The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDeny Variance No. 17-003 (Santiago Appeal), which representsDept. ID CD 17-012 Page 1 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 AVRW VED 7-0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/6/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Deny Variance No. 17-003 (Santiago Appeal), which represents a request to deviate from several Zoning Code development standards to accommodate the relocation of a historic single-family residence to property located at 506 7th Street (continued from the October 2, 2017 and October 16, 2017 City Council meetings) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 17-003, which represents a request from Mr. Joseph Santiago for six variances to deviate from the following requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance: (1) minimum required side yard building setback, (2) maximum permitted building height within the rear 25 feet of a lot, (3) maximum permitted lot coverage, (4) minimum required side yard roof eave setback, (5) minimum dimensions for a parking space, and (6) maximum enlargement of a nonconforming structure. These deviations are requested to allow for the relocation of a historic single-family structure, currently being stored by the owner, to a property located at 506 7th Street. Essentially, the historic structure will be attached to an existing structure at 506 7th Street. The Planning Commission's denial of the six variances was subsequently appealed to the City Council by Mr. Santiago, and originally scheduled for a City Council public hearing on October 2, 2017. However, following the distribution of public notices Mr. Santiago twice requested the hearing be continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending denial of the variances with findings. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Deny Variance No. 17-003 which contains six requested variances to deviate from the HBZSO with suggested findings for denial (Attachment 1). Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): A) Approve Variance No. 17-003 with suggested findings and conditions for approval (Attachment 2), which includes a requirement to eliminate the proposed subterranean level; and 1HB -281- Item 21. - 1 Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 2 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Original Recommendation from Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 27, 2017); or B) Approve Variance No. 17-003, as proposed by the applicant, with modifications to suggested findings for approval and deletion of suggested conditions 1.a. and 1.b. (Attachment 2); and find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Applicant / Appellant Request); or C) Continue Variance No. 17-003 and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Property Owner / Applicant / Appellant: Joseph D. Santiago Location: 506 7th Street, 92648 (southeast side of 7th Street, and northeast of Pecan Avenue) Variance No. 17-003 is a request, pursuant to Chapter 241 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO)', for the following six variances which are deviations from development standards applicable to dwellings in the RMH-A (Medium -High Density Residential — Small Lot) zoning subdistrict. For a visual representation of these proposed deviations, refer to Attachment 6. 1. Reduced side yard setback: To permit a 2.5-foot building setback from the northern side yard lot line, and a 3-foot building setback with a 1.33-foot bay window (containing habitable floor area) setback from the southern side yard lot line in lieu of the minimum 3.15-foot setback required for a side yard pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.06(G)(1). This will result in building wall setbacks that are less than the required setback by 0.65 feet (north) and 1.82 feet (south). 2. Increased dwelling height: To permit a dwelling that is 34.43-feet high in the rear 25 feet of the lot in lieu of the maximum 25-foot height limit permitted in the rear 25 feet of the lot pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.06(M)(2)(c). This will result in a dwelling that exceeds the permitted height limit in the rear 25 feet of the lot by 9.43 feet. 3. Increased lot coverage: To permit a building that covers 61.03 percent (2,220.82 square feet) of the 3,622.5-square-foot lot (after 2.5-foot dedication for alley widening) in lieu of the maximum 50-percent (1,811.25 square feet) lot coverage permitted pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.06(C). This will result in lot coverage that exceeds the maximum by 11.03 percent (409.57 square feet). 4. Reduced roof eave setback: To permit a six-inch roof eave setback from the northern side yard lot line, and a 12-inch roof eave setback from the southern side yard lot line in lieu of the 30- inch roof eave setback required for a side yard pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.68. This will result in roof eave setbacks that are less than the required setback by 24 inches (north) and 18 inches (south). 5. Reduced parking space dimensions: To permit a parking stall width of eight feet in lieu of the required residential parking stall width of nine feet pursuant to HBZSO Section 231.14. This will result in two parking spaces that are one foot less than the required width. 6. Increased enlargement of a nonconforming structure: To permit an area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure that is 283-percent (3,660 square feet) of the area of a structure as it currently exists (1,296.11 square feet) in lieu of the maximum permitted area of enlargement of 'The Planning Commission shall act on all variances exceeding 20-percent deviation from site coverage, separation between buildings, heiaht. setback, parking, and landscape requirements in accordance with HBZSO Section 241.04. Item 21. - 2 HB -282- Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 3 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 50-percent (648 square feet) pursuant to HBZSO Section 236.06(E). This will result in a 233- percent (3,012-square-foot) increase in the permitted area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure. These variances are requested to allow the proposed relocation of a historic single-family structure from property located at 428 7th Street to property located at 506 7th Street. When the property at 428 7th Street was sold to a new owner, the historic structure was removed from the lot by the applicant and placed into storage. The applicant intends to preserve the structure in the original neighborhood in which it was built. For more information, refer to the project narrative submitted by the applicant (Attachment 5). The property at 506 7th Street is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and detached one -car garage. To accommodate the relocation, the garage is proposed to be demolished and a new living room, bathroom, laundry room, and three -car garage are proposed in its place at the rear of the lot. This new building area will be attached to the existing dwelling through a new hallway. In addition, the proposed three -car garage is designed with two levels. Two garage parking spaces are proposed at grade level, and one is proposed in a subterranean level accessed via a ramp in the garage. The historic dwelling is proposed to be placed atop the new building area, resulting in a structure that will be three -stories high. Minimal modifications to the exterior design of the historic structure are required to attach the existing and proposed structures through the new hallway. However, several modifications to the interior of the historic dwelling are proposed. These modifications include converting the porch into a balcony, kitchen into a wet bar room, office into a bathroom, and a bedroom into a bathroom. The resulting floor plan layout will overall function as one single dwelling unit with a kitchen, dining room, two living rooms, billiard room, wet bar room, laundry room, six and a half bathrooms, four bedrooms, a three -car garage, and approximately 380 square feet of storage area in the subterranean level. PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT OF STRUCTURES ON SITE A Existing Dwelling B Relocated Historic Strua C New Building Area D New Subterranean Leve STREET B. BACKGROUND: LLEY The historic structure is a wood -frame, two-story, single-family structure designed in the Colonial Revival architectural style (see photographs of structure) in 1905. In 1986, the Huntington Beach Historical Society embarked on a survey of the City's historic resources in downtown and the surrounding areas. The survey results identified the structure at 428 7th Street as a locally important historic structure due to its architectural significance (Attachment 12). From 2008 to 2012, the City and Historic Resources Board updated and expanded the 1986 survey to include a study of all potentially significant buildings within the entire City. The updated survey identified a list of 257 historic landmarks in the City. The structure formerly located at 428 7th Street remains on this list. HB -283- Item 21. - 3 Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 4 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 Mr. Santiago has indicated the historic structure was home to a prominent figure in the City's development, Mr. John N. Hearn. Listed below are some of Mr. Hearn's accomplishments, which were provided by the applicant: — Civil war veteran — Built the second house in Huntington Beach on 46 acres in 1902 — Brought the Methodist Church Tabernacle and Convention Grounds to Huntington Beach with Judge Warner and Matthew Helme in 1905 — Brought the Grand Army of the Republic, and the Temperance Union to the Methodist Convention Grounds — Established the Huntington Beach Grand Army of the Republic chapter in 1908 — Established the Masons Lodge in Huntington Beach — Worked for and voted for Huntington Beach cityhood — Established a mortgage lending business for city lots before banks were established in Huntington Beach PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND DETERMINATION: On June 27, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered Variance No. 17-003. Notice of this hearing was mailed on June 15, 2017 (at least 10 days prior to the public hearing) to all owners of real property within 500 feet of the subject property in accordance with HBZSO Section 248.04 and California Government Code Section 65091. Staff presented an overview of the requested variances, and a recommendation to approve the variances and project subject to the condition that the proposed subterranean level is eliminated (Attachment 8). Prior to the public hearing, 16 individuals submitted written comments in opposition to the requested variances (Attachment 9); and during the public hearing, a total of 22 individuals spoke in opposition. The following is a summarization of the comments received: Item 21. - 4 HB -284- Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 5 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 - The subject lot appears too small to accommodate the historic structure. - There are concerns regarding fire safety, and limited access for first responders. - During heavy rains, reduced eave setbacks may increase risk of flooding on neighboring property. - The historic structure will not likely be visible from the street. - A historic structure should be preserved on its original lot, and should not be relocated. - There are doubts Mr. Santiago will complete the subject project in a timely and quality manner based upon his prior experience with a similar project at 403 10th Street. - Consideration should be given to quality of life for neighbors. - The residents that attended the public hearing all live in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and are directly affected by the proposed project. - There is suspicion the property owner's objective is to construct a larger dwelling unit for rental income, rather than preserve a historic structure. - The proposed project will likely bring transients, add traffic, and exacerbate parking problems in the neighborhood. - The design of the floor layout appears to facilitate conversion of the dwelling into independent residential rental units. - The increased building height will likely establish a "tunnel" in the alley. - The Design Review Board should have reviewed the project. - Belief there is no precedence for variances of the same type in the neighborhood. - The historic structure does not appear to aesthetically complement the existing house. During the public hearing, Mr. Santiago made the following comments in response to the recommended action from staff, and comments from residents in the community (Attachment 10). The former property owner also spoke in favor of the proposed project. The following is a summary of the comments: - The subject site will eventually be developed, and he believes it would be better developed with a historic structure rather than a new home. - Based upon the number of responses received relative to the number of public notices distributed, he believes there is a great amount of support for the project. - The project will comply with requirements of the State historic building code and fire code. - The project includes the provision of ample parking. - The dwelling will not be converted into a boarding house. - He believes granting the requested variances will not result in a special privilege because any individual may request and receive similar variances for a similar project. - The prior project at 403 10th Street is not the subject of review. - He believes the house at 403 10th Street is not dilapidated, nor is it a fire hazard. - He believes all code enforcement violations on his prior project have been addressed. - By recommending against the subterranean level (see the original recommendation in Attachment 8), he believes staff is acting contrary to the General Plan Historic Element. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed fire safety, site access for first responders, eave depth, roof drainage during heavy rains, the number of parking spaces, garage ramp slope, enforcement remedies, code violations, neighborhood compatibility of the structure, neighborhood compatibility of the use, the establishment of special privilege for variances in the neighborhood, the lack of separation between buildings, and visibility of the historic structure. Commissioner Scandura made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Kalmick, to deny Variance No. 17-003. The motion was amended by Commissioner Scandura, and seconded again by Commissioner Kalmick, to identify additional specific findings for denial (Attachment 7). The motion carried by the following vote: HB -285- Item 21. - 5 Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 6 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 AYES: Ray, Garcia, Crowe, Mandic, Kalmick, Scandura, Grant NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None D_ APPEAL On July 7, 2017, the project applicant, Joseph Santiago, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial with the City Clerk. As stated in the letter of appeal (Attachment 3), Mr. Santiago believes the "findings are not correct and were based on a misunderstanding of the project scope and a similar misunderstanding of historic code — both State code and local historic provisions." The appeal was scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on October 2, 2017. On September 25, 2017, prior to the public hearing, Mr. Santiago filed a request to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on October 16, 2017 (Attachment 13). In accordance with the request, the Council continued the item to the next meeting. On October 10, 2017, prior to the public hearing, Mr. Santiago filed a second request to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on November 6, 2017 (Attachment 14). In accordance with the request, the Council continued the item to the next meeting. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff originally recommended approval of the requested variances, with a modification to eliminate the proposed subterranean level, because: (1) granting the requested variances would not amount to a special privilege since variances have been approved for other historic structures in the surrounding RMH-A subdistrict; (2) the unique cluster of historic buildings in the vicinity presents a special circumstance that is compatible with the subject historic structure; and (3) the General Plan encourages the preservation and restoration of historic structures. For complete details refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 8). However, during the public hearing members of the Commission and community offered new information that caused staff to reconsider this original recommendation. Staff's original evaluation considered variances approved on property with historic structures in the general "vicinity" of the subject property. The general vicinity included the area bounded by Palm Avenue, Walnut Avenue, Goldenwest Street, and 6th Street, as identified below (left). During the hearing, the Commission considered only those historic structures located in the immediate vicinity of the project site along 7th Street, as identified below (right). Item 21. - 6 HB -286- NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 7 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY Specifically, the Commission focused on historic structures located at 504 7th Street and 510 7th Street, which have been improved and remodeled without the need for variances. Only a Waiver of Development Standards was approved in 2013 (through Administrative Permit No. 13-014) to allow 55 percent lot coverage in lieu of the maximum allowed 50 percent lot coverage for an addition to an existing historic single-family residence at 510 7th Street. A Waiver of Development Standards is different from a Variance, as seen below. Therefore, the Commission determined no variances have been approved to accommodate a historic structure in the vicinity of the project site. For Deviations from Development Standards... Public Hearing Required Required Findings (or Criteria for Approval) Decision Authority WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS V. VARIANCES WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCES ... Up to 10% ...Greater than 10% No Yes Such a waiver improves project design - The granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. - Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. - The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. - The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. Community Development Director Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission HB -287- Item 21. - 7 Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 8 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 Initially, staff also considered preservation of the historic structure a priority, given the historic context of the neighborhood and General Plan policies encouraging historic preservation. Staff believed public welfare would have been served by preserving the historic structure in its original neighborhood, especially since so many of these structures have been demolished. During the hearing, the Commission weighed the preservation of the historic structure at 506 71h Street against the requested deviations from development standards, and concluded the deviations would be detrimental to public welfare. Reduced side yard setbacks, increased building height, and increased lot coverage would especially have a negative effect upon neighboring properties by decreasing light and ventilation between structures, increasing the likelihood of roof drainage onto adjoining properties, and increasing building bulk and massing. Essentially, the preservation and relocation of the historic structure from a corner lot that is 50 feet wide to an interior lot that is 31.5 feet wide would result in a dwelling that is disproportionately large relative to the size of the lot. Therefore, it was determined that the proposed structure with variances from six development standards would be incompatible with residences on similarly sized lots in the neighborhood, and that outweighed the preservation of the historic structure at 506 71h Street. Based upon this new information, staff now believes granting the requested variances would amount to a special privilege detrimental to public welfare that does not merit preserving the structure at the proposed location. Therefore, staff concurs with the Planning Commission determination, and is now recommending denial of the six requested variances. The historic structure would be better suited on a site that is similar in dimensions and size to the lot it previously inhabited at 428 7th Street. Such a site would comfortably accommodate the structure without the need for numerous and excessive variances from development standards. Environmental Status: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, the provisions of CEQA do not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. However, if approved, the project is exempt from further CEQA analysis for the following reasons. — The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), because the project involves an addition to an existing structure that will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. — The proposed project is also Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation), because the project involves maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. Strategic Plan Goal: Improve quality of life Attachment(s): 1. Suggested Findings for Denial — Variance No. 17-003 2. Alternative Action A — Suggested Findings and Conditions 3. Letter of Appeal from Joseph Santiago dated July 7, 2017 4. Architectural Plans Received and Dated June 6, 2017 5. Project Narrative Received and Dated June 5, 2017 & Proposed Deviations from Development Standards Item 21. - 8 HB -288- Dept. ID CD 17-012 Page 9 of 9 Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 7. Planning Commission Notice of Action dated June 29, 2017 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 27, 2017 9. Written Correspondence in Opposition 10. Written Correspondence in Favor from the Applicant dated June 27, 2017 11. Code Requirements Letter Dated March 11, 2017 (for informational purposes only) 12. Historic Resources Inventory Prepared July 1986 13. Entitlement Continuance Request from Joseph Santiago dated September 25, 2017 14. Entitlement Continuance Request from Joseph Santiago dated October 10, 2017 SH:JJ:CW:kdc HB -289- Item 21. - 9 � ATTACHMENT #1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDING FOR DENIAL VARIANCE NO. 17-003 The granting of Variance No. 17-003 for (1) a 2.5-foot and 1.33-foot side yard building setback in lieu of the minimum required 3.15-foot setback; (2) a dwelling that is 34.43-feet high in the rear 25 feet of the lot in lieu of the maximum 25-foot height limit; (3) a building that covers 61.03 percent (2,220.82 square feet) of the lot in lieu of the maximum permitted 50-percent lot coverage; (4) a six-inch and 12-inch side yard roof eave setback in lieu of the minimum required 30-inch setback; (5) a parking stall width of eight feet in lieu of the minimum required width of nine feet; and (6) a 283-percent (3,660 square feet) increase in the area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure in lieu of the maximum permitted 50- percent area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the immediate vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Properties in the vicinity located at 504 7th Street and 510 7th Street are developed with historic single-family residences that have been improved and remodeled without the need for variances. Only a Waiver of Development Standards was approved in 2013 (through Administrative Permit No. 13-014) to allow 55 percent lot coverage in lieu of the maximum allowed 50 percent lot coverage for an addition to an existing historic single-family residence at 510 7th Street. A Waiver of Development Standards is subject to a single finding that is less rigorous than findings required for a Variance. Therefore, no other Variances have been approved for other properties in the immediate vicinity to accommodate another historic structure in the vicinity of the project site. Granting the requested variances would amount to a special privilege. 2. The granting of Variance No. 17-003 will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The 26-foot-wide historic structure previously occupied a corner lot that is 50 feet wide. The proposed relocation of this structure to a smaller interior lot that is 31.5 feet wide will result in a dwelling that is disproportionately large relative to the size of the lot. As a result, the single-family residence would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The historic structure would be better suited on a site that is similar in dimensions and size to the lot it previously inhabited at 428 7th Street. Such a site would comfortably accommodate the structure without the need for numerous and excessive variances from development standards. Granting reduced building and roof eave setbacks will also be detrimental to property directly adjoining the subject lot. Generally, development standards such as minimum setbacks, maximum height, and maximum lot coverage serve to preserve light and ventilation between structures, minimize roof drainage onto adjoining properties, reduce building bulk and massing, and contribute to the general attractiveness of a property. Therefore, a significant reduction in the required side yard setbacks along with increases in building height and lot coverage will substantially reduce these intended benefits, and result in negative effects upon neighboring properties. Item 21. - 10 11 /06/2017 H B -290- ATTACHMENT #2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTION A SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT TO ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL VARIANCE NO. 17-003 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The City Council finds the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), because the project involves an addition to an existing structure that will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. The City Council further finds the project is also Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation), because the project involves maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL —VARIANCE NO. 17-003: The granting of Variance No. 17-003 for (1) a 2.5-foot and 1.33-foot side yard building setback in lieu of the minimum required 3.15-foot setback; (2) a dwelling that is 34.427-feet high in the rear 25 feet of the lot in lieu of the maximum 25-foot height limit; (3) a building that covers 61.03 percent (2,220.82 square feet) of the lot in lieu of the maximum permitted 50-percent lot coverage; (4) a six-inch and 12-inch side yard roof eave setback in lieu of the minimum required 30-inch setback; (5) a parking stall width of eight feet in lieu of the minimum required width of nine feet; and (6) a 240 percent (3,107 square feet) increase in the area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure in lieu of the maximum permitted 50- percent area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure, will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Other properties within the neighborhood have been granted variances to setbacks, and standards for height to facilities the restoration and preservation of historic structures. For example, variances were approved to facilitate the relocation of a historic single-family dwelling to property located at 403 10th Street. This historic dwelling was the home of the first mayor of Huntington Beach, Ed Manning. Also, the former Hotel Evangeline at 421 8th Street was granted variances to foster its preservation. Therefore, granting the requested variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege because variances have been approved for the preservation of different historic structures in the neighborhood. 11 /06/2017 HB -291- Item 21. - 11 2. Because of special circumstances in the surrounding neighborhood, 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 historic resources survey identifies 86 historic structures in the subject RMH-A zoned neighborhood. Compared with other neighborhoods in the City, this specific neighborhood includes the greatest number of historically significant properties. In the immediate vicinity of the project site are four properties developed with historic structures (427, 504, 510 and 514 7th Street). Due to high property values, the structures in this neighborhood are extremely vulnerable to change and redevelopment. Approximately 17 of the historic structures in this neighborhood have been demolished according to records in the Building Division. Granting variances to facilitate preservation of the subject historic structure in its original neighborhood and on its original street will conserve a cluster of buildings in the area that present a distinguishable collection of architectural styles prevalent in the history of the City's development. Therefore, precluding the preservation of the subject historic resource through strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property and other properties in the vicinity the privilege of understanding the history of the community through its historic structures. 3. The granting of variances is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Consistent with the General Plan, the owner has a substantial right to preserve a locally designated historic resource in the City. Variances are necessary to accommodate its relocation and preserve the enjoyment of such right. 4. The granting of variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed dwelling has been reviewed by the Building Division for compliance with the California Building Code, and State Historical Code. The proposed dwelling has also been reviewed by the Fire Division for compliance with the Fire Code. Compliance with these codes will ensure variances from development standards will not be detrimental or injurious. 5. The granting of variances will not adversely affect the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as RMH-25-d (Residential Medium High — Maximum of 25.0 dwelling units per net acre — Special Design Standards). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.2.2 Permit historically significant buildings to vary from standard City codes; providing that the variations do not endanger human life and buildings comply with the State Historical Code. B. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Goal HCR 1 To promote the preservation and restoration of the sites, structures and districts which have architectural, historical, and/or archaeological significance to the City of Huntington Beach. Objective HCR 1.3 Consider the provision of incentives (strategies, assistance, and regulations) for the maintenance and/or enhancement of privately Item 21. - 12 11 /06/2017 HB -292- owned historic properties in a manner that will conserve the integrity of such resources in the best possible condition. Policy HCR 1.3.7 Explore alternatives that enable a property owner to sensitively add to the existing structure, or develop an accompanying building on the site that allows property development rights to be realized. Deviation to setbacks, height, parking, and other requirements should be considered to make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no other reasonable alternative exists. Policy HCR 1.3.8 Preserve and reuse historically significant structures, where feasible. Granting variances for (1) a 2.5-foot and 1.33-foot side yard building setback in lieu of the minimum required 3.15-foot setback; (2) a dwelling that is 34.427-feet high in the rear 25 feet of the lot in lieu of the maximum 25-foot height limit; (3) a building that covers 61.03 percent of the lot in lieu of the maximum permitted 50-percent lot coverage; (4) a six-inch and 12-inch side yard roof eave setback in lieu of the minimum required 30-inch setback; (5) a parking stall width of eight feet in lieu of the minimum required width of nine feet; and (6) a 240 percent increase in the area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure in lieu of the maximum permitted 50-percent area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure will facilitate the preservation of a locally designated historic single-family residence. It will do so by making possible the relocation of a historic structure from property located at 428 7th Street to property located at 506 7th Street. If not for the proposed relocation, the historic structure would have been demolished. Furthermore, the proposed relocation preserves the structure in the original neighborhood, and on the original street in which it was built; thereby conserving the integrity this resource in the best possible condition. Lastly, the proposed project will comply with the California Building Code, and State Historical Code as discussed previously. Compliance with these codes will ensure variances from development standards will not endanger human life. Therefore, granting the requested variances will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Historic and Cultural Resources Element. While variances are necessary to facilitate the relocation of the historic structure, variances are not necessary for any new building area unrelated to the historic structure. The applicant proposes a new subterranean level solely as a means to provide additional storage area in the dwelling. However, the new subterranean level is not necessary for the preservation of the historic structure and can be modified to comply with the Zoning Code to a greater extent. Specifically, eliminating the proposed basement level storage and parking reduces the overall size of the nonconforming structure expansion from 3,660 square feet to 3,107 square feet (a reduction of 553 square feet). As a result, the deviation from the maximum permitted enlargement of a nonconforming structure would be reduced by 43 percent. 11 /06/2017 HB -293- Item 21. - 13 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — VARIANCE NO. 17-003: The site plan and floor plan received and dated June 6, 2017 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The subterranean level shall be eliminated from the floor plan. b. A three -car garage shall be designed at grade level. c. All garage parking spaces shall have a minimum depth of 19 feet. 2. The historic character and integrity of the historic structure shall be retained through the preservation of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques that characterize the architectural style of the structure consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. 3. Relocation of the historic structure to 506 7th Street shall be subject to all necessary grading permits and building permits. 4. Following the issuance of all necessary permits, the applicant shall demonstrate timely progression (in accordance with most current California Building Code, and Community Development Department policies) toward completing the construction project in conformance with the approved permits and without undue delay or extended gaps in progress. 5. The construction site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner, all construction materials and debris shall be stored outside of public view, and the construction site shall be maintained in compliance with Chapter 17.10 Huntington Beach Nuisance Code. 6. The development services departments and divisions (Building, Planning, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Community Development may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the development services departments have reviewed and approved proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action. 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 provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 7. Variance No. 17-003 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years 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 Community Development Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Variance No. 17-003 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, or Municipal Code occurs. Item 21. - 14 11 /06/2017 HB -294- 9. Incorporation of sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification(http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?Category[D=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems(https://www.builditgreen.orq/greenpoint- rated). INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 11 /06/2017 FIB -295- Item 21. - 15 ATTACHMENT #3 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov _w d Office of the City Clerk 4 0 C_ Robin Estanislau, City Clerk =Fo:; rc- m 1pr rri NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Date: July 7, 2017 To: Community Development Department (Scott Hess & Jane James) City Attorney (Michael Gates) City Council Office (All) Administration (City Manager Fred Wilson & Assistant City Manager Ken Domer) Planning Commission (All) Public Works Department (Director Travis Hopkins) Filed by: Joseph D. Santiago Re: APPEAL of Planning Commission's denial of Variance 17-003 (403 —10th Street) Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: $1865.00 Completed by: Patty Esparza, Assistant City Clerk IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE -HEARING ADVERTISING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE *FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan ♦ Waitakere, New Zealand Item 21. - 16 HB -296- o� 10 Ho N CA - RECEIVED 2911 JUL -1 FM 2 03 CI CITY OFF TING TON BEAC� Tn A-�TE74,C C-7 bc) --�) (ktts-r, 5 FfZ- P-C-Lo-'A774DN, ) or D CSC OWNC-4P--- ty,C(S�op OM OWO oR0PC- 7(-4) HB -297- Item 21. - 17 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION June 29, 2017 Joseph D. Santiago 403 10th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 17-003 (HISTORIC SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE RELOCATION) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph D. Santiago, 40310th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To accommodate the relocation of a historic single-family residence, the following variances are requested. (1) a 2.5-foot and 1.33-foot side yard building setback in lieu of the minimum required 3.15 foot setback; (2) a dwelling that is 34.427-feet high in the rear 25 feet of the lot in lieu of the maximum 25-foot height limit; (3) a building that covers 61.03% of the lot in lieu of the maximum permitted 50% lot coverage; (4) a 6-inch and 12-inch side yard roof eave setback in lieu of the minimum required 30-inch setback; (5) a parking stall width of 8 feet in lieu of the required width of 9 feet for two parking spaces; and (6) a 283% increase in the area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure in lieu of the maximum permitted 50% area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure. LOCATION: 506 7 h Street, 92648 (on the southeast side of 7u` Street, and northeast of Pecan Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: June 27, 2017 On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings, Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty -Five Dollars ($1,865.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Five Hundred Phnnp 714-536-5271 Item 21. - 18 Fax 714-374-1540 HB -298- www.suncity- .org ATTACHMENT NO.1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL VARIANCE NO. 17-003 1. The granting of Variance No. 17-003 will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Properties in the vicinity located at 504 7th Street and 510 7 1hStreet are developed with historic single-family residences that have been improved and remodeled without the need for variances. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Properties located at 504 7th Street and 510 7th Street are developed with historic single-family residences that have been improved without the need for variances. Therefore, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. The granting of Variance No. 17-003 will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The historic structure was locatedon5a larger 50-foot-wide corner lot and does not fit adequately on the proposed smaller, 3 foot -wide interior lot. Reduced eave setbacks will cause rain water to fall onto neighboring properties, especially during times of heavy rainfall. The Planning Commission further finds that reduced building setbacks may facilitate the spread of a fire onto adjacent structures and may impede emergency access to the building by first responders. 4. The denial of Variance No. 17-003 is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy 4.2.1, which "Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re- used, and renovated buildings." GAPLANNING COMMISSIONINOA1201M-28-17 VAR 17-003 (Historic Single Family Residence Relocation) Attachment 1.1 HB -299- Item 21. - 19 ATTACHMENT #4 WORD ABBREVIATION LIST SHEET INDEX L. M ER 0 A, RL�Z iE •_ _ _ rt�E aP oi15 nwxTISfICS, synBOLS, AND xD1Ei THEN"CONx Ew/Ens. FLOOR PLArxsl w/Wolfs. PALM GNAOE APPROx A�W0.0�nAn M/ExIST. EzsEwoR ELfvgnONS w/ xoTES. N DIRTN ARCH ----- ""°' ,�-- w-- x /Ens. SECTITxsw/NOTES RRUIUS AS B ASPHALTS Ira REWIRED AS ASPHALT ROOF OR,un ASPo As SELEcrEo ar Owxfa a REVISED HutR<OxITUROa BBDDRO BUARDPO ALLEY _ _ r—_—_—_ N ROUGH OPENING O CORE BM B MxG O REGISTER HOUO� METAL BOOT BOTTOM M. sza W FHEDxLE OwI�NTAL EGORWM 5- TOTAL rvuxBER OF SHEET$. SIM SIMILAR 'EA-SETING VENTING AC CAP CAPNET 1•.sw..w • STD STANDARD r+cH "G CANT. CA-UVKR SPECIFIC NOTES ST. STEEL INSIDE DIMENSION CB GTCM E,- ST0. STRUCTURAL IN. INSULATION CM CEMENT W SUS SUSPENDED <E0. CERAMIC '� Ow QOH DRAWINGS, DO TEL C.t. Gs IRON N SITE TEMP TEMPORARY CELL CEILING HALL BE CALLED TO THE TBG TONGUE AND GROOVE G CAWNG aa"p""� a�w'"A —DESIGNER TC TOP OF CURB CLOS CIASET BEFORE PROCEEDING WIT= EONST EMDN. LLaa cfM UNIT ooFIN ml+. s�ucco) awe uDH R TILE D COL vINYLn1E uGxin COxC COxCRfTF ND OWNER PRIOR TD CONTINUING COXSIRUCITTN WC CORD CONDITION WATERwN XGTER '��^' . THLS DEVEIroMEs STZALL COMPLYAND WITx ALL E HUxnHGN DN M90N ORDINANCE. WI.. WIRE MESH NR DMSIOx M.um 00— —.G AND -I DEPAw V PN WROUGHT.— CON OCADDOP Ws _ CENTER EVELOPMENT SMAU MEET ALL APPLICABLE OH S4 w/OwHFA pa a —STATE AND FPDENAL MBE COTES, RM.00FH CL CERN CTILHK m A ORDINANCE$ NO sgxUaos. EWIp EQUIPMENT CLR CLEAR R PEREWIRED E1. EKISTING NEnsIOH DI DETNL OHix CTIY NiGHT-OF-WAY, AS/IF PNSION IOIMDIAMETER APPLICABLE. I"Fl INFORMATION DIM DIMEHSION EQ EQUALTR WING 6. S FACE OF FIN GRO GRAD1 D F. DRINKING FOU—N OR NIM WIRE, PIP! NED O HER FACE OF CONCNELE N HOOR mu 0.5. DOWNSPOUT BLEW TIRIAL,SMALL BE T FACIE OF SPUD C x CPLRING FLP EKN yI µr INSMOOF E, owN C LEVPTRIIO agruuLvux e GREexu EQUIPPED TO XAnDLF X[M Pl0. CAL SRF. FINISH SURFACE W AOIUsnB E E..,EKis. EKIsnNGN - i LAC[ REQUTREMEa115. ldJ ; I ' d�rnw®n ]aso THIS ADIM N wIu conhY wtTn THE PRowAoxs p SYMBOLS SECURITY ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS IE {f OFTHEDISTwET HAND—SPECBLE OHSN .. FORTHE— EDUSEC TMEDITI aEI. WHICH OPOUOCATT IN R NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY... wxlCxrtw0UL0 BE LOCATED. np Res Coors aM W.—bo.es Fs thin 16 Leetamveam ARNER Rau avwxde b. use DY Bw_R mm 0e opade d6dnp IOUW y uo�rery. M"vaele pangs mdl nd x e R, removes M1om me name. epmUNtlp �wlm a MaE BOR wlm a minlmum !_� KEYNOTE MARKER..0 mmw d 1 Inm and an emMp no les tNn 5/8 mm. 1. !�'fi =1•• J (�—"^"'� ana meuwe learnt NAm Boas smll L � 4 5 WHIN DOw TYPE INDICATOR M NpbM wXn a tlea6 pwoLLOL r �•` '^" Faa m 0o t�nlnpes wnm are 'NORTH =, Dona PE INDICATOR eaesaele M1om me wage wlwR me D.— '°°"•'•""" 5. Am ID bmea R me mclpn9 x"iQ on a saw G/DETAIL Trt1E BLOCK all Oe b y.emp P, or nave aPomvm mesa) DRR, zaeens pr pMls.IN— SLOPE DIRECTION OF SURFACE ,, ..em.. n_DIRECTION CITY STANDARDSSURFACE SECTION MARKER tlwHlinps mall De amnpetl m tnM [Ne pan. i z new M Ne areazlmmetllesely Pd46e wttnod openlnp me ® js NpVf nODrtiONAlI5QUF0.E FOOTgGE 7TH STREET Sum view may d prpvltletl eY a tlepr viewer, a view part, Mntlow, a - pmerppeam �------ r— A�' enors anon Be or sons wre —dU 1 mall Be CX DNE/DANM PWzTT veretl on qeo 9ft Lau wltn 16„aupe— metal Rumetl wlm swews M@--Iwo---___-_ SITE PLAN 3/32"-r-O" 1 CONSULTANTS BUILDING STATISTICS VICINITY MAP REVISIONS LEGEND LEGAL DESCRIPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCT.. n.. OUSTING ID G • NH -A ( --' Oqn RECORDED OWNER/APPLtCANi 1905 DESIGNERS:A sa BEPO" D D ICE SANTIAGO A.P. NO.: 024 131-OB E ss.F. us.v:ni EAUAGE iGnoxN .181i.5p 5.`. 5067TH STREET " (EjwsT�ORIC LtvNLE SQ. Fr. . 12%: E.F.F: HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 6 BLOCK: 506 TRACT NO.: A0356 (EK . FRONT PORCH W. FT.BUILDING OCCUPANCY GROUP R-3, UI (HTGgRAGE SO. -(To REMTVEI • isT,>7' ies s i L SCOPE OF WORK: (ETTOTAL FADAG. COY. BEFORE DEID . . ^• TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION- HISTORICAL -SUBMITTAL FOR NEWLY RELOCATED M. (NINOO__ SO. PT. • 609.06 E.P. HISTORIC RESIDENCE TO BE PLACED ON (x)REICGTED InAINOE NOME SQ. PT. ... PROPOSED ADDITION FOR: SHT aszonasa wwwxcn oa>4. (MIxTO ORIC M.0 E �. FT. TOTAL .3M:V S.P. - APPLICABLE CODES 2 STORY EXISTING RESIDENCE OF: EXIST PARCEL ABOVE NEW GARAGE ABOVE (N)G.ANACE sa. FT. . TITS. W 5 is I016: tot, CEc, CMG CPC, CRC ICE SANTIAGO NEW BASEMENT. (")TOTAL BUaOING. CON. • I-- E.F. ut caeeH 506 NTH STREET -SUBMITTAL FOR ASSORTED VARIANCES TO AFTER OID—ON EOV.(VAR.L r APPLICABLE Local CODES PHONENGTON BEACH, • 92648 CITY PLANNING MATRIX ON SHEET DINANCES(SEE VARIANCE Up- (N) I.I.R. AFTER DEDICATION • .99% 5 ---- (E1MDMCEM"X, I (4'AaAC.E w W. ABvJ (EYmJ/ tl-SIOE Rv (E�M�AM2YU-ru WSMRv.J'" i _j (E) r a IK �W�•~� (E)ADAA-2-StO Y) Y (E)A�JACEM 3""5GfOAY (EjMJnCE 2-STOF, - - - i ------i--------- PECAN STRE---- - - -- -- SITE RADIUS PLAN —:v -,-0• co ID N V S FF¢ w wZ a—Q En SZ kZ Z gym_ MONO; saN10N Pi 3RDFLOOR � 11>.50'40E gl -- 2ND FLOOR I i i 1ST FLOOR W Iq� NEW BASEMENT I FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES WINDOW/DOOR NOTES E FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES WALL LEGEND/SYMBOL LEGEND C = u ® r.ome rs. wi NEW/EXIST. FLOOR PLAN sw.e:ue•-�-w a�ss.ss sa. rt.Torw uvna.e nun WEST ELEVATION SOUTh TX STREET NGHT GIGS EAST ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES: EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 0' NEW/EXIST. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS wrE:ve••ro- rn Ir ID N O, Q U 2 U Q LED' wZ H� �Z Z €Zo M E SAIDQrn SZ� rQ0 wNti M CD EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES: M, EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES NEW/EXIST. SECTIONS XXXX.11 SQ. " - LIVA5LE AREA Om 2 �(Dlo E5. p-,b V) uj:- )OSEPH MONG )ESIGN h SOLMON ATTACHMENT #5 Project narrative p4dmp Item #16 Variance Application: RMH-A Residential 506 7th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Project Narrative (a) Description of Project- The 428 7th Street house is a wood frame one story Colonial Revival Craftsman Cottage constructed circa 1905. It is designated by the City of Huntington Beach as a locally important historic structure. The 428 house is currently located in storage approximately 1 mile from 506 7th Street. It's former site was sold for the development of contemporary residences. This project proposes to move the 428 house to 506 7th Street, where it will share the site with an existing smaller Colonial Revival Craftsman Cottage. The 506 house was moved to its current address in 1905 but is believed to be older. It is one of several homes missed by the most recent Historic Resources Survey but clearly should be designated by the City of Huntington Beach as a locally important historic structure. The 428 house is prepared and stabilized to be moved to the rear of the 506 7th Street site. The 506 house is at the front of the site. The 1 car garage at the rear of the site will be demolished to make room for the 428 house and a 3-car garage structure beneath it to satisfy parking requirements. The 428 house will become a second story structure over parking. Combined with the 506 house via an interior hallway, its use will be, as both have been historically, a single-family residence. (b) Reason for Initiation- Variances from the HBZSO for side setbacks (210.06.G.1.), height requirements ((210.06.M.2.c), lot coverage (210.06.C), Projections (eaves) (230.68), parking space dimensions (231.14) and alterations to a non -conforming structure (236.06.E), are required to fit the 428 house on the site without radically changing the historic character or demolishing the historic fabric of the house. These minor variances are all supported by the Huntington Beach General Plan Historic Element, Planning Department policy, the California Historic Building Code, the Secretary of the Interior's Guideline for Historic Preservation and recent precedents for other historic preservation projects in HB. (c) Surrounding uses- The 506 7th Street site is just two doors up the street from the 428 house's original site! It is surrounded entirely by residential uses- SFRs, duplexes, and small apartments. Many in the immediate vicinity are also historic. (d) Population Served- the two structures will be attached to form a single family residence. HB -305- Item 21. - 25 Project Findings for Approval Item #19 Variance Application: RMH-A Residential - 506 7th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Variance Purpose The purpose of this Variance is to allow the 428 house, a locally significant, qualified historic resource, to be restored and preserved. The project will comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Guideline for Historic Preservation (Guideline). Minor variances regarding additions to a non -conforming structure, setbacks, height requirements, lot coverage, projections and parking will be needed to accommodate the 428 house which will be restored as a rear addition to the 506 house. Justifications for the variance are as follows: Side yard setbacks for the 428 house: HBZSO Chapter 210.06.G.1 specifies "10% of lot width" interior sideyard setbacks of 3.12', while the 428 house would have setbacks of 2' 6" and 1' 4" at the bay window. The State Historic Building Code (SHBC) allows lesser setbacks for the preservation of historic structures and any Building and Safety issues can and will be mitigated. Parking - Dimension of Parking Spaces HBZSO Chapter 231.14 specifies a standard on -site parking space dimension of 9' x 19'. Compact parking spaces in different development and zoning circumstances within the city are permitted to be 8 x 17. The 428 house project proposes to provide 3 on -site, covered parking spaces, all of which are constrained by the site setbacks and existing dimensions of the historic structure. The three spaces will be provided in a garage beneath the 428 house where the raised foundation had allowed for a full basement. At 8' x 20' and 9' x 18`, the length of these spaces will meet or exceed the city standard by 1 ft while the width falls short by 1'. All of the spaces are notably larger than the City standard for compact spaces. The standard one car behind the garage space at the alley will be utilized for a fourth off-street space and at 31' 6" the rear apron could easily fit two cars under 16' each (a Ford Explorer is under 16'). The front curb on -street parking is also 31' 6" which allows for nearly 2 full spaces. Similar reductions to the requirement have been granted for historic projects like the earlier Warner/Manning project on 10th and Orange streets. Max Height Dwelling - Rear 25' of Structure Max 25' HBZSO 210.06.M.2.c allows the rear 25' of structure a max height of 25'. The rear dormer roof and a small portion of the main roof peak penetrate the space. The existing historic hipped roof design minimizes the massing and shadow. Item 21. - 26 HB -306- Lot Coverage - 60% HBZSO 210.06.0 allows 50% lot coverage while the project requires 60% before Alley Dedication and 61.2% after alley dedication. The Interior hallway connecting the two structures creates a significant portion of the overage but the 428 house addition surpasses the 50% without it. Preserving this historic landmark justifies such an overage. Projections (eaves) - 30"clearance to PL HBZSO 230.68 allows for projections into setbacks of 24" with a 30" to PL maintained. The historic eaves of the 428 house will leave 6" to PL on the north side setback and 12" on the south side setback. These "kicked" eaves, with their knobbed, decorative rafter tails are one of the most character defining features of this historic landmark house. The proposal will comply with Building and Safety requirements using the provisions of the California Historic Building Code (SHBC). Alterations to a Non -conforming Structure - 50% HBZSO 236.06.E specifies a non -conforming structure not be expanded by more than 50% in a five year period. However the SHBC and the General Plan provide for exemptions to preserve and balance property rights and historic preservation. This is necessary to fit the 428 house on the site without radically changing the historic character or demolishing the historic fabric of both historic structures. Variance Justification Variances are authorized pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, as promulgated by Section 65906 of the State Government Code, to grant relief from zoning provisions when, because of special circumstances applicable to a property, interpretation of the zoning provisions produces a unique hardship on the property owner. These minor variances are all supported by the Huntington Beach General Plan Historic Element, Planning Department policy, the California Historic Building Code, the Secretary of the Interior's Guideline for Historic Preservation and recent precedents for other historic preservation projects in Huntington Beach. The following findings are offered in support of the variances listed above. (a) Finding: that there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property including size shape, topography, location or surroundings that deprive it of privileges normally enjoyed. Fact 1: The 428 and 506 7th Street houses are important City of Huntington Beach historic landmarks. The project will protect the 428 house from demolition and ensure the restoration and preservation of both historic buildings. The City has recognized that these narrow lots are special circumstances and has approved these types of zoning concessions in the same area (Warner/ Manning— 10th Street, Pope— 12th Street). HB -307- Item 21. - 27 (b) Finding: the project will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Fact 1: the project's variances have been allowed on several historic properties in the downtown, including just three doors up the street at 510 7th street and 1 block down the street at 406 7th street (a project of dubious historicity). The City has recognized that these narrow lots are special circumstances and has approved these types of zoning concessions in the same area (Warner/ Manning— 10th Street, Pope— 12th Street). (c) Finding: the project's variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights when compared to other properties in the same zoning designation. Fact 1: the project preserves the development potential, square footage and views of this over sized lot while preserving two of the city oldest historic landmarks without destroying their historic character or creating undue expense that would lead to their loss by demolition. (d) Finding: the granting of the request will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Fact 1: the project does quite the opposite by preserving the character and prestige of this historic neighborhood while also increasing the value of the property and the surrounding properties. Item 21. - 28 HB -308- 7 Meeting the Guideline for the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitatioh 8uildir)9 Variance Application: RMH-A Residential 506 7th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Project Description The 428 7th Street house is a wood frame one story Colonial Revival Craftsman Cottage constructed circa 1905. It is designated by the City of Huntington Beach as a locally important historic structure. The 428 house is currently located in storage approximately 1 mile from 506 7th Street it's former site was sold for the development of contemporary residences. This project proposes to move the 428 house to 506 7th Street, where it will share the site with an existing smaller Colonial Revival Craftsman Cottage. The 506 house was moved to its current address in 1905 but is believed to be older. It is one of several homes passed on or missed by the most recent Historic Resources Survey but clearly should be designated by the City of Huntington Beach as a locally important historic structure. The three contemporary windows, which likely helped "de -list" the house, will be replaced with historically accurate salvage windows as part of the proposed project. Development Proposal The 428 house is already prepared and stabilized to be moved to the rear of the 506 7th Street site. The 506 house is at the front of the site. The 1 car garage at the rear of the site will be demolished to make room for the 428 house and a 3-car garage structure beneath it to satisfy parking requirements. The 428 house will become a second story structure over parking. Combined with the 506 house via an interior hallway, its use will be, as both have been historically, a single-family residence. Because of the unique second floor rehabilitation, it is necessary to design and put into service an entry/exit stair from the first floor garage structure up through the rear bedroom. The Living room will become a master suite with bathroom and the dining room will become a billiard room with a wet bar replacing the kitchen. The proposed preliminary drawings are attached and illustrate, generally, the plan and elevation. Meeting the spirit of the Secretary of the interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Guideline for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings The proposal shall meet the spirit of the SecrktalX of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation amid Guideline for RehabUitatino Historic B uildinq& hereafter referred to as Guideline, in that it is the basis by which this rehabilitation is judged to be reasonable and customary. Even though there is no intent to "certify the rehabilitation... " Pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 or any of the other Revenue Acts for which the Guideline is used by Federal authorities, its contents provide a recognized benchmark from which the quality of preservation efforts can be judged. This report evaluates the proposed 428 House rehabilitation and re -use in terms of its compliance with the Guideline. As summarized (see Summary) in this report the proposed rehabilitation proposes and acknowledges a limited repair and alteration of the historic building. This is allowed under the Guideline to provide for an efficient contemporary use; and that these repairs and alterations do not damage or destroy the materials and features important in defining the building's historic character. The minor repairs are: • General repair to an interior with some original material removed. • Exterior replacement of damaged window frames and exterior materials • General working repair of door and window function and hardware • New structural reinforcement to join the house to the garage, primarily below the residence • Repair of Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing systems without compromising the exterior To follow are the 2 evaluation criteria and the 10 Standards of the Guideline and a commentary of this project's compliance with each. Evaluation Criteria To best achieve the preservation goals, the Guideline offers a standard two-part evaluation: HB -309- Item 21. - 29 1. What are the property's materials and features that are important to defining its historic character? 2. How will the rehabilitation project impact the historic character? Materials and Features The materials, as can be seen in the photos above, consist of a raised wood foundation whose strength has resulted in little movement or damage to the interior or exterior of the home. The platform frame - raised wood floor joists have been removed from the unconnected concrete foundation and the structure currently rests on steel beams in storage. The exterior and interior walls are true 2 x 3 Douglas Fir covered on the exterior with Redwood double lap siding and interior with time and beach sand plaster on wood lath. The windows are single -pane fixed glass or one over one double hung windows. The original wood shingle roof material has been removed for transport. The dormers are windowed vents to the attic. The roof rafters have kicked Z overhangs and extended rafter tails with decorative ends. All doors and windows have a decorative wood trim and crown consistent with Colonial Revival cottages of this era. The floor is raised 3' from the perimeter foundation which enclosed a full basement. The interior has much of its original material but some door and window trim has been replaced. The total simple expression of "Colonial Revival' is embodied in this residence. The building is devoid of the complicated polish of the "Queen Anne" trims and finials and is a remarkable summation of a more simple statement of the Colonial Revival influenced cottages of Southern California. Assessment of Potential Impact To follow are the reciting of the 10 standards shown on pages 5 and 6 of the Guideline and remarks as to the project's intent. These consequently address the assessment of impact. 1. Compatible Use- The use of the structure as a residence is unchanged. The proposed re -use as a second story residence is fully consistent under the Guideline. The home is being moved just two doors up the street from the original site! it is surrounded entirely by residential uses- SFRs, duplexes, and small apartments. Many in the immediate vicinity are also historic. We also indicate in the summary that there is sufficient room for each structure to have each continue to contribute to the local significance they enjoy. Raising the 428 House to a second story above 1st floor garages will also allow this historic structure to be visible beyond the front house, thus allowing its continued enjoyment as a neighborhood landmark. 2. Distinguishing Original Qualities- The distinguishing original qualities of the elements of simple Colonial Revival influenced cottages of Southern California, previously mentioned and indicated in drawings and photos, are all to be preserved under the proposal. They consist of double lap siding, kicked eaves with exposed, decorated wood rafter tails. crowned wood trim around wood doors and windows (all retained). The site characteristics of the original and proposed relocation sites are equivalent. The contexts of other residential structures are improved by the proposal in that there are other Colonial Revival influenced cottages, including 506 71h, in the immediate area. There is no removal of important elements suggested or contemplated by the proposal. The 506 7th garage is a relatively new structure and demolishing it to make way for the 428 House above garages is well within the Guideline. 3. Alterations of No Historical Basis- The building is recognized as a product of its own time. There are no alterations to the building's materials that are proposed that have "no historical basis". The aspect of the building being portrayed as a two story structure creates an image that is compatible and consistent with the neighboring Colonial Revival 506 House. Although there is a contemporary steel frame, balcony and stair to be added, these elements are within the Guideline in that they are new elements and are proposed to be treated in a contemporary fashion. These parts do not overwhelm the building, call attention to themselves or distract from the original features of the moved building nor do they negatively impact any of the other nearby historic structures. Since the original Colonial Revival parts are nearly exactly intact and not influenced or changed by the contemporary features, the saving of the historic structure ►s thought to more than make up for this unique preservation method. _ The proposed rehabilitation recognizes the integrity of the historic structure unique from its contemporary features and does not attempt to create an artificial "historic" appearance. Item 21. - 30 HB -3I0- 4. Changes Having Their Own Period of Historic Significance- The 508 7th house has mid-century hardboard shingle siding over the original redwood double lap. The hardboard shingle, which has its own period of historic significance, will be retained while the project is completed. 5. Distinguished Stylistic Features- One example of the stylistic features being rehabilitated beyond all the exterior fabric mentioned herein, are the basement windows. These windows along with their frames, sash weights, trim, and crown have all been removed and set aside with their components, both decayed and intact. These are to be repaired or replaced with like material and reinstalled in their original position relative to the 428 House. The rehabilitated windows will provide light to the new garage as they did for the basement at their original location. 6. Deteriorated Features Repaired Rather Than Replaced- Deteriorated features, such as the double -hung windows and some of the trim, will be repaired using as much of the existing original material as possible. The proposal contemplates repair of the historic fabric per the content of the Guideline in this respect. 7. Surface Cleaning- the surface cleaning of the building will be done with one of several methods acceptable to the specs of the Guideline. The primary treatment for overall cleaning can be the sensitive use of low pressure water. No sandblasting of the exterior will be permitted. As an alternative, sensitive scraping, brush and painting prep is acceptable. 8. Archaeological Features- Although there are no known archaeological features affected by the proposal, if encountered, portions of the grading and excavations will require the contractor to stop work and call onto the site a City approved archaeologist for an opinion and or to examine any discovered elements. 9. integrity of Contemporary Elements- Contemporary means of supporting the structure is embraced by the Guideline. The proposed lower floor garage structure, staircase and other features of the exterior that are not historic will be treated as to not rival, affect or destroy the historic fabric or features of the residence. The contemporary elements shall be compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property and it's surrounding. Their contemporary appearance presumes no false sense of historic character- one of the important tests of the Guideline. 10. Additions and Alterations as Removable- The new additions (e.g. the vinyl windows and existing garage) could be replaced by other means and the original building would not lose any of its character and the essential form and integrity. The essence of the original building forms and of the structures would be primarily and generally unimpaired. Summary: This report finds that the proposal (see plans) contains all of the features that existed in the building prior to being moved. The saving of a focal important structure is achieved and its unique character preserved. The Guideline presents no specific case where the work of the proposal is "not recommended" and therefore we find it within the spirit of the Guideline. Attached are drawings outlining the proposal. The impacts on the community and the environment, based on the approval of this proposal, are insignificant and, if there are any at all, are mitigated by the saving of a locally important cultural monument The study also finds that there is sufficient room between the two buildings to have each continue to contribute to the local significance they enjoy. Preservation Professional The Guideline suggests that the person providing this report be a qualified historic preservation professional. Joseph D. Santiago submits his credentials, to follow, as part of this report and provides this information as a qualified historic preservation professional. HB -311- Item 21. - 31 506 7th Street Project Memo— Precedents Set By Manning House Variances Variance Application: RMH-A Residential 506 7th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Project Similarities Description of Project- The 428 7th Street house is a wood frame one story Colonial Revival Craftsman Cottage constructed circa 1905. It is designated by the City of Huntington Beach as a locally important historic structure. The 428 house is currently located in storage approximately 1 mile from 506 7th Street. It's former site was sold for the development of contemporary residences. This project proposes to move the 428 house to 506 7th Street, where it will share the site with an existing smaller Colonial Revival Craftsman Cottage. The 506 house was moved to its current address in 1905 but is believed to be older. It is one of several homes missed by the most recent Historic Resources Survey but clearly should be designated by the City of Huntington Beach as a locally important historic structure. The 428 house is prepared and stabilized to be moved to the rear of the 506 7th Street site. The 506 house is at the front of the site. The 1 car garage at the rear of the site will be demolished to make room for the 428 house and a 3-car garage structure beneath it to satisfy parking requirements. The 428 house will become a second story structure over parking. Combined with the 506 house via an interior hallway, its use will be, as both have been historically, a single-family residence. The Manning House project did virtually the same thing on a double corner lot at 10th Street and Orange Avenue. The garages of the Warner property were utilized to satisfy parking requirements on the ground floor. Both projects are located in the RMH-A zoning district. The Director of Community Development has given preliminary support to the new project as presented and the Building and Safety Manager has determined that safety mitigation via the State Historic Building Code will resolve issues in that regard. Similar Variances Granted for Manning House Project (a) Parking Variance granted for smaller parking space dimensions (b) Setback Variance granted at rear and side setbacks. (c) Height Variance granted for roof and dormers in rear 25' restricted area (d) Lot Line Adjustment handled with Covenant to Hold As One Similar Issues Resolved with Public Works for Manning House Project (a) No undergrounding of utilities— "existing service upgraded" (b) No replacement of curb, sidewalk, gutter, sewer lateral and alley surface— all are in good or new condition, some historic (c) No replacement of 3/4" water meter— "sufficient for plumbing fixture count" (d) Alley Dedication substituted with Irrevocable Offer of Dedication Similar Issues Resolved with Building and Safety for Manning House Project (a) Fire Setbacks and like issues— " left to Building and Safety for mitigation" Similar Issues Regarding Historical Preservation Resolved for Manning House Project (a) General plan suggests historical structures be given extra leeway in non -conforming parameters to encourage historic preservation (b) Historical status moves with structure even in new context (c) State Historic Building Code prevails in existing structures and new work as it relates RECEIVED APR 12 2017 uepc. of riannin,g Item 21. - 32 HB -3 12- & Building PACHMENT #6* PROPOSED DEVIATIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK 2 INCREASED DWELLING HEIGHT 3 INCREASED LOT COVERAGE 1The building footprint shaded in red covers 61.03 percent (2,220.82 square feet) of the 3,622.5-square-foot lot (after 2.5-foot dedication for alley *building widening), whereas a maximum 50-percent(1.811.25 square feet) lot coverage is permitted. aded inet from the northem side yard lot The overall height of the dwelling is 34.427 feet. Therefore, the area shaded in line, whereas a 3.15-foot red exceeds the maximum 25-foot height limit permitted in the rear 25 feet by setback required. 9.427 feet { 7 The building area shaded in red is setback 1.33 feet from J the southern side yard lot 5 REDUCED PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS 6 INCREASED ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING line, whereas a 3.15-foot STRUCTURE setback required. ------------------------- _ 4 INCREASED ROOF EAVE PROJECTION i —, - ftAViP ... _...... Nonconforming structure �. The area shaded in red identifies the area of enlargement to the existing On the first Floor, the garage parking spaces shaded in red above are eight feet nonconforming structure that is 283-percent (3,660 square feet) of the area �( * Re roof eaves shaded in red project -- ' wide, whereas a residential parking space stall width of nine feet is required. � 8 �of the structure as it currently exists (1.296.1I square feet), whereas the wo feet from the building walls, and '% "' maximum permitted area of enlargement is 50-percent (648 square feet). re set back six inches from the J iorhem side yard lot line, and 12 C nches from the southern side yard lot me. whereas a 30-inch setback is W equired. [L�_ATTAC H M E N T #7 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION June 29, 2017 Joseph D. Santiago 403 10th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 17-003 (HISTORIC SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE RELOCATION) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph D. Santiago, 403 10th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To accommodate the relocation of a historic single-family residence, the following variances are requested; (1) a 2.5-foot and 1.33-foot side yard building setback in lieu of the minimum required 3.15-foot setback; (2) a dwelling that is 34.427-feet high in the rear 25 feet of the lot in lieu of the maximum 25-foot height limit; (3) a building that covers 61.03% of the lot in lieu of the maximum permitted 50% lot coverage; (4) a 6-inch and 12-inch side yard roof eave setback in lieu of the minimum required 30-inch setback; (5) a parking stall width of 8 feet in lieu of the required width of 9 feet for two parking spaces; and (6) a 283% increase in the area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure in lieu of the maximum permitted 50% area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure. LOCATION: 506 7th Street, 92648 (on the southeast side of 7th Street, and northeast of Pecan Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: June 27, 2017 On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty -Five Dollars ($1,865.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Five Hundred Item 21v - 3 6 527 HB 1-4- s o www,surfclty-hb.org Notice of Action: VAR 17-003 June 29, 2017 Page 2 Fifty -Two Dollars ($3,552.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is Friday< July 7, 2017, at 5:00 PM. Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Christopher Wong, the project planner, at (714) 374-5357 or via email at chds.wong@surfcity-hb.org, or the Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By: r VK� Jane James, Planning Manager SH:JJ:CW:kdc Attachment: Findings For Denial — VAR 17-003 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Community Development Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Mike Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Carnahan, Building Manager Christopher Wong, Associate Planner Property Owner Project File HB -315- Item 21. - 35 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL VARIANCE NO. 17-003 1. The granting of Variance No. 17-003 will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Properties in the vicinity located at 504 7th Street and 510 7th Street are developed with historic single-family residences that have been improved and remodeled without the need for variances. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Properties located at 504 7th Street and 510 7th Street are developed with historic single-family residences that have been improved without the need for variances. Therefore, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. The granting of Variance No. 17-003 will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The historic structure was located on a larger 50-foot-wide comer lot and does not fit adequately on the proposed smaller, 31.5- foot-wide interior lot. Reduced eave setbacks will cause rain water to fall onto neighboring properties, especially during times of heavy rainfall. The Planning Commission further finds that reduced building setbacks may facilitate the spread of a fire onto adjacent structures and may impede emergency access to the building by first responders. 4. The denial of Variance No. 17-003 is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy 4.2.1, which "Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re- used, and renovated buildings." _"'NING COMMISSIONWOM2017t6-28-17 VAR 17-003 (Historic Single Family Residence Relocation) Attachment 1.1 Item 21.- 36 HB -316- ATTACHMENT #8 h City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department STAFF REPORT Hl1NTINGON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Christopher Wong, Associate Planner DATE: June 27, 2017 SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 17-003 (HISTORIC SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE RELOCATION) PROJECT APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph D. Santiago, 403 10th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 506 7th Street, 92648 (southeast side of 7th Street, and northeast of Pecan Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Variance No. 17-003 represents a request to deviate from (1) the minimum required side yard building setback, (2) maximum permitted building height within the rear 25 feet of a lot, (3) maximum permitted lot coverage, (4) the minimum required side yard roof eave setback, (5) minimum dimensions for a parking space, and (6) maximum enlargement of a nonconforming structure to accommodate the relocation of a historic single-family residence. • Staff Recommendation: Approve Variance No. 17-003, with modifications, based upon the following. — Facilitates the preservation of a locally designated historic single-family residence. — Conserves the integrity of a historic structure by allowing it to remain in its original neighborhood. — Follows established precedence for the approval of variances in the neighborhood associated with the relocation of a historic structure. — Special circumstances existing in the surrounding historic neighborhood. • Staff s Suggested Modifications: - Eliminate the proposed subterranean level to reduce the enlargement of the nonconforming structure. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), and Section 15331, Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) of the CEQA Guidelines because the project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Approve Variance No. 17-003 with suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 6/27/2017 HB -317- (17sr25 VAR 17-003 Historic SF]Item 21. - 37 M"17 Emig ■EN ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Variance No. 17-003, as proposed with the subterranean level, with modified findings and modified conditions of approval" (Applicant's Request) B. "Continue Variance No. 17-003 and direct staff accordingly." C. "Deny Variance No. 17-003 with findings for denial." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Variance No. 17-003 is a request, pursuant to Chapter 241 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO)1, for the following deviations from development standards applicable to dwellings in the RMH-A zoning subdistrict. For a visual representation of these proposed deviations, refer to Attachment 4. 1. Reduced side yard setback: To permit a 2.5-foot building setback from the northern side yard lot line, and a 1.33-foot building setback from the southern side yard lot line in lieu of the minimum 3.15-foot setback required for a side yard pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.06(G)(1). This will result in building setbacks that are less than the required setback by 0.653 inches (north) and 1.819 inches (south). 2. Increased dwelling height: To permit a dwelling that is 34.427-feet high in the rear 25 feet of the lot in lieu of the maximum 25-foot height limit permitted in the rear 25 feet of the lot pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.06(M)(2)(c). This will result in a dwelling that exceeds the permitted height limit by 9.427 feet. Increased lot coverage: To permit a building that covers 61.03 percent (2,220.82 square feet) of the 3,622.5-square-foot lot (after 2.5-foot dedication for alley widening) in lieu of the maximum 50- percent (1,811.25 square feet) lot coverage permitted pursuant to HBZSO Section 210.06(C). This will result in lot coverage that exceeds the maximum by 11.03 percent (409.57 square feet). 4. Reduced roof eave setback: To permit a six-inch roof eave setback from the northern side yard lot line, and a 12-inch roof eave setback from the southern side yard lot line in lieu of the 30-inch roof eave setback required for a side yard pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.68. This will result in roof eave setbacks that are less than the required setback by 24 inches (north) and 18 inches (south). 5. Reduced parking space dimensions: To permit a parking stall width of eight feet in lieu of the required residential parking stall width of nine feet pursuant to HBZSO Section 231.14. This will result in two parking spaces that are one foot less than the required width. 6. Increased enlargement of a nonconforming structure: To permit an area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure that is 283-percent (3,660 square feet) of the area of the structure as it currently exists (1,296.11 square feet) in lieu of the maximum permitted area of enlargement of 50- percent (648 square feet) pursuant to HBZSO Section 236.06(E). This will result in a 233-percent (3,012-square-foot) increase in the permitted area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure. IThe Planning Commission shall act on all variances exceeding 20-percent deviation from site coverage, separation between buildings, height, setback, parking, and landscape requirements in accordance with HBZSO Section 241.04. 6/27/2017 HB -319- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SM Item 21. - 39 These variances are requested to accommodate the proposed relocation of a historic single-family residence from property located at 428 7t' Street toXroperty located at 506 7t' Street (see the vicinity map on the previous page). When the property at 428 7 Street was sold to a new owner, the historic structure was removed from the lot by the applicant and placed into storage. The applicant intends to preserve the structure in the original neighborhood in which it was built. For more information, refer to the project narrative submitted by the applicant (Attachment 3). The property at 506 7a' Street is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and detached one -car garage. To accommodate the relocation, the garage is proposed to be demolished and a new living room, bathroom, laundry room, and three -car garage are proposed in its place at the rear of the lot. This new building area will be attached to the existing dwelling through a new hallway. In addition, the proposed three -car garage is designed with two levels. Two garage parking spaces are proposed at grade level, and one is proposed in a subterranean level accessed via a ramp in the garage. The historic dwelling is proposed to be placed atop the new building area, resulting in a structure that will be three -stories high. Minimal modifications to the exterior design of the historic structure are required to attach the existing and proposed structures through the new hallway. However, several modifications to the interior of the historic dwelling are proposed. These modifications include converting the porch into a balcony, kitchen into a wet bar room, office into a bathroom, and a bedroom into a bathroom. The resulting floor plan layout will overall function as one single dwelling unit with a kitchen, dining room, two living rooms, billiard room, wet bar room, laundry room, six and a half bathrooms, four bedrooms, a three -car garage, and approximately 380 square feet of storage area in the subterranean level. Figure 1: Proposed Arrangement of Structures on Site ❑ Existing dwelling ❑ Historic structure ❑ New building area Im New Subterranean level Item 21. - 40 HB -320- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SFR Relocation) Background: Historic Structure formerly located at 428 7th Street The historic structure is a wood -frame, two-story, single-family dwelling designed in the Colonial Revival architectural style, as seen in Figure 2 below. It was constructed circa 1905. In 1986, the Huntington Beach Historical Society embarked on a survey of the City's historic resources in downtown and the surrounding areas. The survey results identified the structure at 428 7th Street as a locally important historic structure due to its architectural significance (Attachment 5). From 2008 to 2012, the City and Historic Resources Board (HRB) updated and expanded the 1986 survey to include a study of all potentially significant buildings within the entire city. The updated survey identified a list of 257 historic landmarks in the City. The structure formerly located at 428 7th Street remains on this list. Figure 2: Photographs of the Historic Structure Legal Nonconforming Structure located at 506 7rh Street The 506 7th Street residence was also constructed circa 1905. Although the dwelling was built legally, it does not conform to current development standards in the RMH-A subdistrict. Specifically, it does not meet minimum standards for front and side yard building and roof eave setbacks. The dwelling is currently set back nine feet from the front yard lot line, whereas a 12-foot setback is required; and is set back two feet from the northern side yard lot line, whereas a 3.15-foot setback is required. The roof eave is setback six inches from the northern side yard lot line, whereas a 30 inch setback is required. Therefore, it is considered a legal nonconforming structure. Nonconforming structures may be altered or enlarged provided that the alteration or enlargement is in conformance with applicable provisions of the 6/27/2017 HB -321- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SP Item 21. - 41 HBZSO. Additionally, the area of enlargement to a nonconforming structure in any five year period shall not exceed 50 percent of the area of the existing structure. ISSUES: Subiect Property and Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning, and Land Uses: The subject lot is located on the southeast side of 7t' Street, approximately 43.5 feet northeast of Pecan Avenue. The table below identifies the General Plan designations, zoning, and existing land uses of the subject property and surrounding area. LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject property: RMH-25-d North of subject property: (Residential Medium High Maximum of 25.0 dwelling units per net acre Special DesignResidential — p RMH-A (Medium High Density Subdistrict) Single-family residential South of subject property: East of subject property: Standards) West of subject property: General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as RMH-25-d (Residential Medium High — Maximum of 25.0 dwelling units per net acre — Special Design Standards). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.2.2 Permit historically significant buildings to vary from standard City codes; providing that the variations do not endanger human life and buildings comply with the State Historical Code. B. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Goal HCR 1 To promote the preservation and restoration of the sites, structures and districts which have architectural, historical, and/or archaeological significance to the City of Huntington Beach. Objective HCR 1.3 Consider the provision of incentives (strategies, assistance, and regulations) for the maintenance and/or enhancement of privately owned historic properties in a manner that will conserve the integrity of such resources in the best possible condition. Policy HCR 1.3.7 Explore alternatives that enable a property owner to sensitively add to the existing structure, or develop an accompanying building on the site that allows property development rights to be realized. Deviation to setbacks, height, Item 21. - 42 HB -322- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SFR Relocation) parking, and other requirements should be considered to make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no other reasonable alternative exists. Policy HCR 1.3.8 Preserve and reuse historically significant structures, where feasible. Granting variances from the minimum required side yard building setback, maximum permitted building height within the rear 25 feet of a lot, maximum permitted lot coverage, minimum required side yard roof eave setback, minimum dimensions for a parking space, and the maximum enlargement of a nonconforming structure (with modifications) will facilitate the preservation of a locally designated historic single-family residence. It will do so by making possible the relocation of a historic structure from property located at 428 7th Street to property located at 506 7th Street. If not for the proposed relocation, the historic structure would have been demolished. Furthermore, the proposed relocation preserves the structure in the original neighborhood, and on the original street in which it was built; thereby conserving the integrity of this resource in the best possible condition. Lastly, the proposed project has been reviewed by the Building Division for compliance with the California Building Code, and State Historical Code. Compliance with these codes will ensure variances from development standards will not endanger human life. Therefore, granting the requested variances, with modifications, will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Historic and Cultural Resources Element. Zoninz Code Compliance: The subject property is located in the RMH-A (Medium High Density Residential — Small Lot) zoning subdistrict. Therefore, the proposed development is subject to RMH-A subdistrict development standards. The proposed development complies with standards of this subdistrict, with the exception of standards for side yard building setbacks, building height, lot coverage, side yard roof eave setbacks, parking space dimensions, and the expansion of nonconforming structures. Therefore, variances are requested pursuant to HBZSO Chapter 241 (Conditional Use Permits and Variances — Temporary Use Permits — Waiver of Development Standards). The subject lot is also subject to HBZSO Title 25 (Subdivisions). The neighborhood subdivision was established pursuant to the Map of Huntington Beach Main Street Section on September 19, 1904 (Attachment 6). According to the map, the subject lot was 26-feet wide and 117.5-feet deep. However, a chain of title revealed a previous land owner deeded five feet of the adjoining lot to the subject property thereby widening the subject lot to 31.5 feet. This was done without the accompanying action to formally and legally adjust lot lines in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to HBZSO Section 230.62, no building or structure shall be erected or moved onto any parcel of land in the City except on a lot certified in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision and zoning provisions. Therefore, to legalize the lot a Certificate of Compliance will be required in accordance with HBZSO Section 258.06. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), because the project involves an addition to an existing structure that will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet in an 6/27/2017 HB -323- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SF11tem 21. - 43 area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. The proposed project is also Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation), because the project involves maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board. Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Community Development, Public Works, and Fire reviewed the application and identified applicable code requirements. Most notably, the Public Works Department identified a 2.5-foot right-of-way dedication required along the rear of the lot for purposes of widening the public alley. The goal is to establish an alley right-of-way that is 20 feet wide. The requirements are attached for information only (Attachment No. 7). Public Notification: A legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on June 8, 2017. Notices were also mailed to property owners of record and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site, individuals and organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department Notification Matrix), the project applicant, and interested parties. The public notice identified a variance from the minimum depth of a parking space; however, after the notice was distributed the applicant indicated an intent to comply with this development standard. Therefore, this variance is no longer requested and all parking spaces will be designed with a minimum depth of 19 feet in accordance with HBZSO Section 231.14 (Parking Space Dimensions). Application Processinm Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: June 7, 2017 August 6, 2017 (60 days) Variance No. 17-003 was filed on March 31, 2017 and deemed complete on June 7, 2017. The application is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on June 27, 2017. Item 21. - 44 FIB -324- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SFR Relocation) ANALYSIS: A variance is a permit that allows a property owner to construct a building without having to comply with applicable zoning district development standards. For the Planning Commission to approve a variance, all the following findings must be satisfied. If a variance cannot satisfy one or more of the four findings, it must be disapproved. I. The granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. With modifications, the requested variances will satisfy these findings as discussed below. Established Precedence Granting the requested variances will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Variances have been approved for the preservation of historic structures as demonstrated below. — On April 4, 2003, Variance No. 03-01 was approved for a reduction of parking space dimensions and reductions in setbacks to facilitate the relocation of a historic single-family dwelling to property located at 403 10th Street. This historic dwelling was the home of the first mayor of Huntington Beach, Ed Manning. — On January 23, 2013, Variance No. 12-005 was approved for an increase in the height of a detached accessory structure, and to deviate from parking area design standards to facilitate the adaptive reuse of a historic hotel (Hotel Evangeline). The Craftsman Style hotel is historically significant due to its unique architecture, and representation as the last remaining symbol of Huntington Beach's early resort community. Therefore, granting the requested variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege because variances have been approved for the preservation of different historic structures in the neighborhood. 6/27/2017 HB -325- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SH Item 21. - 45 Special Circumstances Due to special circumstances in the surrounding neighborhood, 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 historic resources survey identifies 86 historic structures in the subject RMH-A zoned neighborhood. The boundaries of this area are identified in Figure 3 above. Compared with other neighborhoods in the City, this specific neighborhood includes the greatest number of historically significant properties. In the immediate vicinity of the project site are four properties developed with historic structures. Figure 4 identifies those four properties. Due to high property values, the structures in this neighborhood are extremely vulnerable to change and redevelopment. Approximately 17 of the historic structures in this neighborhood have been demolished according to records in the Building Division. Granting variances to facilitate preservation of the subject historic structure in its original neighborhood and on its original street will conserve a cluster of buildings in the area that present a distinguishable collection of architectural styles prevalent in the history of the City's development. Therefore, precluding the preservation of the subject historic resource through strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property and other properties in the vicinity the privilege of understanding the history of the community through its historic structures. Preservation of a Historic Structure Figure 3: Neighborhood Boundaries Figure 4: Historic Properties in the Vicinity The City's General Plan encourages the preservation of historic structures, and specifically authorizes variations from development standards to promote such preservation. Modification of any part of the historic structure to comply with the HBZSO would defeat the purpose of preservation. Therefore, granting variances that specifically relate to the preservation of the historic structure are acceptable as discussed previously under "General Plan Conformance." Item 21. - 46 HB -326- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SFR Relocation) Suggested Modification While variances are necessary to facilitate the relocation of the historic structure, variances are not necessary for any new building area unrelated to the historic structure. The applicant proposes a new subterranean level solely as a means to provide additional storage area in the dwelling. However, the new subterranean level is not necessary for the preservation of the historic structure and can be modified to comply with the Zoning Code to a greater extent. Specifically, eliminating the proposed basement level storage and parking reduces the overall size of the nonconforming structure expansion from 3,660 square feet to 3,107 square feet (a reduction of 553 square feet). As a result, the deviation from the maximum permitted enlargement of a nonconforming structure would be reduced by 43 percent, as seen in the table below. AREA OF ENLARGEMENT' % OF EXISTING STRUCTURE2 Maximum Permitted 648 square feet 50% Proposed 3,660 square feet 283% Alternative Design 3,107 square feet 240% 'This includes all habitable and non -habitable building area. 2The existing structure is 1,296.11 square feet in size. Eliminating the subterranean parking level will also serve another purpose. It will eliminate a parking area design that creates a potential safety hazard for vehicular traffic. The design includes a steep ramp (18.25 percent slope), which affects visibility for motorists maneuvering out of the garage. It also includes a narrow ramp (8.96 feet wide), which makes ingress and egress from the garage difficult. Ramps typically include between a ten and 15 percent slope with a ten -foot -wide driveway. This uncommon design is not subject to specific standards, but has been evaluated to determine safe ingress and egress. As a result, this steep and narrow ramp will likely preclude the use of the area as a parking space and is not supported by staff. Two examples of alternative first floor plan designs are identified in Figure 5 below. As seen in the alternative designs, eliminating the subterranean level will not reduce the number of parking spaces available for the dwelling. A total of three parking spaces are required for a four -bedroom dwelling, and three can be provided in a garage at grade level. Each design also includes the desired storage area in varying sizes, up to approximately 435 square feet. Lastly, the alternative designs allow for parking spaces that are each eight feet, four inches wide. Therefore, the width of two parking spaces would increase four inches over the proposed width (but still less than the minimum required width of nine feet). For the reasons discussed above, the recommended findings do not apply to any new building area unrelated to the historic structure. As a recommended condition of the project approval, the subterranean level must be eliminated. The applicant has expressed his belief that all proposed building area, including the subterranean level, is necessary for the preservation of the historic structure. He asserts the historic structure provides little storage area. By providing storage area in the subterranean level, preservation of the structure is likely to persist with the next owner. 6/27/2017 HB -327- (17sr VAR 17-003 Historic SF11tem 21. - 47 Figure 5: Two Alternative First Floor Plan Layouts I IL / 8' 4" Li Storage ' 19' Area 210sgft I --+ -- -- ---- ---G- Redesigned Stairs The stairs to the subterranean level have been eliminated. The stairs to E the second floor have been slightly redesigned. .................................................... .................................................P....................r..................................... Enlarged Garage . ! Elimination of the Subterranean Level The wall between the living area The ramp and subterranean level have c and the garage has been moved to been eliminated. This allows the width enlarge the area of the garage and of parking spaces to increase to 8 feet, 4 accommodate the desired storage inches. All parking spaces are provided area (identified by the red cross f at grade level and are 19-feet deep. hatch) t I .............................:....................................... :................ Relocated Laundry Facilities Eliminated Bathroom The laundry facilities have been c A bathroom on the first floor has been relocated to accommodate the desired eliminated to accommodate the desired c storage area. storage area. ........................................................:......................................................... Item 21. - 48 HB -328- (17sr25 VAR 17-003 Historic SFRRelocation) Conclusion: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 1.7-003, with the suggested modification to eliminate the subterranean level, based upon the following: — Facilitates the preservation of a locally designated historic single-family residence. — Conserves the integrity of a historic structure by allowing it to remain in its original neighborhood. — Follows established precedence for the approval of variances in the neighborhood associated with the relocation of a historic structure. — Special circumstances existing in the surrounding historic neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS: I, ... _ • SH:JJ:CW:kd 6/27/2017 HB -329- Attar Item 21. - 49 A variance is a permit that allows a property owner to construct a building without having to comply with applicable zoning district development standards. For the Planning Commission to approve a variance, all the following findings must be satisfied. If a variance cannot satisfy one or more of the four findings, it must be disapproved. 1. The granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. • Applicant cites two established precedents to support this finding. The second one, Variance No. 12-005 dated January 23, 2013 relates to the historical Hotel Evangeline. This is not an applicable precedent because the historical structure was restored IN - PLACE and the variances were required only to facilitate the construction of a separate structure, a garage, on the property. • The other precedent cited, Variance No. 03-01 dated April 4, 2003 was issued to the current applicant to facilitate moving a historically significant building onto the lot of another historical building. To date, 14 years later, applicant has not completed the subject property. o Has not met several of the initial conditions of approval of Variance No. 03-01 (sewer, water and electrical) o Project building permits have lapsed (12 months) and construction cannot legally continue. o The current project violates another finding that was a basis for approval of said variance; that approval was consistent with the policies of the General Plan HCR 1.1, 1.2.2, and LU 4.2. - specifically, to promote the preservation and restoration of the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources. See photos attached — historic structure has not been restored or maintained. It has deteriorated over the 14 years. • If variance No. 03-01 is to be used as a precedence, the ability of the applicant to execute the project should also be considered and therefore this variance should be disapproved. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property ... the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. • The SUBJECT PROPERTY is 506 7th Street. The subject property privileges are only being restricted because of the desire to move the historical building. Applicant can fully realize the property privileges through new construction and other conventional means. • If you want to include in the definition of "special circumstances" the fact that applicant desires to move a historically significant building, I would argue that said building currently doesn't qualify as "property" for these purposes, because it doesn't sit on a lot within the city. But if you want to consider the historically significant building in this application, moving it to this particular lot, atop a new garage is not the only option. More suitable lots exist. The General Plan Policy HCR 1.3.7 States a desire to: "Explore alternatives that enable a property owner to sensitively add to the existing structure, or develop an accompanying building on the site that allows property development rights to be realized. Deviation to setbacks, height, parking, and other requirements should be Item 21. - 72 H11-352- considered to make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no other reasonable alternative exists. 3. The granting of the variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. • The SUBJECT PROPERTY is 506 7th Street. The subject property rights are only being restricted because of the desire to relocate the historical building. Applicant can fully realize the property rights through new construction and other conventional means. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. • Applicant states "that the City's General Plan encourages the preservation of historic structures, and specifically authorizes variations from development standards to promote such preservation." Again, I would clarify that the City's General Plan states desire to "make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no other reasonable alternative exists." • Prior execution by applicant on the property subject to Variance No. 03-01 demonstrates action detrimental to public welfare and injurious to property in the same zone classification in that 14 years have passed and subject property is incomplete, building permits have expired and the historical building at the center of the project has fallen into disrepair. HB -353- Item 21. - 73 Nil -.A a• ,�r� � r t �u� � ! 1_ i R a 1. 1 ,: °�;=... 6 11