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 - Upheld PC - Tentative Parcel Map No 90-338
;,"Iff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 6, 1991 Gerhard and Eileen Schultz 18882 Sunnyview Circle Yorba Linda, CA 92686 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schultz: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, December 2, 1991 denied your appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338 and Conditional Exception No. 91-3. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of California you have ninety days from December 6, 1991, to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at 536-5227. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me CC: City Attorney Community DevelopmenfDiredtor v 1051K (Telephone:714-536-5227) 1.4'2 1.7 1 1411---1.7 2'92 J a c:k. L. Fi e j.n h o I t z Rot-er-t C & K e I I X El a v:1.1_5 black- Jenkins 1.6502 E*.lt-e Cir- .1.651.2 Ube C i r-- 1.B 41. S S a n Gat-r--i.el L'tiv,::l Fk.intin-3tn Itch, CA 92647 1-1 u n ti n-j. t c)n Beach. CA 92647 San Gabrdel , CA 91.776 1.42---1.721 0:3 1.4A':'---1.72---0 4 David 0 Sanc-loval Lawr.ence R Gar-ten 792.2 Rhine EIr-- 791.2 Rhine Cir- 114'Adlll�49,j4ddl !?2v1y,7 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 921647 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 1.4 2---1.7 12'-0 5 3.42-1.7 2:.--06 1.42 1.7L:--0 7 Steven R Talcott La Dema M Pear-ma j.n Donalc-I 11 Chamt,er-s 7902' Rhine fir-- 7692 Rhine Dr- 7882:' Rhine Dr*- &ntinjton Beach, CA 92647 I'lUntington Beach. CA Y'A*:6 4 7 1--h..intington Beach, CA 926 4 7 1.492----1.7'A:'---0 G 1.42--l.7:.-.:...0 Flelen N Allen Flowar-d L Abel Orange County F1ooc-1contr-ol Dis 7872' F-J-pine fir- 5:3'; E'. F'ir-st St P 0 Dox 1.91.9 11t..intington Beach, CA 922647 Tustin CA 92600 Detr-ait,mi. 4 0 X..x--Y, L a b e 1 s; F'r-j.n t e,.-I x x x If (///17)f 6ar/ayvl zv lfck)4 zavy ,f-7 ,0c,/ 2� X NVIR Iq R, 142,1103-24 J44nm s 0.. Ettinger • • f 794,- Alhambra ' Huntington Beach CA 92648 107-401-04 Twin Leaves Develop. Corp. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 600 Newport Center Dr. #50 Newport Beach CA 92660 144-171-26 Jeannine L. Devine 7901 Rhine Drive Huntington •Beach CA 92647 142-173=01 Itoward .L. Abel `r-Chrysl,er Realty Corp. Tax Dept. CIMS 416-16-06 P.O. Box 1919 }42017d3001 towar L. Abel %Chrysler Realtyy Corp. P6. 98x'151�5 "416-1n-05 Detroit, WI 4826a 42-173-02 range CounRt 11`tl ogd -Con.Di s. Chr�aU.U�bx�l��`iS Detroit, MI -48288 Yolanda Gienau 16-33 Avenida Oceans Oceanside, CA 92066 142-103-23 James 0. Ettinger 794� Alhambra Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1.0,---4 01.....0 4 1 4,'._.1 0 2--.. b 1.4 ----1.0 4'....2 7 F;1_irt:i s Fk,a x San-.1h :;ff T i..iyoc-shi ° Izumi. 0V,ara Dorris I_. Itri..it.c:ik. P O Bo;: 1.`'�:-:i. 26:=:9 S Bentley 405: I...ar•wi.n Ave Gai Ic.m Grove, CA 92640 Las Angeles, CA 90064 Cypress, CA 006 :0 14 2.-•1.0 2....4 1.4 -•1.0 2-.4:_: 1.4 --1.0 •--4 6F•-•F:rl west. Ronald C ° Sonia Vial I Chin -•jone Chang . i'1. A1t�atnit�ra Ave 7£371. Alhambra Ave F' U BoxEs4�':: Huntingtn Itch, CA 922E,47 I-luntin_jton Beach, CA 9A647 Fountain Valley, CA 9'A'.708 1.4."---1.02 -47 1.42-•1.0 2 46 1.4:2-•1.02'-• 0 Floward I_- Abel 1-1owar::I I... Abel Ku jit S 4 Gunna, 11«1-1a 640 V:i.ak I_.i.do Nor•--1 640 Via Lido Nord 7971. Birchwood Ci.r. Newport Beach, CA 9266:--: Newport. Leach, .CA 92663 L.a Palma, CA 906 1. 2'---1.0 2-5 1. 1.4 2--1.0::-0 9 14 2-.1 Q:^;....1.c. W nson K l:hi..i Kent lylarti.n D un Tien hlg uyen F' 0 Box E 9::::4 1.7751. Etaxter• 1.0:-:`;ii. Cir-c ul o Ile Zap-ata Dear.h, CA 92646 F1untin3ton Deach, f::A t;'.:'f.,49 Fountai.n V<xl l ey, CA 9 708 1.42- 1.0::- i.7 1.42 i!lhc:;r Je F:c;c;1:: James William Brown City Of 1-1,_snti.n--Jt.Qn Eteac:h 47 ::_: Dor•c.1-fester =:1;'. 1.2th fit. City Hal Corona Del h1ar, C:A 92625 FluntinUton Beach, CA 9�E,4£T I•luntinUton Beach, CA 92648 1. 4 .....1.0:_; 1.9 1.4 1.0:--:-•- 0 1.4 2--1.0: Jo sc:j-,h C Etartolone fr't: bert. Jame=s Warner- •T'ruat E"tti.n3er .9::::4 Fl i.c ker Ave 7882 Alhambra Ave 7942 Alhambra F•ol-m-Lain Valley, CA 92708 F•lunt i.n jton Beach, C:A 92647 Huntin-gton Beach CA 92640 J42 -/03 2¢ 144---1.0:-: -26 a Z-L � Yolanda f:•;i.e n a u a 7-V47Zj10,07mdtV $ 1.f�:_3 Avenida 7 ,� ��7I/ 1QQ Sja a�h.�9 7Z67p ,...E,�tf3 Uc_E��ns�. ..le, CA 920!b f/,/I�/7 /6d �j�lC`J/�A .9Zrof�/� �'1.706 s f}•p�F�,FG 17 4 z 7932 C4/ �� �%� � _ 7i� ��✓�c/ ire f Ala�� �C'Cea_.� - flu•�Cai� ��r�,� �ir p /Yl Gin ✓'�Ydl� /l f:e���� /'l�� a�j�/rr f zG`i�i�r OJ7//YI///D jY///�� � C✓O / GJ��p1 �,� o// r��a�`�.�uur�� '6�/ Gri/�/�4 _lea all, �"ef�"l�6/f mil' 1,17 �Z-4 _ i �•+• .�i�'�/ �#�a-fie: �a ,7 zam�tlmcr.. .• �. •. -�. '•as P-588 870 070 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) .m Sent to 4� Gerhard & Eileen Schultz Lo Street and No. 0 18882 Sunnyview Cir. o: P.O..State and ZIP Code c? Yorba Linda CA 2686 y Postage S Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered rn w Return Receipt showing to whom. Date,and Address of Delivery rV j TOTAL Postage and Fees S - Postmark or Date E 0 LL to a. r- , § 1094.5 SPECIAI. PROCEEDINGS' Part 3 Note 370 f n.amh•d for n.•tv trial de nit,.. l'remcutl c, mined romn l iotter hn(l uu juriNalietimt t'olifornin 1'ut•utldoynu•ut Ittm, .\ppenit, Itd. and dial not illli-rntiue owrits, \\'extern Air (1976) 127 .('nl.rlp1r, GHt, 57 l'..\.ad 'l!). Lines lnr. v. Sobieski (11101) 19 Cal.ltptr. Trial court's judgotcut d,ti%iug writ of 719, 1!)1 t'•:\:a13!)!1• ntrttnbtte. to compel director of ngricultnro !Fact that letter discharging senior typ- to set nside him derision revoking pethinn- Ist clerk in office of count% clerk Ntnted er's license its aircraft pilol in hominess t.f Ihot she was guilty of utisronduct in re- pest cunt rot wens revs, med and vnse re utoviug public records trout rho files and ntnnded to trial court w•illi dirvefiomm to inntihtting and set•reling thein on various remand vuse to director for purpose of dutes, 'wherens in licuring before county 1 reconsidering the penalty previously int- elvil mervive commission evidence wait in- posed, where it was found rhnt some of troduced only nit to whit took place on tlw charges ngainst. petitioner worn not one of the dates• did not require the dix- supported by evidence. Wingfield v. t riot court of nitpeal on npliviil from judg- Director of Agriculture (1072) ltti Cal. ntent atcurdiug senior typi,,t clerk writ of Rptr.619,29 C.A.3d 200. mandate, nftee reversing the judgmeut of l'rocesdittg for revlew of dcuinl by ram- the superior court, to rentnnd the matter misaloner of rorponttiona of porvnit to to the Cotnntimmlet► for rt-otisideration, change voting rights of sluternliteto where. there w•us a similarit% of facts sur- would be rrtnnnded to superior court fur rounding removal of the dttcumenla on all dcterminnrion whether there ua>a suh5ti:in- of the dries. l'rxtt v. Log .\ngeles Coun- tial evidence to support cononissioner's ty Civil servie i Commisaiou (1952) 238 fiudings, where court improperly deter- P.2d'3.108 C.A2d 11.1. 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and Marty defined; or- dinance; or msolution (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 arty commission, board, officer or agent th:. reef, 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 °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, chatter, 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- tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- arit to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The complete rt't-ord of file proceedings shall lx' prepared by tau lor:tl ogenc;y or its romnliti�:iotl, hoard, offivel" or .)graft which !made the decision and sharp he delivered to the petitioner within 90 tiays Itfler he has filed a written recjucst (11crefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- Script of tht: proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the filial decision, all admitted 674 t Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 194.6 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) If the petitioner files a request for the record as Specified in stihtiivision ((-) within 10 nays after nit, (late the decision becomes fi- ned as provided in subdivision (b), the (idle within which a petilion Pursuant to Section 109-1.5 may he filed shall 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 t 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.197G, c.276,p.581, § 1.) Forms See %Pest'" Valiforuin Code Forms, Civil Procedure. Library References Administrntivc Law loud Proeedure C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and CC�7'.i2. Procedure Notes of Decisions In general I that public employment relutiona board Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 had exelo-ivb JuriNdiction to determine whether the unfair pructice charge" were Jnatified; nod, in view of teaclnerN' failure to exhauxt their ndminiatrative remediem I. In general under the Itrnhln Ael. trial court erred in Nehool bourd'N "unilnlerul freezing; of granting; writ of mundute to compel milsor- IenoJse,r.s' Nnlariev after beginning of new iulmnlent of distriel and other" lo'ruiye Nehool year, while 4-wilrnet uegotialianv Nnlari,•s or eertnih teachers. Alnndor Val- were peudiug, nrgguai-iy was an unfair Ie} tereatery Eiluentors ANv'u %. Xrwlin pruetice ill violutiou of tin, Hoddu Aet No (19701 IG1 Cul.Isptr. 724, S$ C.A.3d 25-1. 675 "STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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 entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, p ji-itt d ai nJ Nuuitsi ed in� the City Of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and _ complete copy as was printed and published in PUBLIC'NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICES ):pUB(W*T_ICES the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley NOTICE OF. Family Residentlal Huntington Beach City� PUBLIC NEARING Floodplaln) Clerk REQUEST: TPM No. j issues of said newspaper to wit the issue TENTATIVE s) of: PARCEL MAP 338-To permit the subd 90ivi- Published Huntington j sion of one (1) parcel into Beach Independent No- .338/ two(2)parcels. vember 14,1991 November 14 , 1991 CONDITNDITIONAL CE No. 91-3-To permit a 112-889 EXCEPTION reduction In the minimum _ (VARIANCE) required lot width from 45 NO•,9Y•3/ feet to 39 feet,.to permit a NEGATIVE reduction,In the minimum DECLARATION net lot area from 6,0001 1-10 square feet to 5,680 square (To permlt9he subdlvl, feet,and to permit a reduc-� lion in the minimum exte-I slon_of one.(.1) lot Into rior side yard setback from, fivw(2) lots' wlth,f,re ien(10)feet to zero(0)feet: duced lot"frontage re- for Parcel 1.Access to Par- duced lot area and re-cal 2 will be provided by a duced exterior side private easement across yard setback.) Parcel 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY ENVIRONMENTAL STA- GIVEN that the Huntington NUS: Negative Declaration] Beach t Council will No. 91-10 is being with thi-I Y rered equeconcurrently with thin hold'a public hearing in"the request. Council Chamber at the COASTAL STATUS: Noll Huntington Beach Civic applicable: center, 2000 Main Street; ON 'FILE: A Copy of the! Huntington Beach, Califor- nia, proposed request Is on file, on the date and at the in the City Clerk's Office,] time indicated below to re- 2000 Main Street, Hunting-i ceive and consider the ton Beach, Callfornlal statements of all persons 92648, for Inspection byl who'wish to be heard rela-the public.A copy of thel I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the tive to the application de- staffreport will bwavallablel scribed below. foregoing is trap and CORECt. DATE/TIME: Monday, De to interested parties at CityiHall or the Main City U cember 2,1991,7:00 PM I brary (7111 Talbert Av- OPPLICATION NUMBER: anus) after November 27, N o v e m b.e r 14 r 1 a Tentative: Parcel Map No. 1991. Executed on , �99 90-338/Conditional Excep- 'ALL INTERESTED PER tion (Variance) No.;,;91-3/ SONS are invited to attend at Costa Mesa, California. Negatve Declaration No. said hearing"and express 911 91.1p opinions or submit evi-' APPLICANT: Gerhard and . dance'for or :against the. �Fe� Eileen Schultz ap'plication as outlined; LOCATION: 7932 Rhine above If,there are any fur- Circle (South_ sld of.Hell.ther questions please call, SI nature Avenue approxiinatel 160 Michael 'C'onnor As lstant 9 Vaetd)west of,Beach Boule- Planner at 536;5271. ' ZONE: RI-FP2 .(Single Connle,. Brockway,' �� ) 3 PROOF OF PUBLICATION ' NOTICE. OF PUBLIC HEARING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-338/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-10 (To permit the subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) lots with reduced lot frontage, reduced lot area and reduced exterior side yard setback. ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, December 2, 1991, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338/Conditional Exception (Variance} No. 91-3/Negative Declaration No. 91-10 APPLICANT: Gerhard and Eileen Schultz LOCATION: 7932 Rhine Circle (South side of Heil Avenue approximately 160 feet west of Beach Boulevard) ZONE: R1-FP2 (Sing-le Family Residential-Floodpl-ain). REOUEST: TPM No. 90-338 - To permit the subd-ivision of one (1) parcel into two (2) parcels. CE No. 91-3 - To permit a reduction in the minimum required lot width from 45• feet to 39= feet, to permit a reduction in- the minimum net lot area from 6, 000 square feet to 5, 680 square feet, and to permit a reduction in the minimum exterior s-ide yard setback from ten (10)- feet to zero (0) feet . for Parcel 1. Access to Parcel 2 will be provided by a private easement across Parcel 1. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 9.1-10• is being considered concurrently with th-is. request . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable 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 City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after November 27, 1991. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Michael Connor, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (1417d) . • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN• TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-338/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-10 (To permit the subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2) lots with reduced lot frontage, reduced lot area and reduced exterior side yard setback. ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, December 2, 1991, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338/Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-3/Negative Declaration No. 91-10 APPLICANT: Gerhard and Eileen Schultz LOCATION: 7932 Rhine Circle (South side of Heil Avenue approximately 160 feet west of Beach Boulevard) BONE: Rl-FP2 (Single Family Residential-Floodplain) REQUEST: TPM No. 90-338 - To permit the subdivision of one (1) parcel into two (2) parcels . CE No. 91-3 - To permit a reduction in the minimum required lot width from 45 feet to 39 feet, to permit a reduction in the minimum net lot area from 6, 000 square feet to 5, 680 square feet, and to permit a reduction in the minimum exterior side yard setback from ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet for Parcel 1. Access to Parcel 2 will be provided by a private easement across Parcel 1. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 91-10 is being considered concurrently with this request. COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable 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 City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after November 27, 1991. COVER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Michael Connor, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (1417d) P CASH RECEIPT H C17Y OF hUNTINC;TON IWACh P.O.BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92W (714)5383200 HUNTINGTON BEACH .,CITY TREASURER—DONALD L WATSON DATE ISSUING DEPT. RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS FOR �� Q LEASH = $ U 1 A 420UUMI3 RECEIVED- F RECEIVED BY REVENUE 5 -TFtn 'FUND- aACCOUNf. DEPTw.:z DFV4'=V AMOUNEi-:�.�imjf,,a -ExPENs FINANCE APPROVAL INMAL TOTAL $ AMOUNT RECEIVED 3L4U/7 18AL►Vi 'U'Vi. iv 3L'_L�.V4 `:Iiiii':► v: .ir. _j 599395 ISSUING DEPARTME? I iPMi N .� 7 V yt, � 29 AUG mti T 'u"N."""'M3?"�,r,a;;��+uy�,,,�-X...i...:,,..,.,h..:�1vr;..v�.ww�eao•:+Ctr r. .. Connie Brockway,Cit y y Clerk • City of Huntington Beach ;���""""""""��^'��--•...�.,,,,,,� � • • •• Office of the City Clerk PRESORT ?�f ru,y ' BOX P.O. 190 d: O R!T 1: ��,,,yy�� �_•. Hu �oSrac,F. Huntington Beach, CA 921i48 ���,�� ��A�� IWAIL `r NOV 14 51 = 14 r� 1 ` F 701ER2 c' n 1!� ......!{ REr ,:, i 7,�,....p_ �NTINGT pF vi.�► (.) SEnDER .:.... Rhine? fir.. s�40 h� `NcopvaR��'o _ = �� EpR n t i n ton J:q*?G�C V, -o s WgRo , ( (a �r 6 4 7 Qpk ----- ._ y� • 9y ��.E� ` r: � -fir ... N TY CP`�� NO LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING i • REQUE0 FOR CITY COUNCIPACTION December 2, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrate Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-338 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-10 IS BEING CONSIDERED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS REQUEST. Consistent with Council Policy? K Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Gerhard Schultz of the Planning Commission' s denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338 .and Conditional Exception No. 91-3 . The subject property is located on the south side of Heil Avenue approximately 160 feet west of Beach Boulevard. The applicant/ appellant is requesting to subdivide one (1) parcel into two (2) parcels for the purpose of constructing one (1) additional single family residence. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve the appeal and approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-3 and Negative Declaration No . 91-10 subject to the findings and conditions of approval outlined in the Staff Report dated August 20, 1991" . Planning Commission Action on August 20, 1991 ON MOTION BY LEIPZIG SECOND BY RICHARDSON, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-10 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Detloff, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion to Approve Passed V. P10 5/85 ON MOTION BY LEIPZIG SECOND BY RICHARDSON, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO DENY TENTATIVE PARCEL -MAP NO. 90-338 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Detloff, Bourguignon NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion to Deny Passed ANALYSIS: Tentative Parcel Map No . 90-338 is a request to subdivide one (1) 14 , 300 square foot lot into two (2) smaller parcels . Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-3 would reduce the minimum lot frontage, lot area and exterior side yard setbacks for Parcel 1 and allow Parcel 2 to take access from an easement across Parcel 1 . Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 were subdivided by deed in 1960, and are currently under separate ownership. Lot Location and Description The property is bordered by Heil Avenue on the north, a flood control channel to the south and east and Rhine Circle to the west . Surrounding uses include the Huntington Beach Dodge automobile dealership across the flood control channel , apartments across Heil Avenue and Single Family Residences to the west and southwest (see attached diagram) j�Pa.RTMF�'r� H EI L AVE. RHINE ciR P 1• Pz R 51 r> �0 J Q m Each of the three (3) variance requests is directly related to the proposed vehicular access easement across Parcel 1 to Parcel 2 . Parcel 1 will no longer meet minimum lot frontage, minimum lot area, and minimum exterior side yard setback requirements as a result of locating the easement along the north property line of the parcel. RCA 12/2/91 -2- (1428d) History The subject property was originally created as Lot 1 of Tract 3622 in 1960 . With 14, 538 square feet, Lot 1 greatly exceeded the minimum 45 feet of frontage and 6,000 square feet of lot area. Subsequent to the creation of the lot, it was subdivided by deed in 1960 . Mr. Shultz, the current owner of parcel 2, acquired the property in 1976 at a tax auction and later that same year he submitted a tentative parcel map application to make the parcel a legal building site. He proposed to subdivide the property and take access directly onto Heil Avenue. This request was denied. The property depicted as Parcel 2 has remained vacant since 1960 . Parcel 2 was at one time analyzed for use by the City for a water well, however it was not selected because of its access problem. Problems and Code Deficiencies The proposed parcel map would make Parcel 2 a legal building site and would enable the property owner to build one (1) single family residence on the property. Access to Parcel 2 is a primary concern relating to the proposed subdivision. All access rights to Heil Avenue were dedicated to the City when Tr•-act 3622 was approved•, therefore, access can only be provided in one of two ways: 1)_ Provide an access .easement across Parcel l. to Parcel 2; or 2) The City Council must relinquish vehicular access.- rights to Heil A-venue. The easement across Parcel 1, although the favorable of .the two (2) options, results in three (3) code deficiencies; reduced lot frontage from 45 feet to 34 feet, •r-educed lot area from 6, 000 square feet to 5, 680 square feet and reduced exterior side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for Lot 1. The unusual lot configuration and location provide the necessary hardship for the variance request; however, the easement is located in a precarious location on Parcel 1 because it runs between a public sidewalk and a single family residence. At its narrowest point, the corner of the house is slightly more than ten (10) feet from the public sidewalk, leaving no room for driver error on either side. In addition, the existing house has an eave that projects approximately 12 to 18 inches into the easement which presents a problem with overhead clearance for vehicles . The overhead clearance would be approximately eight (8) feet at the west end of the house. Lastly, there is a grade difference between the public sidewalk and the existing house of approximately two and one half (2-1/2) feet; therefore, a retaining wall must be constructed along the sidewalk, or adjacent to the house, or both i-n order to provide a level driving surface. RCA 12/2/91 -3- (1428d) Fire access to Parcel 2 would be provided -by pa-rking vehicles on Rhine Circle and accessing the lot on foot, by way of the easement. . In addition, the Fire Department will be requiring that any proposed structures be provided with sprinklers . The only other option to allow access to Parcel 2 would be for the City Council to relinquish vehicular access rights to Heil Avenue. This would require an additional public hearing in order to properly post and notify the request to relinquish the access rights . Staff does not recommend this alternative for several reasons . Two (2) access points with an on-site loop driveway would be required so that cars could drive forward in and forward out of the parcel . Residents of the house would be restricted to right turn in and right turn out in order to ensure a safe flow of traffic on Heil Avenue. The property is in close proximity to the Beach Boulevard intersection. Heil Avenue is a secondary arterial, and the access points would prohibit the construction of a block wall along the north property line at the driveway locations, thereby, increasing the noise levels on the property near or above the maximum permitted for a residence. Alternatives Staff, in- reviewing the .proposed subdivision has identified a few alternatives for the property. The following is a list with some of the issues,- involved- with each alternative: A. One (1) poss. ble- alternative would be to demolish the existing residence -and. to construct two (2) new Sing-le Family Residences that take access off a .single -easement on Rhine Circle. This would allow- the property to be .designed to allow for a safer easement to Parcel 2 . The drawback is -that there are currently two (2) property owners and although the owner of Parcel 1 has ag-reed. to allow ,.the•,.easement--they -do not _wish to -demolish the existing structure. B. Another possible alternative would be to construct a bridge over or to enclose the flood channel which would connect the parcel to the car dealership on Beach Boulevard. This, however, would require a General Plan ,Amendment, a Zone Change and environmental assessment. In addition, the dealership has not expressed an interest to do so due to the costs involved. C. The simplest option would be to merge the two (2) parcels back into one as it was originally approved, however, the properties are under separate ownership and the merger would provide little or no benefit to the property owner of parcel 1. D. Permit the subdivision with access directly onto Heil Avenue for Parcel 2. The advantages and disadvantages have already been discussed. RCA 12/2/91 -4- (1428d) Planning Commission Meeting At their meeting of August 20, 1991 the Planning. Commission denied the applicant ' s request based upon the tight physical constraints of the existing residence, the public sidewalk and the difference in grade. The Planning Commission felt that the easement would -not be safe for vehicles to travel on because a car traveling on the easement might either run into the existing house or "jump the curb" and cross onto the sidewalk _and/or the street. Appeal Letter In his appeal letter dated August 27, 1.991, Mr. Schultz raised five (5) concerns regarding why he felt that the map should be approved. The following is a list of these concerns followed by a staff response. Concern No. 1: The reduction in lot width from 45 feet to 34 feet does not affect the habitability of the house on Parcel 1. Response: staff Concurs. Concern No. 2 : The reduction in net lot area from 6, 000 square feet to 5, 680 square feet i-n no way impairs the use of the back yard on parcel 1. Response: The easement will still allow for a rear yard on- parcel l which meets the minimum open-- space requirements . Staff concurs . Conce;rn- No. 3 The reduction; in..minimum side yard setback will have no impact upon- the exi-sting -residence on parcel 1 because it has .not been used..by the occupants due to the existing .slope and its location. .Response: The intent of the -exterior sideyard setback, which is to provide a greater setback for exterior lots, will still be met because the existing structure will not be moved. The side yard area is unusable as it currently exists. Concern No. 4 : Although the parcel will not have direct vehicular access to a street, the easement would create a "flag lot" which is a viable alternative. Response: Staff concurs. Concern No. 5 : The easement is similar to a frontage road and will be no more dangerous than the fast moving traffic on Heil Avenue. Response: The easement will be required to provide safety measures to reduce the risk of vehicles crossing .onto the sidewalk. In addition to the concerns raised in the letter, Mr. Shultz states that he would prefer direct access to Heil Avenue and respectfully requests that the City Council consider this option. RCA 12/2/91 -5- (1428d) Summary In summary, staff believes the proposed subdivision with an easement across Parcel 1 for access to Parcel 2 provides the most viable strategy fox near-term use of -Parcel 2. The other alternatives, because of ownership or access problems, would deny the applicant the ability to use the property at this time. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Deny the appeal and deny Tentative Parcel Map 90-338, Conditional Exception 91-2 and Negative Declaration 91-10 with findings . 2 . Continue Tentative Parcel Map 90-338, Conditional Exception 91-3 and Negative Declaration 9-1-10 to allow time for proper advertising in order .to _re-linquish vehicular access rights to Heil Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal letter from Gary Schu-ltz dated August 27, 1991 2 . Tentative Parcel Map 90-338 3 . Negative Declaration 91-10 4 . P-lanning Commission• Staff Report dated August 20, 19.91 5 . Planning Commission Minutes of -August 20, 1991 6 . Section Drawings of Easement 7. Alternative Findings for -Denial MTU:-MA:-MJC: 1 p RCA 12/2/91 -6- (1428d) 27,M� 9 Z, �.�s��o�i6.l� so,�v�io� �uas �rv6mih��d C�l r1n,� c%de c✓ o�ccess' o✓er 7�.3z ,�Lii�P le, )IIal7l"d �T �7/J' �b.eA/1_% 7174--l4tI) doOn17 OOMe-(311017- ,�ie�/pan re�U.e%'�li�✓' � Cf� C'diral�iv�q/ 1jhh W10il A2?;e77-vle�, le 34 7 �r it7a�V-�4()ly v/ A Olae-r /70/6�Cl �6J /�.�.f9r.G� o�'�GBa he MI. All d//j 170 G�/y /�� �rn����ca� ,plc, -7o-' /-s ✓���r �r r�r.�/y u�eo/ �f 7992 ,whin e �r ✓r/o .�D✓rec�fU�cv�r Gce�.rs � Z�..r /s �. /0 ;�P17 11111W /2W 12117 �✓, ��r,C�✓ti 9��r� CI 6vJ C1Jy� Ae/y Al �z /ff, e/.�/° /n G'd// X Vrl�fiD/�, E�'CEE¢s ✓/Iel7✓rnin7dh� �i7Tc�F �� a�0' Oj/(l��iAf S/le /71,0? J7/1/!I Ad �r &/i�Of �ZGf 6911 r�aar�.r��f� off ��JI/a%�a �aO� ova' r ��unr✓io� dYWe771ff1ZW �704 ,�7d-1 /77�f O�e�sr �ir .71e -4rlver,��i� 112 1:? Al 7Jv Coy �/,fia�r�/ :/,.I���,�on✓ o6GU.� T1i.P �4..nJ r.�apo�f �✓'%779- 0�77 TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP NO, 90-338 8�a t?iva. BEING A!SUBDIVISION OF LOT I OF TRACT 3622 Z e k COR-SEC Z3 CQUH7Y�0.E: CALI.Fo,4NIA "- RICN/IR.D L.ADAMS PLS 4148 _. _.... .. MA RCN....19.91.. BASIS OF BEARfN65= \ TRhCT 3622 M6 129-$O - of / yi7 �o NOTG O` r - SP0.1uRV'G. lrarEh \vi O 2 - RCYVIRED By FirtG OF Pr_ - \y m i c rf A \. `J O �1 vv11 \ 50 �D P N 05 D Il0. I le I ut I 40' S o L.• �nRIEL 1 i�+ri \; •l•/CHARD i fARo<C./A{1/S . //:/Nl/•�fjTON Sf R N r4".- RAID- .4 D_ Pr. (j ER.7ARD!E/LEE//5C//!/L TZ F r✓csrv�✓�srEF,e"4-. n/iarE J)N. (7/9� ��7.3659 N O N NTG. PD. SET !PR t V pet "pgRfE< 1 5695 .sk. FT' I �� ).ARfEL .Z 7568 Sq. FT. e.P L+� 10'�:ASF/J6Nl- I o+4 SO. FT, ,;. LOT• I =f4 307 54.FT_ - �r ' .. - TN.Ii'lES LAA•L- • _O 4 NT 6.PD. SET JlK�✓lYX c sEJ _ •' - `nf'��'"j$�j � t L f 4 Y CITY OF HUNTINGTON - BEACH ' ..INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION :`: HUNTINGTON BEACH Mike Connor, ' :'Julie. ugi, To Assistant Planner From PlannRfg Aide Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Date April 24, 1991 FORM NO. 91-10` Applicant: Gerhard and Eileen Schultz Request: To subdivide approximately 14,307 square feet into two lots for the purpose of creating 2 single family residential lots. The applicant is also requesting variances to permit a zero foot exterior side yard setback and to permit reduction in minimum lot frontage and lot size requirements. Location: 7932 Rhine Circle Backjzround Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the project. In view of this, a draft negative declaration was prepared and was published in the Daily Pilot for a twenty—one (21) day public review period commencing Monday, April 29, 1991 and ending Monday, May 20, 1991. If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 91-10 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. JO:ss (9454d-1) A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission for their consideration. The Draft Negative Declaration will be available for public review and comment for twenty-one (21) days commencing Monday, April 29, 1991. Draft Negative Declaration No. 91-10 in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338 and Conditional Exception No. 91-3 is a request to subdivide approximately 14,307 square feet into two lots for the purpose of creating 2 single family residential lots. The applicant is also requesting variances to permit a zero foot exterior side yard setback and to permit reduction in minimum lot frontage and lot size requirements. The proposed project site is located at 7932 Rhine Circle (southwest corner of Heil Avenue and Beach Boulevard, west side of the flood control channel). A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Any person wishing to comment on the request may do so in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this'notice by providing written comments to the Department of Community Development, Planning Division, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. (9456d-2) i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 91-10 1 . Name of Proponent Gerhard and Eileen Schultz Address 13342 Cedar Street Westminster. CA 92683 Phone Number (714) 897-3659 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review April 24, 1991 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s) Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338 and Conditional Exception No. 91-3. 4. Project Location 7932 Rhine Circle 5. Project Description --Reguest to subdivide approximately 14,307 square feet into two lots for the purpose of creating 2 single family residential lots. The applicant is also requesting variances to Permit a zero foot exterior side yard setback and to permit reduction in minimum lot frontage and lot size requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.) Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X Discussion: Some disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of soil is associated with development of the proposed project site. However, through implementation of standard conditions of approval which require submittal of a soils study and implementation of specifications contained therein, no significant impacts to earth conditions are anticipated to result from the proposed project. Yes Mavbe NQ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? '-"` .;` X Discussion: The proposed project site is located within zone AD D3 of the floodplain. Pursuant to federal . flood insurance requirements, development of the site will be required'to be.elevated approximately 3 feet above the existing sidewalk. The site is currently approximately 1-2 feet above. the sidewalk and will not require a substantial amount of additional elevation. However, standard conditions of approval require that the applicant submit evidence that elevation of the site will not negatively impact drainage on to adjacent properties. No significant impact is anticipated. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X Discussion: The project site is primarily flat and does not contain any unique physical features. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X _ Discussion: The proposed project may result in short-term wind erosion impacts during the site preparation and construction phases. However, with implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring dust control measures, no significant impact is anticipated. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ X Discussion: The project is not located in the vicinity of the Alquist—Priolo Special Hazard Zone or any other known fault hazard; however, the site is located in an area of potential expansive soils as identified in the City's 1974 Geotechnical Inputs report. Through implementation of standard conditions of approval which require submittal of soils reports and implementation of measures contained therein, no significant impacts are anticipated. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ X Discussion: Air emissions generated by construction and operation of one single family home are not considered substantial . No significant impact is anticipated. b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X Discussion: No objectionable odors will be generated by the project. C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X Discussion: The project will result in overcovering of the existing vacant site with impervious surfaces and will reduce absorption and increase runoff from the site. However, the department of Public Works has indicated that proposed drainage for the site can be adequately accommodated by existing drainage systems. No significant impact is anticipated. Environmental Checklist —2— (9369d) r � 1 a i - -- Yes Maybe �. _ y r c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Discussion: The proposed project site is located within the floodplain and will be..requi red.to lie elevated above projected flood levels which may potentially alter flood flows in the project area. Hoviever Federal Flood insurance requirements require that new development submit hydrology studies to verify the the development will not impact flood flows and drainage onto adjacent properties. No significant impact is anticipated. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — _ X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — — X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — — X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — _ X Discussion: Water usage of one new single family home is not considered substantial . i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X Discussion: The proposed project is located within flood zone AD 03 of the 100 year floodplain. However, development of the site will be required to be elevated above projected flood levels. No significant adverse impacts to occupants. of the site are anticipated. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ — X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? — _ X d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? — _ X Discussion: The site is currently covered by grasses and does not contain any mature trees or unique plant species. No significant impact is anticipated. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? — _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? — _ X Environmental Checklist —3— (9369d)( f `� yel d. Deterioration .to existing fish or wildlife habitat? -.. _ X Discussion: The site does not appear to support any unique animal species. .No significant impacts to animals are anticipated. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X Discussion: The equipment associated with construction of the proposed project will generate short-term increases in noise during the site preparation and construction phases. However, impacts resulting from construction equipment can be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of standard conditions of approval , limiting the hours of construction activities and compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X _ Discussion: The proposed project site is adjacent to an arterial (Heil Avenue) and may expose future occupants to high levels of noise. However, development of the site will be required to provide evidence of compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance which requires that residences maintain an interior noise level which do not exceed 45dBa. No significant impacts are anticipated. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ X Discussion: The proposed project will result in new light and glare in the project vicinity. However, the project area is predominantly developed and the light and glare contribution of the project is considered - negligible. No significant impact is anticipated. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Discussion: The project complies with the existing General Plan and substantially complies with the zoning requirements for the site with the exception to lot width, lot size and setback which are not considered significant deviations of use. 9. Natural Resources._ Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed project will increase use of natural resources compared to usage generated by the existing vacant site. However, resource usage generated by one single family home is not considered substantial. No significant impact is anticipated. b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? _ _ X Discussion: See 9a. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil , pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ _ _ X Environmental Checklist —4— (9369d) Yes Maybe No b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency'evacuation plan?"-t _ _ . X 11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or.growth rate of•_ the human population of an area? _ _ X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ _ X Discussion: Transportation systems in the project vicinity are currently operating at adequate levels of service. The applicant's request will allow for development of one additional single- family residence. Traffic generated by one additional single family residence is not considered to be substantial . b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off—site parking? _ _ X Discussion: Development of the parcel will be required to comply with parking requirements contained in article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code which requires all parking to be provided on—site. No significant impacts to parking are anticipated. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X Discussion: Transportation impacts resulting from one single family residence will be negligible. No significant impacts are anticipated. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed parcels will access onto an existing cul—de—sac (Rhine Circle) and will not take access directly from Heil Avenue. Alterations to circulation resulting from the parcel's accessing onto Rhine Circle are negligible. No significant impact is anticipated. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ _ X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ X Discussion: Minor increases in short—term traffic hazards may result during site preparation and construction phases due to the presence of construction vehicles in the project area. However, the volume of construction traffic resulting from development of one single family home is negligible. No significant impact is anticipated. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ X b. Police protection? _ _ X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X Environmental Checklist —5— (9369d) 4 �� Mavbe s e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? _ X Discussion (a—f): The development of one single family home will not result in a need for any additional fire, police, school, park, public facilities or services. No significant impact to Public Services is anticipated. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — _ X Discussion: The proposed project will result in an increase in use of energy over that used by the currently vacant site. However, energy usage by one single family residence is not considered to be substantial and no significant impacts are anticipated. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the development of sources of energy? _ _ X Discussion: See 15a 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ X Discussion: A power pole is located on the easterly most portion of the site. The pole should not impact or be impacted by the proposed development for the site. No significant impacts or alterations to power systems are anticipated. b. Communication systems? _ _ X C. Water? _ _ X d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ _ X e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X f. Solid waste and disposal? _ _ X Discussion (a—f) : All utilities are currently available in the project vicinity. Development of the single family residence may require installation of connections into existing utility systems; however, the project will not result in a need for any new systems or substantial alterations to existing systems to serve the site. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ _ X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ _ X Discussion (a—b): The project is not located in the vicinity of any known hazards with the exception of the location in the flood plain which has been addressed under item #3i . Environmental Checklist —6— (9369d) 1 • Y Mavbe N4 , 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to. the public, or will the 'proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site'`' open to public view? _ X Discussion: The site backs up to a flood control channel and is set behind another home. There are currently no view opportunities provided by the project site. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ X Discussion: The proposed project site will not impact any recreational opportunities. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ _ X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of any known archaeological sites. 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub- stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long—term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid— erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ _ X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —7— (9369d). .. { Y!J, t DETERMINATION . . . •f L --y _It 2tf Yt f--Y--/f On the basis. of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the.:-environment, and..a .-,. NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be. prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures.described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL _ IMPACT REPORT is required. acQ Date Sign ure Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Environmental Checklist —8— (9369d).. S .r[ ZONING INDEX MAP rr �-' 9-5-I I 10-5-I I DM 9 FDM I I LEGEND 19-6-10•SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE 16-L -11 15-5-II 14-5 11 DM 22-DISTRICT MAP 22 DM IB A D 17 DMj15 .r \ - - - - �•21- -I I - - - I 4- -I 24-5 12 i 19 5 11 0 5-II 22-5 11 23 5 1 2 DM 2 DM 21 DM; D 24 DIV 25 T26 DM 27 30-5-II I 29-5-II -\ 28sg,-,JI 27- -II 26-5-II 25- -II /6M 35\ DM �.�DM33-. � DIV 32 DM 31 DM 30 2' 'n32 \II 33 5 II 13a 5-II 35 5 II 36-5-II DM 36 DM 37 ib 38 M 39 DM 40 \ I u $ - �F /., 5-6-II 4-6-IA--;-1� 3-6-11 2 -II 1-6-I1 6-6-10 54-10 I �� _ DM4 � DM3 D� 2 DN11 DM6 DM / I 9-6-11 10-6-11 11- -II 12-6-11 7-6-10 8-6-10 DM10 DM DM12 DM13 DM7 OM8 © �4-6\ 13_6-11 18-6-10 17-6-10 CITY OF c<V—I'A�6 DMil4r� DM20 DM19 HUNTINGTON BEACH p` ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 24-6I OM 29 D �.2219-6-10 n ! / CO r021 RESOLUTION CITY OWMCLOOILLMCE NO 624 J _I:.- ........ .. TA LN. -- - E� MACDONALD 4vE. W DR. _ I I i I GLENCOE AVE. 0. IT ikk s ALHAMBRA DR. r DR. It W I I ; HEIL _ r I I I RHINE m CITYZ _ CR cY WLi LAJ DR 0Q CL BRUSH t f. ` r H!RYJ'-ER DR DON G y _O \ L1 \ //' BRYANT EA • 3:• :i fJ'�V y.s i '4?'. 91 � 10 HUN71NGTON BEACH HUNTtNGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION :--, Iuntin ton beach de artmenif� community development ment 9 P STAFF _ REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: August 20, 1991 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-338/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-10 APPLICANT/ Gerhard & Eileen Schultz DATE ACCEPTED: OWNER 13342 Cedar Street May 20, 1991 PARCEL 2 : Westminster, CA 92683 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: OWNER Richard & Carol Adams Waived PARCEL 1 : 2015 Del Hollow Street Lakewood, CA 90712 - ZONE: Rl-FP2 (Low Density Residential/Floodplain) REQUEST: TPM to permit the subdivision of one (1) GENERAL PLAN: Low Density parcel into two (2) Residential parcels . CE to permit a reduction_ EXISTING USE: Single Family in the minimum required Residential/Vacant Land lot width from 45 feet to 34 feet, to permit a LOCATION: 7932 Rhine Circle reduction in the minimum (South side of Heil Avenue net lot area from 6, 000 approximately 160 feet west square feet to 5, 680 square of Beach Boulevard) feet, and to permit a reduction in the minimum ACREAGE: 0 .33 acres exterior side yard setback (14 ,307 sf) from ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet for Parcel 1 and to permit a parcel with no direct vehicular access to a street for Parcel 2 . Access to Parcel 2 will be provided by a private easement across Parcel 1. 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Motion to : "Approve Negative Declaration No . 91-10 and Tentative Parcel Map No . 90-338 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-3 with findings and. conditions of approval . " A-F M-23C 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Tentative Parcel Map No . 90-338 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-3 is a request to subdivide one (1) 14 , 307 square foot lot into two (2) parcels with an easement across Parcel 1 to allow. for vehicular access rights to Parcel 2 pursuant to Section 9920 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-3 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, in the following areas : . 1 . Section 9110 . 2(b) specifies that the minimum lot frontage for a knuckle -lot is 45 feet . The applicant is requesting to reduce the lot frontage to 34 feet for Parcel 1 to allow for a vehicular access easement to Parcel 2 . 2 . Section 9110 . 2(a) specifies that the minimum lot area shall be 6 , 000 square feet . The applicant is requesting to permit a net lot area of 5, 680 square feet for Parcel 1 to allow for a vehicular access easement to Parcel 2 . 3 . Section 9110 . 7(b) specifies that the minimum exterior side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet . The applicant is requesting zero (0) feet to allow for a vehicular access easement to Parcel 2 . 4 . Section 9960 specifies that all lots shall have direct vehicular access to a street . The applicant is requesting that all vehicular access for Parcel 2 be taken from a ten (10) foot wide access easement across Parcel 1 to Rhine Circle instead of taking direct vehicular access to Heil Avenue. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS : Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential/ Floodplain) LAND USE: One Single Family Residence North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: R2-15-FP2 (Medium Density Residential/Maximum 15 Units Per Acre/ Floodplain) LAND USE: Staff Report - 8/20/91 -2- (0459d) East and South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Automobile Sales/HB Dodge West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential/ Floodplain) LAND USE: Single Family Residences 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No . 91-10 for twenty-one (21) days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Tentative Parcel Map No . 90-338 or Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-3 , it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No . 91-10 . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS : Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS : Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Tentative Parcel Map No . 90-338, Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-3 and Negative Declaration No . 91-10 is a request to subdivide one (1) 14 , 300 square foot lot into .two (2) smaller parcels with variances to the minimum lot frontage, area and exterior side yard setbacks for Parcel 1 and to allow Parcel 2 to take access from an easement across Parcel 1 . Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are currently under separate ownership. Each of the four (4) variance requests is directly related to the proposed vehicular access easement across Parcel 1 to Parcel 2 . Parcel 1 will no longer meet minimum lot frontage, minimum lot area, and minimum exterior side yard setback as a result of locating the easement along the north property line of the parcel . The easement itself is necessary to permit access to Parcel 2 which was subdivided by deed in 1960 . The code required all parcels to take access directly from the street . Parcel 2 will not meet this requirement . Staff Report - 8/20/91 -3= (0459d) Lot Location and Description The subject property is located on the south side of Heil Avenue approximately 160 feet west of Beach Boulevard. The property is bordered on the north by Heil Avenue, a flood control channel to the south and east and Rhine Circle to the west . Surrounding uses include the Huntington Beach Dodge automobile dealership across the flood control channel, apartments across Heil Avenue and Single Family Residences to the west and southwest (see attached diagram) APp,RTMErtTs I H E!L AVE. E ASEN.�NT-� - uR Rs�� mopes Gfl J Q cc The two abutting parcels are triangular in shape and are elevated approximately two (2) feet, six (6) inches above the abutting sidewalk. In addition, there is a ten (1) foot wide easement along the flood control channel for the Southern California Edison Company. History The subject property was originally created as Lot 1 of Tract 3622 in 1960 . With 14 , 538 square feet, Lot 1 greatly exceeded the minimum 45 feet of frontage and 6, 000 square feet of lot area . Subsequent to the creation of the lot it was subdivided, by deed, to the City. of Huntington Beach for City needs . A parcel map was not required because the property was being deeded to a public agency. The City was proposing to use what is shown as Parcel 2 as a possible pump station or well site and a new Single Family Residence was constructed on what is now Parcel 1, which still exists . Sometime later the City determined that the rear parcel did not suit their needs and disposed of the property. Mr . Shultz, the current owner, acquired the property in 1976 and later that same year he submitted a tentative parcel map application to make the parcel a legal building site. He proposed to subdivide the property and take access directly onto Heil Avenue. This request was denied. The property depicted as Parcel 2 has remained vacant since 1960 . Staff Report - 8/20/91 -4- (0459d) R 4 The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of Article 91.1: , Section Issue Required Parcel Proposed 9110 . 2(a) Lot Frontage 45 ft. knuckle 1 34 .42 ft* 60 ft . stnd. 2 164 ft, 9110 . 2(b) Lot Area 6, 000 sf min. 1 5, 680 sf* 2 7, 848 sf 9110 . 7(b) Exterior Side 10 ft . min. 1 0 ft . Setback 2 N/A 9960 Access Directly from 1 OK street 2 Easement across Parcel 1* *Requires Variance Problems and Code Deficiencies The proposed parcel map would make Parcel 2 a legal building site and would enable the property owner to build one (1) single family residence on the property. Access to Parcel 2 is a primary concern relating to the proposed subdivision. All access rights to Heil Avenue were dedicated to the City when Tract 3622 was approved, therefore, access can only be provided in one of two ways : 1) Provide an access easement across Parcel 1 to Parcel 2; or 2) Recommend that the City Council relinquish access rights to Heil Avenue. The easement across Parcel 1, although the favorable of the two (2) options , results in four (4) code deficiencies; reduced lot frontage, reduced lot area and reduced side yard setback for Lot 1 and non-conforming access to Lot 2 . The unusual lot configuration and location provide the necessary hardship for the variance request; however, the easement is located in a precarious location on Parcel 1 because it runs between a public sidewalk and a single family residence. At its narrowest point, the corner of the house is slightly more than ten (10) feet from the public sidewalk, leaving no room for driver error on either side. In addition, the existing house has. an eave that projects approximately 12 to 18 inches into the easement which presents a problem with overhead clearance for vehicles . The overhead clearance would be approximately eight (8) feet at the west end of the house. Lastly, there is a grade difference between the public sidewalk and the existing house of approximately two and one half (2-1/2) feet; therefore, a retaining wall must be constructed along the sidewalk, or adjacent to the house, or both. Staff Report - 8/20/91 -5- (0459d) L The only other option to allow access to Parcel 2 would be-- for the City Council to relinquish vehicular access rights to Heil Avenue_. _ . This would result in a continuance of this application until the City Council renders their decision. Staff does not recommend this alternative for several reasons . Two (2) access points with an on-site loop system would be required so that cars could drive forward in and forward out of the parcel . Residents of the house would be restricted to right turn in and right turn out in order to ensure a safe flow of traffic on. Heil Avenue. The property is in close proximity to the Beach Boulevard intersection. Heil Avenue is a secondary arterial, and the access points would prohibit the construction of a block wall along the north property line at the driveway locations, thereby, increasing the noise levels on the property near or above the maximum permitted for a residence. Alternatives Staff , in reviewing the proposed subdivision has identified a few alternatives for the property. The following is a list with some of the issues involved with each alternative: A. One (1) possible alternative would be to demolish the existing residence and to construct two (2) new Single Family Residences that take access off of a single easement on Rhine Circle. This would allow the property to be designed to allow for a safer easement to Parcel 2 . The drawback is that there are currently two (2) property owners and although the owner of Parcel 1 has agreed to allow the easement they do not wish to demolish the structure. B. Another possible alternative would be to construct a bridge over or to enclose the flood channel which would connect the parcel to the car dealership on Beach Boulevard. This, however, would require a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change and environmental assessment . C. The simpliest option would be to merge the two (2) parcels back into one as it was originally approved, however, the properties are under separate ownership and the existing residence is presently a rental property. D. Permit the subdivision with access directly onto Heil Avenue for Parcel 2 . The advantages and disadvantages have already been discussed. In summary, staff believes the proposed subdivison with. an easement across Parcel 1 for access to Parcel 2 provides the most viable strategy for near-term use of Parcel 2 . The other alternatives, because of ownership or access problems would deny the applicant the ability to use the property at this time. The property was legally subdivided in 1960 . I Staff Report - 8/20/91 -6- (0459d) 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Motion to : "Approve Tentative Parcel Map No . 90-338, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-3 and Negative Declaration No. 91-10 with the following findings and suggested conditions of approval" FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-338 : 1 . The proposed subdivision of two (2) parcels for purposes of residential development is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development . 2 . The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. The proposed two (2) lot subdivision is compatible with the Low Density Residential Land Use designation in the General Plan. 3 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for Low Density Residential was placed on the subject property. 4 . The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards, plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-10 : 1 . There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the district . The unique location, shape and access requirements result in the necessity for a deviation from code requirements in order to allow for the enjoyment of property rights . 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 91-10 for reduced lot frontage, area, setbacks and to allow a vehicular access easement will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming (land, property, or improvements) in the neghborhood. 3 . The conditional exception (variance) for reduced lot frontage, area, setbacks and to allow a vehicular access easement is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential . The subdivision is in compliance with the maximum density requirements . , Staff Report 7 8/20/91 -7- (0459d) 4 . The establishment of the proposed two . .(2) lot subdivision will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing, .or working in the vicinity; and property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building . 5 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which the conditional exception (variance) is sought and he will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 90-338 : 1 . The tentative parcel map received by the .Department of Community Development on July 31, 1991 shall be the approved layout . 2 . A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder . 3 . Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s water system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s) . 4 . Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s sewage system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s) . 5 . All on-site utilities with the exception of the existing lines on the south property line shall be installed underground at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed. 6 . Development shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances . 7 . The flood control channel shall be fenced to Flood Control District standards and City standards at the time said parcel(s) is/are development . 8 . A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Community Development . 9 . At the time of Development of Parcel 2, the easement shall be reviewed by the Traffic engineer and the Planning Division to ensure the maximum amount of safety possible. Posts shall be provided at the northwest corner .of the existing garage to protect it from vehicle damage and a six (6) inch high curb shall be provided along the sidewalk to prevent vehicles from driving on the sidewalk. 11. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: A. Continue the request and recommend that the City Council relinquish access rights to Heil Avenue. B. Deny the request with findings . Staff Report - 8/20/91 -8- (0459d) ATTACHMENTS• - 1 . Area map 2 . Narrative 3 . Negative Declaration No . 91-10 4 . Tentative Parcel Map No . 90-338 5 . Section Drawings of Easement 6 . Alternative Findings for Denial HS :MG; kj 1 Staff Report - 8/20/91 -9- (0459d) Ct ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 90-338/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3 10 . Fire hydrants shall be provided in number and location as required by the Fire Department . I Y _ AvL i RNONE LN f - --I MI R, RI P2 CF—E R3 eANITA LN. - xe01-• O R I 1; M:dDONALD AVE Z F 001 ' JULIETET L � :FE TRACT r0 522 R 2 2�-^J / — 'o Ca ti RI �� �v u a.11_,nY— .vL a J NANCY OR '! m a RI R2 f RI — �/ —~ Z AL MAMBRA j DR. j sG.�[ Iw I[[r RI - R2-15 ca A fCRES,RI2SF RI 2 Pn CX S A ZRI S Q CITY ¢ R Z Of RI •• II- DANUBE DR V V LOIS CR ' l,• A;s RI RI V RI oP u RI RI RI RI W RI RI i RI JRI RI J • C 4 A RI MI /�I SEINE OR DONALD CR z RI 6y / �� _SO ' BRUSN DR RI MI RI RI J RI DON y Ri [wPYSLLF pq ! RI R JVDY CR ('�J�/Z p 0 / " BRYANT OR RI PC PFS�Q6A MI C7 //W Rl 4 JURII R L— y_ / RI RI LAMA/ Y ,� C2 o M I LAMBERT DR RI E / Z s RHINE �Y/ I so•V RI RI RI RI ORINDA CR RI c. I .11 T°t O Yl xxY +,TL RRY - DR =Rl Ir-R21 -"I, —Y — V NOwARD CR vp C z M� p�L I RI" RI < RI $ RI RI RI a - _ �> R C4 F [2R 2 R3$R3 R 3 _ _, � I < �: -__ _ � 04 � LANCASTER DR. I� ARNL:�JR M I - ( 4RNETT DR C4. R3- •"•� I RI FI IRI O c. F. c 0 C6- RO ID,•% R- O D c6-2 I C. . j 6A6 aoo R n �`'' R2 i w i C F—E R R3 MERLE CR I� `G �.. W�. 7•, �4 M R3 i ° °R I 1 R3 6 w .. I �::i .•`iY ... ... R R M I ' R?J •�soG4 i i ... K TAMARU DR. 3 RI F ax •H C •� x N e - - - R3 .,.,. . .... ....1 z GL 4SA GOM' CR`°i e o .,., y•.,mYrt_ C/I R3 ca q u S R2 st-y .. �t.15., r -- -- `.t - ---' � R3 AVE WARNER TPM 90-338/CE 91 -YND 91 - 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION �rrr��r a� Grp Aw-A-//S-e /33 5% �a �lirrt i i h •,� B-2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 90-338/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION,, `' �; �.., (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-10: 40 APPLICANT: Gerhard and Eileen Schultz LOCATION: 7932 Rhine Circle (South side of Heil Avenue approximately 160 feet west of Beach Boulevard) Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-3 is a request to subdivide one (1) 14 ,307 square foot lot into two (2) parcels with an easement across Parcel 1 to allow for vehicular access rights to Parcel 2 pursuant to Section 9920 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-3 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, in the following areas: 1. Section 9110.2(b) specifies that the minimum lot frontage for a knuckle lot is 45 feet. The applicant is requesting to reduce the lot frontage to 34 feet for Parcel 1 to allow for a vehicular access easement to Parcel 2 . 2 . Section 9110 .2(a) specifies that the minimum lot area shall be 6, 000 square feet. The applicant is requesting to permit a net lot area of 5, 680 square feet for Parcel 1 to allow for a vehicular access easement to Parcel 2. 3 . Section 9110 .7(b) specifies that the minimum exterior side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet. The applicant is requesting zero (0) feet to allow for a vehicular access easement to Parcel 2. 4 . Section 9960 specifies that all lots shall have direct vehicular access to a street. The applicant is requesting that all vehicular access for Parcel 2 be taken from a ten (10) foot wide access easement across Parcel 1 to Rhine Circle instead of taking direct vehicular access to Heil Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-338, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-3 and Negative Declaration No. 91-10 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. The Commission expressed their concern over the height of .the wall and emergency access . Fire explained that the project would be conditioned with a requirement of sprinklers . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - 8/20/91 -2- (0779d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-10, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ,z AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Dettloff, k Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO DENY TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-338 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Dettloff, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0, 90-338: 1. The proposed subdivision of two (2) parcels for purposes of residential use is not in compliance with the size and the shape of property necessary for that type of development. The easement would result in four (4) code deficiencies . 2 . The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. The easement would result in an unsafe vehicular access easement. 4 . The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are not proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards, plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-10: 1. The proposed subdivision would result in an unsafe vehicular access easement, therefore, it would be materially detrimental to persons working or residing in the area. 2. Although the property is irregular in configuration, the size of the lot satisfies the minimum size of 6, 00.0 square feet and exceeds the minimum frontage of 60 feet. 3 . Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. PC Minutes - 8/20/91 -3- (0779d) 1-3. It'HAI 14. _ _ scA:L E ;6� L _ ; . . . . . . . . . . _ i t _..-- - -- - - -- -7-7 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... . - . . . . . . . - 1 . . . . . . . . . . . W W z �+ . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . DO WEST: . . . . . . . . . :04 �� /. END . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H o us5 . . . ... . vl ni .Oov: . : . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . oht of EXISTING C�7 . . . . . . . . . . . .- 79: 3:2: : RFAiN� : :C.1(Z - . ovc I+UNT:INCToN Br=ACK , C- A . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . ..19 . XULY, .1991 . h� I A s : P LS tg 41 -;-- �T. -A lii ji } li j ! ! I 11 � I } j + lill jiilil i I ! qb Sc. LEr . � ' 1 1 i l ! f l I is l ' ' I j l ! ' l u l l i ;4?'�� Ellslb I _j IN :&-!-F-T 0 H 6.U,s E • I l j ! l i � } I �2/ 9. � I � .I ! j ! 'T i i i ' I ! ! l i l l i f l i ' I I ! I ! ! { I i j I ' I I I _ - j , . . . . . . . . . . . r ui I _j 7,di > 1 i 2-Sir6VS:R IHA j i LU I i i i l ' ` i {WEST r END ! , V ` . i1 Ilia � �� ! ' ji . , ! oF . : ���' , . . . I . j I ; ,� � i : l ' 1 , ! fj jl ; I I IIII ti I ill ! ! . E G'K 1!5 T I N C, or 7 3.2- F+ J.NTJNCT0N r LY 1591 � .� � Ii " I ` � i } ; Ilj � j II ij iillli IIIII ` I � " I � � ! ! I. . . ._ f i ... i . 1.9 X K�A I ti . j BY RICHAP, FLS ` -tv 4 46 ! J ! ATTACHMENT NO. 6 - ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 90-338/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-3 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 90-338 : 1. The proposed subdivision of two (2) parcels for purposes of residential use is not in compliance with the size and the shape of property necessary for that type of development. The easement would result in four (4) code deficiencies . 2 . The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. The easement would result in an unsafe vehicular access easement. 4 . The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are not proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards, plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. FINDINGS- FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-10 : . 1. The proposed subdivision would result in an unsafe vehicular access easement, therefore, it would be materially detrimental to persons working or residing in the area . 2 . Although the property is irregular in configuration, the size of the lot satisfies the minimum size of 6, 000 square .feet and exceeds the minimum frontage of 60 feet . 3 . Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed- by other properties in the same zone classifications .