)pursuant to Section 241.18A of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) and B. To permit construction on a lot with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point pursuant to Section 230.70C of the ZSO. The 15,596 sq.ft. lot has a grade differential of 14 feet. Variance No. 96-27 Revised represents a request for deviations to the development standards of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan in order to construct the 8,587 square foot residence as follows: A. To permit grading on the site that exceeds the maximum two (2) foot cut and fill requirement pursuant to Section III.D of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The grading includes up to a 7.25 ft. fill of dirt and a cut of up to 6.0 ft. on the site. B. To permit an eight(8) foot rear yard setback(along the westerly property line) in lieu of minimum 50 feet pursuant to Section IV.C.5c of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The main dwelling is setback ten(10) feet; there are two (2)balconies that are setback eight(8) feet. On December 10, 1996, the Planning Commission denied the original project, a larger,three story dwelling with additional variances relative to height(39.5 fet requested in lieu of maximum 35 feet) and stories (3 stories requested in lieu of maximum 2 stories). During the public hearing five persons spoke, two against and three in support of the project. The property owner stated that the code required a split level home which was impractical for his family. From the street the dwelling would appear as two stories. The project designer stated that a setback transition was proposed for the dwelling to attain compatibility with existing homes in the area. Those against the project stated that the project did not maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and it does not ensure compliance with the specific plan. The Planning Commission denied the project based on incompatibility with the surrounding area and inconsistency with the residential in-fill ordinance. On December 17, 1996, the property owner appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Attachment No. 6). The reason stated in the appeal is to allow an opportunity to revise the project to reflect the concerns raised at the public hearing. Subsequent to the appeal, the applicant met with staff to discuss alternatives to the variances. A revised plan was submitted on March 18, 1997,which reduced the variances to deviation of the maximum cut and fill and rear yard setback only. Staff forwarded the appeal to the City Council and recommended review and action of the revised plan by the Planning Commission. The City Council concurred with staffs recommendation on May 5, 1997. Staff Report-5/13/97 3 (97SR28) . I The revised plan depicts an 8,587 square foot,two story, split level dwelling. The dwelling remains as three levels, however,part of the lowest level has been redesigned as a basement to eliminate the three story classification. The lowest level includes a media room, Persian room, gym and sauna. A four(4) car tandem garage, single car garage, bedroom, den, dining room, kitchen, family room and 1-1/2 bathrooms are located on.the main(street) level. The upper level contains a master bedroom suite, three (3) additional bedrooms and bathrooms, laundry and sitting room. A large deck is provided on each level on the north side of the house. A circular stair is located in the center of the dwelling and provides a transition from the lowest level to the upper floors; this feature has a building height of 35 feet. The proposed building is terraced with the terrain. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed revised project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and the Land Use Element designation of RL-3.0-SP (Low Density Residential, 3 Units Per Acre, Specific Plan Overlay) on the subject property which require single family homes to be designed to include construction elements that do not contrast significantly with the character of their neighborhood(LU 9.1.2) and require building heights, grade elevations, and bulk to be compatible with surrounding development(LU 9.2.1). The revised project is two story, terraced with the site, and compatible with surrounding development in terms of layout and architectural design. Zoning Compliance: The proposed project is located in Specific Plan 7 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area) and complies with the requirements of that zone except for the variance requests. The following is a conformance, matrix comparing the original submittal,revised plans and development standards of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and an analysis of the revised project: SECTIUN, :3SSUE CODE PROVISIONORIGINAI:'SUBIVIITTAL- REVISED IV. C. 1. Lot Area(Min.) 8,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A 20%of Lots 15,000 sq. ft.(equestrian lot) 15,597 sq. ft. 15,597 sq.-ft. 2. Lot width and 45 ft. for cul-de-sac lots 56.78 ft. 56.78 ft. Frontage(Min.) 3. Site Coverage 35% 30% 31.7% (Max.) 4. Max.Building 30 ft. (average);35 ft.to 37.5 ft.to midpoint of 35 ft to highest Height highest ridgeline highest roof,39.5 ft to ridgeline,terraced highest ridgeline* with the terrain of the site 2 stories 3 stories* 2 stories Staff Report-5/13/97 4 (97SR28) to. 5 Il SECTION ISSUE CODE PROVISION zQRIGINAL SUBIVIITTAL " REVISEDA., h = , 5. Setbacks(Min.) a. Front Yard 25%of Lot Depth,min.30 30 ft. 30 ft. ft. b. Side Yard Aggregate 20 ft.min. Aggregate 20 ft.min. Aggregate 20 ft.min. north p.l. 5 ft.min. 56 ft. 56 ft. south p.l. 5 ft.min. 10 ft. 10 ft. east p.1. 5 ft.min. 10 ft. 10 ft. c. Rear yard(west p.l. 50 feet for lots over 15,000 10 ft.for main dwelling;* 10 ft.for main adjacent to horse sq.ft. 6 ft-8 in. for balconies* dwelling;* trail) 8 ft. for balconies* d. Patio Covers Min. 10 ft. from rear 19.5 ft. from rear property 19.5 ft. from rear property line. line property line e. Distance between Min. 10 ft. N/A N/A main and accessory structures 6. Non-Equine N/A NIA N/A Accessory Buildings Setbacks 7. Private Open Space 1,200 sq.ft.with min.20 ft Approx.4,400 sq.ft.+with Approx.4,400 sq.ft.+ (Minimum) dimension min 50 ft.dimension with min 50 ft. dimension 8. Parking 7 spaces(3 car garage+3 8 spaces(5 enclosed+3 8 spaces(5 enclosed+ Requirements open+ 1 per bedroom in open) 3 open) (min.) excess of 4) III.D Cut and Fill Max.2 feet Up to 3.75 ft.cut and up to Up to 6 ft.cut and up (grading) 7.25 ft fill* to 7.5ft. fill* Building Design Terrace with terain and split Not terraced or split level Floor level terraced (grading) level design. design. and split level design. *Variance Requests Environmental Status: The revised project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis required. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Staff Report-5/13/97 5 (97SR28) (0.10 i Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works and Fire have reviewed the revised project and have recommended conditions to be incorporated into the conditions of approval if the Planning Commission approves the request. The Building Division has indicated that two exits are required for the third level. The applicant and applicant's architect have been made aware of these issues. The Police Department has no concerns. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on May 1, 1997, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 foot radius of the subject property, applicant, architect, homeowners association, and interested parties. ANALYSIS: There are three (3) primary issues with the proposed two story dwelling: variances, revision to previously approved site plan, and land use compatibility (residential in-fill compliance): Variance Requests Cut and Fill: The site plan has been graded in accord with the original development plan for the site. There are two dirt building pads on the site; the upper pad is elevated to 58 ft. and the lower pad is at 52 ft. These pads are lower than the existing street grade of 63.99 ft. The proposed grading plan depicts up to 7.5 feet of fill in the front portion of the lot to provide a level driveway (from street to garage) and open parking in front of the dwelling adjacent to the main level 1.5 ft. above street grade. The upper pad will be reduced by two feet, which is consistent with the grading requirements of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. An additional four feet will be removed to allow a corridor connection and stairs from the first floor on the lower pad to the second floor(street level) on the upper pad. The proposed grading plan necessitates an approximately 43 foot long stem/cripple wall, which varies in height from approximately 5 feet to 7.25 feet, along the southwesterly portion of the proposed dwelling 10 feet from the westerly property line. The stem/cripple wall continues for an additional 33 feet but at a 19.5 ft. setback. These stem/cripple walls are proposed to create the main livingievel (second floor) approximately 1.5 feet higher than the existing grade at the street. A 16 ft. wide equestrian trail is located 10 feet west of the site. The trdil, which has a grade height of 50 ft. at the northwest corner of the site and rises to 60 ft. at the southwest corner of the site, has a six ft.high wall adjacent to the subject site. Properties located on the west side of the equestrian trail have a lower grade than the subject site. Staff Report-.5/13/97 6 (97SR28) Grading standards within the Specific Plan state that all structural designs shall fit the natural land forms. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. Staff believes that this design complies with the intent of the specific plan. The proposed design portrays minimal cut and fill to allow the transition between the two pads. The fill between the front of the building and the street will minimize drainage impacts on the dwelling. Surface drainage will flow to the rear of the site into an existing drainage system. The building design is terraced with the site to maintain the maximum building height measured from the adjacent curb and from each portion of the existing building pads. Rear Yard Setback: Section 203.06 of the ZSO defines a rear property line as, "A lot line, not a front lot line, that is parallel to the front lot line. Where no lot line is within 45 degrees of being parallel to the front lot line, a line ten (10)feet in length within the lot,parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line, shall be deemed the rear lot line." A side property line is defined as, "Any lot line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line." These definitions are inconsistent with the original conceptually approved site plan for the site. The original plan depicted the rear yard and rear property line as the north property line, which follows the rear property line for all lots on the north side of Jockey Circle, and a 20 foot setback from the equestrian trail was shown (Attachment No. 2). The unit siting plan, approved in 1993, created two building pads for the subject site (Attachment No. 3). This plan depicted the subject property with a 23 foot setback from the equestrian trail (39 ft. setback from the tract boundary) and the rear yard located adjacent to the north property line and the north property with a 34 ft. setback from the trail (50 ft. from tract boundary) and the rear yard located adjacent to the south property line. A rear setback varying from eight feet(balcony projections)to 19 foot-six inches is proposed. The applicant proposes a portion of the building at a 10 foot rear setback which is consistent with the setback provided for the adjacent south property. The Specific Plan does not allow projections into a setback. The required open space will be provided adjacent to the north property line which is compatible with the rear yards east,north, and northwest of the subject property. Compliance with the required setbacks will result in a long, narrow dwelling. Staff Report-5/13/97 7 (97SR28) (v.8 ftl • 151k. Bui Lclin9 are4 �5 y - aCAL6:1'.5cr I N � .JoucL',Y --->e GIRGI•E` -- _— ori�jinalse.}back Rea V 4 t cr so 10' 51��e I � 1 _. ...�. � � ,do 5ckt-�:I'=30•, f --- Pro„+��� 1ocKt;y I CIRGI.E� -- - rer.�urrecl seeks ////// encraach.r�eirf variance Staff Report-5/13/97 8 (97SR28) (o A A lot located southwest of the equestrian trail (Lot 3 Tract 11473) is vacant at this time. The northwesterly lot(Lot 3,Tract 11473)was granted a variance to allow a portion of the dwelling at a 11 foot rear yard setback. Staff supports the revised building design which complies with the maximum 35 ft. building height and two stories. The the irregularly shaped lot constrains building design in compliance to the setback requirements. Approved Site Plan Revision The master plan for the subdivision approved in 1990 depicted a building pad elevation at 62 feet on the subject site. Building setbacks were shown as follows: side yard (south): 15 feet side yard (west): 20 feet side yard(east): 14 feet rear yard (north): 75 feet Subsequently a unit siting plan in 1993 modified the setbacks and created two building pads(split level) at 52 feet and 58 feet to allow more flexibility with building design and orientation. Although the use of property remains the same and there is no change in density,the proposed layout is substantially different. The revised site plan is consistent with the setbacks established for properties to the north and south of the subject site. Grading involves additional limited cut and fill to accommodate the driveway and a transition between the two building pads. Staff believes that these changes result in a better project and is, therefore, supporting the revision. Land Use CompatibiliOL2esidentialln-fill Compliance Residential infill lot developments are subject to compliance with Section 230.22 of the ZSO. The requirements are intended to minimize impacts on contiguous properties and provide standards that ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. The standards require that pad height for new construction be compatible with adjacent properties and not create drainage issues. Privacy design standards include window location and treatment, roofline variation, architectural features to diffuse bulk and mass, and orientation of balconies. Staff believes that the revised plan is compatible with adjacent properties. Upper story balconies face the equestrian trail to the west and the property to the east rather than the street or private open space areas, however, these balconies are provided as architectural features. Windows and balconies on the west building elevation are separated from a future dwelling west of the equestrian trail by the eight foot setback, 16 foot wide trail, and 25 foot minimum building setback required for development of the westerly property. The proposed building height is terraced to the terrain. Staff Report-5/13/97 9 (97SR28) SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 for the following reasons: • -The project is consistent with the purpose of the Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan. • The design of the proposed two story dwelling does conform to the natural land form because it is terraced to the site. • The two story dwelling is compatible with one and two story homes within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. • Architectural design de-emphasizes bulk and mass on the site. • Balcony projections comply with residential infill privacy design standards. • The two story dwelling does not visually impact adjacent properties. • The revision to the previously approved site plan does results in a better project. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS): The Planning Commission may take following alternative action such as: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-8 and Variance No. 96-27 and direct staff accordingly. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings and Suggested Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations,Adjacent Development Siting and Grading Plan dated March 18, 1997 3. Previously approved site plan and unit siting plan 4. Cross sections 5. Staff report dated December 10, 1996 6. Appeal letter dated December 17, 1996 SH:SP:kjl Staff Report-5/13/97 10 (97SR28) (OM i B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-791YARIANCE NO. 96-27 REVISED (TWO STORY, SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE) APPLICANT: Gilda Keshavarzian LOCATION: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Susan Pierce Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 (Revised) were referred by the City Council on appeal. They represent a request by Gilda Keshavarzian to construct a 8,587 sq. ft. two-story, 35 ft. high single family residence with variances to permit a eight(8)-foot rear yard setback in lieu of minimum 50 ft. and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of three feet between the high and low points on the site. The revised plan reflects concerns raised during the Planning Commission's public hearing on December 17, 1996, at which time the Planning Commission denied a request for a three story dwelling. This revised plan eliminates the need for the original height variance. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 for the following reasons: • The project is consistent with the purpose of the Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan. • The design of the proposed two story, three level dwelling conforms to the natural land form because it is terraced to the site. • The two story,three level dwelling is compatible with one and two story homes within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. • Balcony projections comply with residential infill privacy design standards. • The two story, three level dwelling does not visually impact adjacent properties. • The revision to the previously approved site plan does results in a better project. Commissioner Chapman stated he would be abstaining from taking action on the item due to a conflict of interest. PC Minutes- 5/13/97 2 (97p=513) .ATTACHMENT NO. -7. � THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Connie Mandic, 16242 Tisbury Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. Ms. Mandic stated the subject property is a split level lot and a split level home should be built to maintain the topography and the intent of the specific plan. Janelle Marks, 6752 Derby Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. Ms. Marks stated that their property to the north is a split level lot and they were required to build it by the codes, she felt this proposal should also meet code requirements. Mark Nitikman, 3172 Brimhall Drive, Los Alamitos, attorney representing Janelle Marks, stated that granting this request would be a special benefit to the applicant. Mr. Nitikman stated that the lot is split level and therefore, a split level home should be built. Janet Christiano, 18752 Jockey Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. Ms. Christiano stated that when she bought an adjacent split level lot she was told that a split level home had to be built, and feels the applicant should have to comply with the same rules. Bahram Kasravi, 9594 Nightingale, applicant, stated that they have been working with staff for the past six (6)months to arrive at an acceptable plan. He stated that the proposed house will be the same height as the neighbor's homes. J.B. Zarinafsar, 2182 Dupont Drive, #224, Irvine, architect for the project, stated that if a split level home were built, the front of the home along the cul-de-sac, would be one (1) story, while the surrounding homes have two (2) story frontages, creating incompatibility with the surrounding homes. He also stated that the four(4) foot balconies depicted on the plans were not to scale, they are actually two (2) foot balconies. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 AND VARIANCE NO. 96-27 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood,Kerins,Biddle,Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Inglee ABSTAIN: Chapman MOTION PASSED PC Minutes-5/13/97 3 (97p=513) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-7 : 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for construction of a 8,587 square foot, two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling emphasizes bulk and mass on the site and visually impacts adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan does not result in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed two story, split three level dwelling appears to be a three story, 45 foot high dwelling along the north and west elevations. There are no three story dwellings within the Specific Plan area which is developed with one- and two-story dwellings. Balcony projections intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. 3. The proposed two story, split three level residential use does not comply with the provisions of the base district in which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The variance requests necessary for the establishment of the project have been denied. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the-'two story, split three level dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will adversely affect the General Plan. The project is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 Units per Acre, Specific Plan Overlay, on the subject property which prescribes the orderly development of a residential area. It is not consistent with the following policies: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. LU9.1.2 b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including.the: use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 PC Minutes-5/13/97 4 (97p=513) 7�� FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -VARIANCE NO. 96-27; 1. The granting of Variance No. 96-27 to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 8 feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling (appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c)to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation(up to 6 foot cut and 7.25 foot fill)will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. Although there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, topography, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan development plan is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural . topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to minimize the alteration of the natural terrain and will allow development in compliance with the Specific Plan. 3. The granting of a variance to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 8 feet for balconies and 10 feet for the main dwelling, (b) a two story, split three level dwelling (appears as a three story, 45 foot high building along the north and west elevations), and (c) to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation are not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of a custom home can be accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved site plan or unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. 4. The granting of the variance requests will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project reduces the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height, building height, and architectural design of the two story, split three level dwelling. PC Minutes- 5/13/97 5 (97pcm513) 27 NFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Special Sign Permit No. 96-13 shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Special Sign Permit No, 96-13 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No. 96-13 , pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Building permits shall be obtained for any signs prior to their installation. B-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79NARIANCE NO, 96-27 (THREE STORY HOUSE): APPLICANT: Gilda Keshavarzian LOCATION: 18741 Jockey Circle (at the terminus of Jockey Circle, southwest of Ellis Avenue and Saddleback Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Susan Pierce Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 represent a request by Gilda Keshavarzian to construct a 9,858 sq.ft. single family residence with variances to allow a three-story, 39.5 ft. high structure in lieu of a maximum two-story, 35 ft. high structure;to permit a six-foot, eight inch rear yard setback in lieu of minimum 50 ft.; and to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation. The proposed structure will be on a lot which currently has a grade differential of three feet between the high and low points on the site. The property is located at the terminus of Jockey Circle, west of Saddleback Lane within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. PC Minutes- 12/10/96 7 if MCHME M. J STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 and Variance No. 96-27 for the following reasons: • The.project is not consistent with the purpose of the Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan. • The design of the proposed three story dwelling does not conform to the natural land form because it is not terraced to the site. • The three story dwelling is incompatible with one and two story homes within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. • A retaining wall allows a higher building volume adjacent to the rear property line. • Architectural design emphasizes bulk and mass on the site. • Balcony projections do not comply with residential infill privacy design standards. • The three story dwelling visually impacts adjacent properties. • The revision to the previously approved site plan does not result in a better project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bahrain Kasravi, 9594 Nightingale, Fountain Valley, spoke in support of the request. Gerald Chapman, 6742 Shire Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that he felt it was a beautiful house but was too large for the area. Donny Rye, 18711 Jockey Circle, spoke in support of the request. He stated he felt it did conform to the neighborhood standards. Janelle Marks, 6752 Derby Circle, adjacent resident spoke in opposition to the request, and stated that the neighbors were also opposed to request. James Bahrain Zarin, 2182 Dupont Drive, #224, Irvine, architect for the project, stated that this was a complicated lot to work with and gave a brief history of the site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the effect the house would have on the surrounding neighborhood and felt that it was too large to be compatible. They felt it would obstruct views and create undesirable visual massing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BIDDLE,TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT•NO. 96-79 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood,`Kerins,Biddle, Gorman, Tillotson, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes- 12/10/96 8 (PCM061) f FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a 9,858 square foot, three story dwelling on a site with a grade differential of more than three feet between the high point and the low point and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Architectural design of the proposed three story dwelling emphasizes bulk and mass on the site and visually impacts adjacent properties. The revision to the previously approved site plan does not result in a better project. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79 for will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The structural design of the proposed three story dwelling does not fit the natural land form and is not terraced to the site. There are no three story dwellings within the Specific Plan area which is developed with one- and two-story dwellings. The project does not comply with the Residential Infill Lot Development Ordinance; in particular, the privacy design standards and pad height provision. Balcony projections intrude on adjacent properties' privacy. 3. The proposed three story residential use does not comply with the provisions of the base district which it is located and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach ZSO (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Staff does not support the variance requests necessary for the establishment of the proposed project. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the three story dwelling on a site with a grade differential of 14 feet between the high point and the low point with cutting and filling that does not conform to the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and for a substantial revision to a previously approved site plan will adversely affect the General Plan. The project is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 Units per Acre, Specific Plan Overlay, on the subject property which prescribes the orderly development of a residential area. It is not consistent with the following policies: a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. LU9.1.2 PC Minutes- 12/10/96 9 (PCM061) 3 b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the: use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. LU9.2.1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -VARIANCE NO. 96-27: 1. The granting of Variance No. 96-27 to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 6-feet-eight-inches, (b) a three story, 39.5 foot building height in lieu of a two story, 35 foot building height, and(c) to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. 2. Although there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, topography, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan development plan is to provide guidance for the orderly development of the area while preserving the natural topographical features to the greatest extent possible. The subject property has been provided with building pads to minimize the alteration of the natural terrain and will allow development in compliance with the Specific Plan. 3. The granting of a variance to allow(a) a reduction in the rear yard setback from 50 feet to 6-feet- eight-inches, (b) a three story, 39.5 foot building height in lieu of a two story, 35 foot building height, and(c) to exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill limitation are not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Construction of a custom home can be .:- accomplished within the area identified on the previously approved site plan or unit siting plan and within the maximum building height. 4. The granting of the variance requests will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed project contrasts with the character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural terrain and comply with the maximum building height and setback requirements. The proposed project reduces the privacy of adjacent properties by the increased grade height,building height, and architectural design of the three story dwelling. PC Minutes- 12/10/96 10 (PCM061) g< f x s PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN I `2 r zS c I` T 1 T B I ��FFiszpO�f�� !i r I y \ \ g FF- 49.70 \ '� ...N 00'S1'20'all•' 65152' I -- -- .-- SEMENT a � I ---- — -- b'• ��'" REAR YARD-.T000 S.E. LS' � � 1 I f DRRIH .� I G9� IE' �. Lu I AN I © REM TARD. �4 I"' �f^-- --- -- 16505. 76 75' A PLAN0S 6.000S•F. IF 5�, \9 �! P D.62.0 I REAR IA D. RJR SF._ �- PRDSSZO,. / Pd00,5Ko j 0 ?�l d 3' I ptll�• -+ I ys' � - 10'wA E 9 EASEMEN Pl 9R a i Pu fB 3 PLAN o I ^ P 0� I REAR MRI._ REARTRRD' loiPRD. 59.0 �,� 8, y'^ A z�>osE rjuDSf.II 1P '� PRO. 5259E 2r 2S I iac •1 U� hl 505F. 115, I m n PLAN#4 a 47' 25' — �N 1 P{i0.63.45 _ 1 BEAR lAR REAR TARO. II R © MIN. �� _ a- MS y - I - IG I �36D iF. N 3,C70 SF PLAB509f �c n' PUN ' u: w °t M \1 ,' PLAN f B I n I. p� 1 B.fiOD SF r vi r �. A Iron ul �C ,. .S 4' ZL r � u�p 30 SE. �N9T 11RM I MGM � MD.6D g$ a o �/1 �' n �\ 'Fa PAD.ii2 ERSEHE4T d a PLAN s 1 d I6 ffi 1-4 tat0 - _ I n• 3p• ne Sy • �_', � \\ I REAR RDIR TNIO PL s 9 �.'• 5 I MR�I < c c� O YARD O U! 1700 S.E 60_$.E 1 c� 6L PLAN!B 1 c o II 130 SF I k e, 8,5505J > M '�T " 1••ti 3o PA0.SO I'''I d.l W, �� .A 9.. ..................... M, IN Vo M I i J CHAPMAN RES. r� IRECEIVE ® I w F.F. Q (47.20) JAN 0 7 1993 = EX15T. HOUSE I _� I 'edt:cf rcn-•1.�'.vp�o; ,ent g I LOT 2 LOT 3 OF TR. H 73 TRACT BOUNDARY AbooCAexe FENGE << Lo7• by M ��EQoESrR1AN TRAIL ESANr Sp/ — up -- -- '� LOT 18 OF TR. LOT 9 OF TR. 13431 ' I M , 1 $. BUILDABLE, PAD•58.6,,I�. PAD'-52.0-,. IV -r c/ R BUILDABLE --r-—r— cs:)_ PAD°52:0 a — ...__„�• N, 50. IBUILDABLE - - I• ti f '�� 1 I�' PAD•56.0 MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE i MAXIMUM BUILDING J ENVELOPE REV/SED� 12-9-92 JOB NO. 10935.00 \\ 12-7-92 r I Co'�.71 FS CH>aPMAN RESIDENCE 8 LOT 9$18, UNIT SITING PLAN TRACT 13439 EXHIBIT SSR ET' oil mmmmmmi SEE M MEIN ONE 0 ON 0 NONE 0 MEN MIEN ON NO ONE ME SEMEN MOM ME M ON �mmmm M M MEN INE REM MOM ME ME IN M M mi m ME M MEN ME -MMMM1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:, CD 97-33 CD97-33.DOC -7- 07/14/97 1:30 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Cut and Fill: The site was graded in about 1993 in accord with the original development plan for the site. There are two dirt building pads on the site; the upper pad is elevated to 58 ft. and the lower pad is at 52 ft. These pads are lower than the existing street grade of 64 ft. The proposed grading plan depicts up to 7.5 feet of fill in the front portion of the lot to provide a level driveway (from street to garage) and open parking in front of the dwelling adjacent to the main level 1.5 ft. above street grade. The upper pad will be reduced by two feet, which is consistent with the grading requirements of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. An additional four feet will be removed to allow a corridor connection and stairs from the first floor on the lower pad to the second floor (street level) on the upper pad. Most of the cut in dirt is within the exterior walls of the building; the grades around the exterior of the building will remain. Elevations are fixed on all four sides of the property. A 16 ft. wide equestrian trail is located adjacent to the west side of the subject property. It is separated from the subject property by a 6 ft. high wall. The trail has a grade elevation of.50 ft. at the northwest corner of the site and rises to 60 ft. at the southwest corner of,the site. Properties located on the west side of the equestrian trail have a lower grade than the subject site. Properties to the north, east and south have been graded and developed. The proposed grading plan necessitates an approximately 43 foot long stem/cripple wall, which varies in height from approximately 5 feet to 7.25 feet, along the southwesterly portion of the proposed dwelling 10 feet from the westerly property line (Attachment No. 4.9). The stem/cripple wall continues for an additional 33 feet but at a 19.5 ft. setback. These stem/cripple walls are proposed to create the main living level (second floor) approximately 1.5 feet higher than the existing grade at the street. This wall is designed into the building and will be screened by the equestrian trail wall. Grading standards within the Specific Plan state that all structural designs shall fit the natural land forms. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. Staff believes that this design complies with the intent of the specific plan. The proposed design portrays minimal cut and fill to allow the transition between the two pads. The fill between the front of the building and the street will minimize drainage impacts on the dwelling. Surface drainage will flow to the rear of the site into-an existing drainage system. The building design is terraced with the site to maintain the maximum building height measured from the adjacent curb and from each portion of the existing building pads (Attachment No. 4.9). CD97-33.DOC -8- 07/14/97 1:30 PM l D.`� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 Land Use Compatibility/Residential In-fill Compliance Residential infill lot developments are subject to compliance with Section 230.22 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The requirements are intended to minimize impacts on contiguous properties and provide standards that ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. The standards require that pad height for new construction be compatible with adjacent properties and not create drainage issues. Privacy design standards include window location and treatment, roofline variation, architectural features to diffuse bulk and mass, and orientation of balconies. Staff believes that the plan is compatible with adjacent properties. Upper story balconies face the equestrian trail to the west and the property to the east rather than the street or private open space areas, however, these balconies are provided as architectural features. Windows and balconies on the west building elevation are separated from a future dwelling west of the equestrian trail by the eight foot setback, 16 foot wide trail, and 25 foot minimum building setback required for development of the westerly property. The proposed building height is terraced to the terrain. Zoning Compliance The following is a conformance matrix comparing the development standards of the Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan with the original submittal and current plan. SECON& ISR ROV w INAL_SUBMITT I TT OPO G A T , IV. C. 1. Lot Area (Min.) 8,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A 20% of Lots 15,000 sq. ft. (equestrian 15,597 sq. ft. 15,597 sq. ft. lot) 2. Lot width and 45 ft. for cul-de-sac lots 56.78 ft. 56.78 ft. Frontage(Min.) 3. Site Coverage 35% 30% 31.7% (Max.) 4. Max. Building 30 ft. (average); 35 ft. to 37.5 ft. to midpoint of 35 ft to highest Height highest ridgeline highest roof; 39.5 ft to ridgeline, terraced 2 stories highest ridgeline` with the terrain of 3 stories* the site 2 stories 5. Setbacks (Min.) Front Yard 25% of Lot Depth, min. 30 30 ft. 30 ft. a. ft. Side Yard Aggregate 20 ft. min. Aggregate 20 ft. min. Aggregate 20 ft. min. b. north p.l. 5 ft. min. 56 ft. 56 ft. south p.l. 5 ft. min. 10 ft. 10 ft. east p.l. 5 ft. min. 10 ft. 10 ft. 'Variance Requests CD97-33.DOC -9- 07/14/97 1:30 PM �ds REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 . I SECTION ISSUE CODE PROVISION. ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL CURRENT Rear yard (west 50 feet for lots over 10 ft. for main dwelling;* 10 ft. for main C. p.l. adjacent to 15,000 sq. ft. 6 ft-8 in. for balconies* dwelling;* horse trail) 8 ft. for balconies* Patio Covers Min. 10 ft. from rear 19.5 ft. from rear property 19.5 ft. from rear d. property line. line* property line* Distance between Min. 10 ft. N/A N/A e. main and accessory structures 6. Non-Equine N/A N/A N/A Accessory Buildings Setbacks 7. Private Open 1,200 sq. ft. with min. 20 ft Approx. 4,400 sq. ft.+with Approx. 4,400 sq. ft.+ Space dimension min. 50 ft.. dimension with min. 50 ft.. (Minimum) dimension 8. Parking 7 spaces (3 car garage+ 8 spaces (5 enclosed + 3 8 spaces (5 enclosed Requirements 3 open + 1 per open) + 3 open) bedroom in excess of 4) III.D Cut and Fill Max. 2 feet Up to 3.75 ft. cut and up to Up to 6 ft. cut and up 7.25 ft fill* to 4 ft. fill* *Variance Requests Summary Staff believes that the current project is consistent with the purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the goals and objectives of the General Plan because: • The proposed project is a two story, three level dwelling that is terraced with the existing grade surrounding the property. • The maximum building height is maintained. • The cut and fill is minimized and allows a connection between the two building pads. • The building setback provides a transition from the 10-foot setback on the property to the south and the 34-foot setback on the property to the north. • The building will be compatible with the surrounding properties. • The zoning code revisions in 1994 changed the method for determining side and rear yards. As a result, this lot cannot be developed consistently with other lots in the vicinity without a variance for some encroachment into the rear yard setback area. • The lot configuration and grade prohibit the site from developing to the strict interpretations of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. • Similar request for variance to rear yard setback and maximum cut and fill requirements have been granted within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. CD97-33.130C -10- 07/14/97 1:30 PM lD � REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 21, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-33 I Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Quality Act which states that construction of a single family dwelling will not have an adverse impact on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. Attachment(sl: City Clerk's Page Number ....... .................. ......._ ............_.. .......... _........... ............. .. ....... _._............. ............ .......... ._.. 1. Findings for Denial dated May 16, 1997 (Planning Commission recommendation) 2. Appeal letter dated May 21, 1997 3. Findings and Conditions of Approval (Staff Recommendation) 4. Site plan, grading plan, floor plans, and elevations dated March 18, 1997 5. Drawings depicting variance requests 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 13, 1997 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 16, 1997 8. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 10, 1996 9. Original Site Plan for Tract 13439 10. Unit Siting Plan 11. Letters received relative to the request 12. Narrative (original submittal) 13. Adjacent Development Siting CD97-33.DOC -11- 07/14/97 1:30 PM �p.1 .................................. NA ................... Jay and Lynne Davis 6782 Derby Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Home: (714) 842-6441 Office: (310) 981-4038 May 12, 1997 Honorable City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: 18741 Jockey—Variances requested (Three Story House)--OPPOSE r Dear Honorable City Council Members: We are writing in opposition to the above mentioned variance request. Even with the changes made to the plan, this house is still a three story house. We believe that the integrity of the overall appearance of this neighborhood should be maintained, and the height and setback variances requested will result in .an oversized house right on the street. This house will not only be out of place in our neighborhood, but the surrounding neighbors will be forced to look at this beast every day. We are requesting the City to stoRaAproving these variances to maintain the irate rite of this neighborhood. We spent over $1 million and an incredible amount of time and effort to live in an exclusive, desirable neighborhood. Every time the City makes a decision that alters the overall appearance, and therefore, the desirability, of the neighborhood, the value of our property may decrease (case in point—the Matterhorn at 18711 Jockey Circle). The setbacks, height restrictions, and other requirements in this area were established for good reasons. Please do not continue to approve variances which erode the integrity and appeal of this neighborhood. Thank-you for your consideration. Sincerely, 91 Jay and Lynne Davis 4�n .�t.;:_ L661 t AVW -9Rn1 -90 . 0 a¢��'"TACHMENT NO. June 4, 1997 Mr. & Mrs. Mandic Jr. 1112 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CEIVE ® Re: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 DE VARIANCE NO.96-27 V JUN 0 51997 Project Address• 18741 Jockey Circle OF COM DUN TY pE W OPMENT Dear Neighbor: As of this date we have not heard from you in regard to your concern/s and possible suggestions. Please respond to the transmittal dated 5/27/97 (copy attached) that was faxed to you or your representative. Please submit your comments to: Zarin-Afsar & Assoc. INC. 2182 Dupont Dr. #224 Irvine, CA 92612 Or fax to: Zarin-Afsar & Assoc, INC. at (714) 261-6901 Thank you very much for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Gilda Ke havarzian Appellant/Owner Enc: Copy of transmittal Dated 5/27/97 CC: City of Huntington Beach Council Office Mr. Scott Hess Mrs. Susan Pierce Zarin-Afsar & Assoc. INC. i June 4, 1997 RECEIVED, Mr. & Mrs. Marks JUN 161997 6752 Derby Circle DEPARTMENT OF Huntington Beach, CA 92648 COMMUNITY DEVELOrPME"NT Re: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-79 VARIANCE NO.96-27 Project Address: 18741 .Jockey Circle Dear Neighbor: . As of this date we have not heard from you in regard to your concern/s and possible suggestions. Please respond to the transmittal dated 5/27/97 (copy attached) that was faxed to you or your representative. Please submit your comments to: Zarin-Afsar & Assoc. INC. 2182 Dupont Dr. #224 Irvine, CA 92612 Or fax to: Zarin-Afsar & Assoc, INC. at (714) 261-6901 Thank you very much for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Gilda Keshavarzian Appellant/Owner Enc: Copy of transmittal Dated 5/27/97 CC: City of Huntington Beach Council Office Mr. Scott Hess Mrs. Susan Pierce Zarin-Afsar & Assoc. INC. ®® Bahram and Gilda Keshavarzian pB 9594 Nightingale Fountain Valley, CA 92708 J U N 16 1997 DEFAR T MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In response to your letter dated June 4th, I am some what disturbed by your lack of understanding of my concerns. As far as I can see I have addressed the issues with you on five different occasions, if not more. There were several meetings prior to the December City Meeting, then one afterwards, and one recently after the May City Meeting with your architect at my home. I feel that I have gone beyond the norm in accommodating you with your meetings. For the last time, I'll address the two issues that are my major concerns at this time with your current design. One is the house being three stories or stacking of more than two floors at any given point, and the second is the increasing the height of the building pad. These were the same guidelines I had to abide by when I built by home and I do not see why you should be exempt from them. Both of these problems can only be resolved by either a major redesigning of your plans which then could raise other concerns, or by purchasing another lot, in another area, where your design would be permissible. It is unfortunate that you can not build the home of your choice; however, you should have done some research prior to purchasing your lot. These lots were designed for homes to be built with consideration of the topography of the area. Your lot does not accommodate a house of your size or design. would like to address two additional matters at this time. First to the fact that I was offended and surprised by your remark that I was the only one against your project. I have talked with the majority of the home owners in the tract and they concur with my objections. You only heard from two other home owners at the last Planning Commission meeting but more would be happy to speak up if there is another hearing. The other matter is noted in your letter to the fact that I have not responded to your fax. The reason is that it was never faxed to me but to Custom Builders and they are not my representative. If you send something to me directly, I will respond properly such as with this letter. I hope you know that I have no ill feelings toward you but am only protecting my interest. Sincerely, Ron Marks cc: Scott Hess ,yXt an Pierce Zarin - Afsar and Associates Inc. Mark Nitikman ....................... ........................ ...... ..... "' -,AT TACHMENT 12 .............. i I ; TO PHOIAE t` 37-115�40 DEC. 6. 1996 �:4 t•I P ? FROM _grin & ASS C. , Inc. Roe' A, tJ E WHE IJO. 714 261 69E8 1 I I KF:SHAVARZIA IS RESIDENCL. PKu..11 c: l ADORL:SS : 18741 JOCKEY C'I RCLf- HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. i Ll-.6AL DESCKIPIION:- LOT 18 OF TRACT. 13439 THl OWNC-RS ( F TI-fl S PROPLKT Y I-IAVt CHOSEN To BUILT 'THEIR DREAM HOME_ IN 1 HF: CITY OF 1.1UNT I NGTON BEACH. THIS I*,ROPLR. Y IS t.00ATt.L) Al T!Ht:' FOCAL POINT OF JOCKEY CIRCLE c:(1l. DF. SAC . SUKRUUNU1.NG i A. 5 0 U I H i Il-il S PROP -14 Y (I.OT 18) IS ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING THREL' STORY RLS I DI..N(:L. (.( R I WU S I ORY AND A. L.bF T AT THE THIRD LEV[::L_) LUCATL D 1\1 IMIhl JOC.Kf: CIKCiLt:, LOI 11) OF iTHk SAME TRACT BUILT 'OVER A 5FM1 FLAI LOT. P EASt' REFER, TO THF1 AREA SITE PLAN $HEFT. H . w THIS VI(0Pf-kTY• ;G1..0T .1 8), . 15 ADUACI-NT TO THE EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT. C . N O R H I'• I THIS PKOPLR Y (LU_'1 .1- 8.) IS AID.JAC:FNT TO AN FXISTING RESIDENCF WI III. AI1VkOVtl) SF .BACKS :AS INOICAILI),:ON THE AREA SIIF PLAN SHF17 ( . fill- D I til AN0 BF WI: FN, :111F: Pi:(7PuSt: 1>' RL:S ItU(:Nt:E-: STRUCTURE. AND THE: S011111 WALL OF THL LX ].IS T:1.N.6 BUILDING (UN 'LOT 9) IS OVFR 1 1. 1 . 5 FEET . IHI III Ak SC ---BAGK> APPKOvtD FIURi THIS RESIDENCE IS 50 FEET AND 1111 DLSIGN PR0V UES.:QVEK 58 FFF.T UF., RE.Ak SET BACK. 1). C. A S IHI S PKOPFk Y ! (1_O1' 18) 1 S ADJACENT ' TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, WI IH S1. 1 BACKS A = APPR.OVED ON THE EXII STING AREA SITE PLAN SHEET. IIA k U ON T F PHI l_OSOPHY Of- Pki)POS.ING A RESIDENCF TO ACCOMMODATF" KI !1HAVA14% 1 A ' S— kf-Qu 1 RE:ML NTS,'` I 13F 1:0MPA1 l Ii1A-.. W I TH THE EXI ST I NG 1 MAt:KS, TI•tAf HAVE .hl:l-.N AIPNROvEl) FOR THE ADJACENT PROPLRTILS Ci'l..P A�,1 12L I,c�t (U - AR'E:A S1 TE. PLAN), TO PROV IDI: A 4OMPAf 181-1 APIIROACH TO THI'. (3U 1 f_Di NGS AT T.1•iF' LND OF THC .)OCKE Y CIRCLE CUL_--DI" •. i 1 ATTACHMENT N"n. TO I PHONE t' : 37415443 I DEC. 6. 1996 2:43Pfi P 3 FROM : Zarin $ Fi5 c. , Inc. P. H N E qwlt1E NO. 714 2`b1 6988 I I I i SAC:, PROPER DRA1NAGC TO THL STREET , AND TO MINIMIZE: GRADING IHI F-U1..LOW1 NG PROPOSED SET BACKS. FOR LOT 18 WAS PROPOSED. FRONT SET--BACK FVt N IHOUGH A SE:T•,•BACK OF 29 FEET WAS APPROVED FUR LOT 19, A 5L. I BACK Of- 30 IFE:f- T WAS PROPOSED FOR LOT 18 . KL.Ak SET. bACK THL I• xl ST 1 G APPROVED SF T -BACK FOR LOT 18 WAS APPROVED TO bl- 'o FI 1 1 . HENC'E. , THL: PRUPUSLU SL1 bACK WAS MAINTAINFD . HOWFVF'.R 1III bU 1L.UI NG IS SET BACK A DI STANCE OF ABOUT 58 FEET. I SIUL SLI- BAI;KS i TIiI. SI ESUTL 1NG SCT-BACKS ARE. THE SAME' SET-BACKS APPROVED FOR THE. AUJAC.E.NT PROPERTIES. I 1-HI PROPUE 1=0 RESIDENCE- Si A CUSTOM ESTATE HOME FOR THk KIaNAVAkZT N FAMILY. SURR.OUNDFD BY EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWI L.IANGS. IFIF ARC.HITFCTUk.AL. SjTYI. F -: WAS TO BF COMPATIBLE WITH TIiF: AUJACLNI SL 1 LU I N(;S'. i IHt , PkUNU t_U KIESHAVARZIAN' S11 RESIDENCE ACCOMMOI)ATkS A SPACIOUS I• OTI•k, GRA 1) S.IAlk; CASE, LIVING ROOM, FAMILY ROOM, DEN, FOkMAI. DINING ROO 511' l1NG RUOM, I MC:QIA' ROOM, PERSIAN ROOM, S11AK0Al KIIANI 11 CN N- ALCUHOL BAR), F I VL DLDROOMS, GYM, UEN, SAUNA ROOM,AND 101hFCR .tI55tNTlAL. SPACLS.1 TNL ' SQUAkE FOOTAGE QF THIS RESIDf.N(:I ON IILI Fix T F- LOOki IS 32901 SQ, . FT . , 4100 SQ. FI . !ON THE SI-7COND F►.OUR, AND 24610 SQL. FT. IN THE .BASEMENT, i IN ADDI T 19N THIS RES I DENCL:, ACCOMMODATES TWO GARAGES FOR F 1 vL AUIUMOBILL" . IN ' ADDITION THRLi TO FOUR AUTOMOBILES CAN PARK ON 111L 0k 1 Vh• AY. LXCLP'IIUNAI. CIRCUMSTANCLS Olrl LUT 18 . 1 . TOPUG APt1Y' THIS I` U A S AT. THL T RA.NSI F'ION OF TWO LEVELS ONE. AT TFIC JOCKIF7 C 1.kCt.f AND THE; OTIir K DERBY CIRCLE . HENCE Jilt ORIGI iAL: DLV.LLOPLR PROP:OSLU TWO PADS, FOR A SMOUTIFIEK I RANS f;I UN tit_ TWt L-'N 1HE SE- TO FSTABL. 1 SHLU S I-RLET ELEVATIONS WITH t1T. MUC11 'THOUGHT G'j1VEN TO THE: DESIGN OF THE FUTUkL PROPO F O : BU TLOI NG. NLEI)L:LSS .T O MENTION THAT THE HEIGHT OF IHL. K -SIDE.NCF IS BASED ION THE: STREET t:LEVATION. HENC1=. THE CREAT I UN' OF THE m PADS WAS UNNE.CFSSARY . i HFkF OkF A PART t AL BASEMENT WAS PROPOSED IN fHE NEW nl- S FC;N TO NO MALIZE THE: GRAbF DIFFF.RFNTIAI., MINTMTZF GRAF)ING AND i . �a-a TO PHONE I 3741=4q DEC. 6, 19915 2:43PM P 4 FROM Zarin Hss-c. , Inc. i R! HE 140. 714 Zb-1 b9EE; ' I I I i i I AMU N•T OF r ILL, M1 N1MI ZE GRADE DIFFERENCE BFTWtE.N T•IIf' RE S 1�1)tNCL AND THt ' REAk YARD AND POOL, AND TO AVO t V AN EX1 'IRIOR STAIR CASE TO THE POOL, AND THE BACK YARD. 1 . MAS 1NG i I 1 HL. MASSING OF' THL , PROPOSED RESIDENCE WAS TO UNIFY TFit L x t 'I I NG SURROUNDING BUIl LD 1 NGS MASSES. HENCE THF.. ROOF Of 1 HL. SLLl NU F LUUK 15 COMPATUBI-C WITH THL SURROUNDING RLS IDFN( I. S. II0W .V1-k, 1'IIF. ONLY PU1; IU.N OF THE ROOF THAT FXTENDS BEYOND INF. MAX MUM HL-A GI I T ALLOWED :IS THE ROOF OVER THL FOYER l U PRov i m NA1 kAL LIGHT AND 1U ) MARK 1'HF ENTRY OF THE RESIDENCL Al Ttil' rND OF THE JOCKLY CIRCLE CUL-•DF-SAC . 1H1S RE UE.ST WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVII..FGC I NCONS 1 S TNT WITH NURMAL I L IM1 TA1 I ONS, DUE 10 THE F AC I ) HIS I•RodhL, I HAS Of EN DLSIGNED COMPATIBLE WITH THF: EXISTING DWf-.I.I_ INGS IHAT I1AV BttN CONSTR-UCTL[) SURROUNDING THIS PItUPERTY. rIIS RL UEST IS NECESSARY FOR PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENI OF IIkoPLRTY R IGH I C:ON5I STE=NT! W1 TH THL RIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTI :S APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION. • ; i I I HI GRANT I NG;,•UF T.H 15 RFQUC*ST W I LL NO 1 BF: . DETRIMENTAL 10 I Hl- PUHLIL W .LFARI ', ,r)U►` TO .'T.HC F`A0- THAT THE DESIGN OF THIS DWt:.I_I. ING IS LUNSISTI:NT W1.TW f t- A[)..IAC;E:NT RESIDENCES. THF GRANTING OF' 'flit G0NS'I kUCl I ON OF THF: L.l,pHT: WELL. ROOF IS TO 'PROVIDE AUE QUA'T1 I 161-111N6i IN .THE. I' NTRY AND INTERIOR HALLWAYS AND ARCHITE:CTUR/U_I Y I U DLF I NE AND ,ANCHOR THL OF-SIGN I HANK YUU . I' OR YOUR C'UNS 1DER� f I ON: I � �° AT T ACHME NT 13 .. ....... . V1k4F NT No dw f°p-4raspA •Di�susNb 1'xlsr �W.nu.wC� �s3 Ito d Ex�6T. gg�.G FT$: . T I 1 cfa� LCT@ Ca I. I. / EY,.Sirs Pwv. -- C tcT b 3a L'1�f 1 O Proposed residence for: KESHAVARZiAN`S ,;; 1`8 T 4 1 Jockey Cirde' ` 1 Huntington.Beach, Calif. 1-4 1-4•7.6 i 1 ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT SITING REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL OF RCA Department: Title G� Council MeetingDate: ` �� �q� ;> Date'of This Re n , est: , 11 REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?): 7n Ju .(O. 7 �Lr 146 J� L EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda? T 5 r W 2l e 6 / CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): e7 L S 6 6116 efD Signature: O Approved O Denied roved [I Denied Initials Required De artm nt ead Ra Silver Michael Uberua a <;>. . r' r Request for Late Submittal Requests for Council Action (RCA's) are due and considered late after the,City Administrator's deadline which is 5:00 P.M. Wednesday ten days prior to the Council meeting at which the item is to be heard. This deadline reflects the time needed prior to Agenda Review for Administration.staff and the,City Administrator to review all RCA's and their support material prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk for placement on the preliminary agenda. It also provides time for the City, Clerk's office to review the item and add proper wording for the item to the preliminary agenda for discussion at Agenda Review the following Monday. The Request for Late Submittal form provides a vehicle for RCA's to be submitted after the Wednesday, deadline when there are extenuating circumstances which delayed the item and when action on the item is necessary at the upcoming Council meeting. Late items can agendized only with signed authorization on the Request for Late Submittal form by the Assistant:City Administrator or the City Administrator. I RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-79Nariance No. 96-27 Appeal (Jockey Circle Residence) Continued from the July 21 , 1997 meeting) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 18, 1997 .. RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft.if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED: Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FO;R RETURN OF ITEM: Space . Only) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway,City Clerk Office of the City Clerk From Maybrice Henry Deputy City Clerk II The City Clerk's Office/City Administrator's Office Must Return Your Agenda Item Due To The Following Requiretnents That Have Not Been Met When Your Agenda Item Is Ready To Resubmit,Please Return to: Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant, City.Administrator's Office 1 Signature(s)Needed A On RCA B On Agreement C Other 2 Attachments A Missing B Not identified C Other CQduti rt��`-w &,e ,� —Do XoLj _x e9 3 Exhibits A Missing B Not identified C Other 4 Insurance Certificate(Proof Of Insurance) A Not attached B Not approved by City Attornpy,'s Office C Signed form notifying City Clerk that the department will be responsible for obtaining the insurance certificate on this item(See form attached) 5 Wording On Request For Council Action(RCA)Unclear A Recommended Action on RCA not complete B Clarification needed on RCA C Other 6 City Attorney Approval Required 7 Agreement Needs To Be Changed A Page No. Pa,,L - J�ocv mx faa5 ' . s yl - G a W C<f- ,o f /S , S y r Cl PO'-s h o T G:agenda/misc/rcafcrm 4�e me /es?- o7C I , �CJ•,.�rGyt�tP-O .�O�[4 �O -eiaF ,7'ce,G/ 6., s, / /3 /n 4F' �,4 fi w /s `iu l— . /�PcPtvE/) i f G�..l� �,pPP_�r �1tc CLJcvlryr4,f� 1S Un /S /0's RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Water Master Plan Implementation Project - Leak Detection COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 18, 1997 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION F.OR:MISSING ATTACHMENTS= REVIEWED s ' RETURNED. FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) City Clerk ( ) . .... :EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM „ (Below • . For Only) DSS: , phone extension 5078