Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-06Approved Nov. 3, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1981 - 7:00 PM - Civic Center California COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE CONSENT DAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 15 AND 22, 1981, AND A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 10910 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ►.. ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CALEN- TIME 80-4, Commissioner.Kenefick requested that she be allowed to present a comment out of the regular order of the agenda concerning the number of items on the agenda before the Commission at this meeting and the scheduling system used by the staff in determin- ing what will be heard at any specific meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY THAT THE COMMISSION FORM A PROCEDURES COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH SCHEDULING. Discussion followed. The Commission considered the implications of such action and the procedure which might be followed by such a committee. Staff explained the constraints imposed by State law on the processing of applications. After extensive discus- sion Kenefick and Mahaffey amended their motion to call for a study session on this matter on Tuesday, October 14. Motion carried by the following vote: ...- AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 2 Noting that a request for continuance has been received on two zone changes, Chairman Winchell took those items out of order on the agenda. ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-46 (Cont. from 5-5-81) Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc. To permit a change of zone from RA-0 to R-1-10,000 on property loc- ated on the east side of Edwards Street approximately 1000 feet south of Ellis Avenue. ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-11/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-41 Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc. To permit a change of zone from RA-0-CD (Residential Agricultural combined with Oil Production/Civic District) to Rl-O-CD-15,000 (Low Density Residential combined with Oil Production/Civic District) with each lot having a minimum area of 15,000 square feet, on prop- erty located on the south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 800 feet west of Goldenwest Street. David Dahl addressed the Commission to state that despite his letter requesting continuance to the next meeting he now thought it best to continue to the first meeting in November, in light of the discussion regarding agenda length. u ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER ZONE CHANGES NOS. 81-3 AND 81-11 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS 81-46 AND 81-41 WERE CONTINUED WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOV- EMBER 3, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11474/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-11 Alternative 1 - Cont. from September 22, 1981 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation To permit a one -lot subdivision for the purpose of construction of airspace condominiums on property located at the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and Algonquin Street. Chairman Winchell said that the public hearing had been opened and closed on September 22 and only questions of the applicant or staff would be accepted. Savoy Bellavia reported that the applicant has assessed this alterna- tive as asked to do at the last meeting, but because of the difficulty in cutting down the parking structure he is suggesting that the struc- ture be lowered to no more than 42 inches above the finished grade of -2- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 3 adjacent recreation area. This proposal is what is being presented for the Commission's review. Commissioner Porter discussed landscaping treatment to lessen the impact of the parking structure, and Frank Mola outlined what he plans to use, which he said will include permanent planters poured at'the same time the building is poured. Mr. Porter asked that the suggested conditions of approval be revised to include the conditions proposed in Mr. Mola's letter and to delete any reference to Alternative 2. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER TENTATIVE TRACT 11474 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-11, ALTERNATIVE 1, WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT: A special permit has been granted for this Alternative 1 to encompass the following deficiencies: Increase in permitted lot coverage from 50 to 56 percent; provision of a 25-foot drive into the project in lieu of the code -required 48 foot drive penetrating the project for a 100 foot distance; and a decreased setback from the east property line of subject property. `- The Planning Commission may approve a special permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the proposed development will: 1. Promote better living environment, insofar as this project has been designed to minimize vehicular traffic adjacent to the units while integrating large open space area for the residents' enjoyment. 2. Promote better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthet- ically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design, of which this plan has incorporated architecture that has created interesting shapes, planes, and areas, and which has incor- porated landscaping in order to soften and cnhanc e the hardsc-ape dosido of the buildings and which has utilized Land planning tech- niques that reduce conClict-s between vehic•ulor and pedestrian tral C ic. .1. Not be dot-rinuental to the (Ioneral health, wel safety an"! Con- vonience of the neighborhood or the City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the values of the property or improvements of the neighborhood or the city in general . This project has been dosi.lncd in accordance with the provisions sot forth in the planned residential development ordinance and is compatible with surrounding architecture and design. 4. Be consistent with the objectives of the planned unit standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with -3- 10-6-81 - P.0 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 4 the surrounding environment. This project has been designed to maxi- mize features of the natural terrain and to mitigate the majority of environmental effects on the surrounding property. FINDINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-11 - ALTERNATIVE 1 ]. The proposed subdivision of this 1.77 acre parcel of land zoned R3 is proposed to be constructed having less than 25 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the City's General Plan. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of lend use at the time the land use designation for high density residential was placed on the property. 4. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width and, through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City subdivision ordinance. - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-11 - ALTERNATIVE 1 1. The site plans received for Alternative 1 on July 13, 1981 shall be the approved conceptual plans. All items not addressed by the approval for the special permit for the proposed project must comply with all provisions of Article 936 and any other applicable pro- visions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facili- ties, water heaters, and central heating units.' 4. I,Ow-volume heads shell be used in all showers. All building spoils such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and ether srrrpl us or unusablC 1MIter..ials, shall be disposed of at an offsite Cacility equipped to handle them. 6. Energy -efficient lighting, such as high-pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 7. A1.1 approved drives shall be considered fire lanes and shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 10-6-8.1= P X , Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 5 8. A fire sprinkler system,standpipe system, and fire alarm system shall be designed and installed in those structures as deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department and shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions. 9. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or det- ached, shall be constructed in compliance with State acoustical standards set forth for units within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering with the application for a building permit. 10. If at any time an entrance gate is proposed at the main entrance, location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Depart- ment of Development Services and the Fire Department. 11. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall contain a provision which will prohibit storage of boats, trailers, and/or recreational vehicles on the site, unless an area specifically designed for such storage in compliance with the provisions of Article 936 is provided for the project. 12. The deck of the semi -subterranean parking structure shall not project more than forty-two (42) inches above the finish grade of the main recreation area. 13. The impact of the parking structures shall be minimized through the use of berms and landscaping in the front of the structures and through the use of permanent planter boxes and appropriate land- scaping on the parking structure deck where appropriate. FINDnGS: TENTATIVE TRACT 11474 - ALTERNATIVE 1 1. The proposed subdivision of this 1.77 acre parcel of land zoned R3 is proposed to be constructed having less than 25 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing. Therefore, the project as proposed co.;.plies with the City's General Plan. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for high density residential was placed on the property. 4. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width and; through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City sub- division ordinance. Minutes, R.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TENTATIVE TRACT 11474 - ALTERNATIVE 1 1. The tentative tract shall be revised to include the distinct border of the tract to the centerline of all adjacent streets and to pro- vide cross sections of -all public and private streets adjacent to or within the project. 2. The water system shall be through the Huntington Beach water system. 3. The sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed to City standards. 4. The property shall participate in all local drainage easement district requirements and fees. 5. Drainage for the subject subdivision shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for erosion and siltation control both during.and after construction of the proposed project. 6. All access rights along Algonquin Street, Old Warner Avenue, and/ or Warner Avenue, except for the intersection of private drives, shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-12/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 80-2 Applicant: MDC Realty Company To permit the construction of a 1,200,000 square foot mixed industrial/ commercial development on a 66 acre parcel of land located on the northwest corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Jim Rabe, representing the'environmental consultant who prepared the EIR, addressed the Commission to describe the main areas of impact considered in the EIR, the mitigation measures proposed to alleviate any adverse impact in these areas, and the alternatives to the pro- ject which had been considered and their results on traffic, City services, and employment as opposed to the actual project. A representative of the developer presented slides depicting the lay- out of the property and described the mix and location of the various uses proposed. She noted that parking is 600 spaces over City require- ments and that each phase of the project as it is constructed will be self-sufficient in parking spaces. In response to questioning from Commissioner Bannister in regard to shadows cast, by the six and 1 -6- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 7 seven story towers, she replied that this had been studied and at the worst time of day and worst time of year the shadow on the neighboring properties across the street would be evident for only minutes each day. In any event, they are buffered by the 100-foot street and the 50 foot setback, which would alleviate any problems. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Bruce Gilmer of the Department of Public Works informed the Commission that his department is concerned that the number of driveway accesses off Springdale Street into the project seems to be excessive and they would like to see these drives restric- ted to no more than two at most. He also indicated that coordina- tion of the signals in the area will be necessary, and will re- quire at least one and possibly two new coordinating units, as well as installation of new conduit. The Commission discussed the extent of this proposed signal coordination and the degree of participation which should be required of the subject applicant. Merle Fouch, representing the developer, inquired whether or not it has been determined that the additional traffic to be generated by this project will be the sole cause of the need for the coordinators. Staff responded that this determination has not been made as yet. Mr. Gilmer, in response to questioning from Mr. Fouch, said that the cost per unit would be approxi- mately $8,000 but that this cost would not be necessary until a later date, with appropriate preparations and conduits laid during the construction of the project. Mr. Fouch replied that with the understanding that the costs could be met during the phasing of the project the cost of participating in the signal coordination would not be prohibitive. Commissioner Porter suggested that no percentage be set until it has been determined what the peak hour traffic contribution from the project on Bolsa and Springdale will be. He also discussed the sign program for the project and offered a condi- tion of approval to control such signs. The Commission reviewed the proposed conditions of approval, discussed the layout and scope of the plan, and considered the future improvements to be made on Springdale Street. Timing of the signal coordination was also extensively discussed. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the developer is op- posed to the proposed limit being set for access drives off Springdale; after further consideration, it was determined to leave this subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY ENVIRONMENTAL IM- PACT REPORT NO. 80-2 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None -7- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 8 ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-12 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING -VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed plan for development, as submitted, and the future use of the subject site are consistent with the land use designa- tion of the City's General Plan as general industrial. 2. The proposed project, as submitted, is in substantial compliance' with the applicable'provisions and requirements of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in relation to Articles 951, Restricted -Manu- facturing, and 979, Offstreet Parking. 3. Through the use of proper site design, building orientation and design, and landscape design, the proposed project will be compatible with surrounding residential and industrial land uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and schematic floor plans and elevations submitted on April 2, 1981 shall be the approved schematic plans. Each phase of the proposed project shall be reviewed in detail by the Board of Zon- ing Adjustments through an administrative review application or appli cation deemed appropriate at the time of filing. 2. The applicant is required to coordinate and cooperate with the Orange County Transit District and the City's Department of Develop- ment Services in order to provide adequate transit facilities for the project (i.e., bus turnouts, bus pads, bus shelters, etc.). The applicant shall construct, erect, and maintain said facilities and grant to the Orange County Transit District permission to operate buses on private streets within the development. 3. The applicant is required to participate in the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Bolsa Avenue and Able Lane. The applicant's participation in the construction of this signal shall be 66 percent of the total cost of erecting such signal. This signal shall be installed prior to the completion of the first 25 percent of floor area or the first 300,000 square feet of floor area in the proposed project. The developer shall be required to participate in the installation of a system of signal coordination for the traffic signals at the intersections of Springdale Street with Bolsa Avenue and Skylab Road and the traffic signals at the intersections of Bolsa Avenue with Able Lane and Graham Street. The percentage of financial participation required of the developer shall be negotiated between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer, with the agreed, percentage of the cost for the purchase and installation of necessary conduit deposited by the developer into an escrow account during the -8- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 9 first phase of the subject project. The developer's percentage of funds for the remainder of the system shall be deposited into the escrow account when installation of the coordination equipment is deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works or upon completion of the last phase of construction of the project, whichever occurs first. 4. All buildings and approved roadways within the proposed project shall comply with minimum standards set forth by the Huntington Beach Fire Department for emergency accessways and fire sprinkler systems, standpipe systems, hydrant systems, and fire alarm systems. 5. A detailed landscape plan for each phase shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits for any build- ings within that specific phase. 6. A detailed planned sign program pursuant to Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the occupancy of the first building in the first phase. Signing for•the project, other than directional signs, shall consist of monument or wall signs. 7. Drainage for the proposed project shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits for the first building in the first phase. This drainage system shall be designed to provide for erosion and siltation control both during and after construction of the proposed project. 8. The water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system. 9. The sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed to City standards. 10. The property shall participate in local drainage easement district requirements and fees. 11. Energy-eff_lclent: 1 iyhts, such as high-pressure sodium vapor l,zmps, shall be a ;cad in al l parki.nq lots, parkinq structures, and exterior landsc apinq and shall be designed to prevent. "spillayc," onto adjacent areas. 12. All buildinq spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equppped to handle them. 13. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soil engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding qrading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, re- taining walls, streets, and utilities. -9- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 10 14. All structures and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate water conservation measures. These measures include low -flush toilets, low -volume shower heads (in the hotel and any other showers installed in the industrial or office facilities), turn-off adaptors, faucet flow controls,'hot water recirculation, and drought -resistant plants within the landscaping. 15. Curb cuts on Springdale Street to provide ingress/egress for the site shall be restricted to those approved by the Department of Public Works of the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick,Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher. ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND -SECOND BY KENEFICK RESOLUTION NO. 1277, SETTING FORTH THE TYPES OF MIXED USES TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS MIXED INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher. ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.'81-26/TENTATIVE TRACT 10853 (Revised) Applicant: Mola Development Corporation To permit construction of a 288-unit condominium development on 12.5 acres of land located on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street approxi- mately 700 feet south of Warner Avenue. Savoy Bellavia presented a brief report on the past history of the project and the property. The public hearing was opened. Mike Guest, 17121 Greenleaf Street, spoke in opposition to the pro- posed project, saying that the present plan has encroached on the setbacks and open space that had originally been provided adjacent to the single-family development to the east. He also discussed the proximity of the parking -lot, drive, and trash bins to his property, and asked that the Commission carefully review the drainage for the subject site before approving the project. Charles Beauregard also discussed the grading of the site, which he said has increased the height'of the property in relation to the adjacent homes. He also noted that a parking area should not'be pro- vided next to -the adjoining residential area. -10- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 11 Frank Mola, developer, addressed the Commission to explain how drainage will be provided and to describe the actual topography of the project site. He noted that the plan has not changed along the south property line adjacent to the MWD property, and that adequate setbacks have been provided along the easterly and southeasterly property lines to protect adjacent residents through the use of berming and extensive landscaping. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed, concentrating on the grading, drainage, and setbacks. Bruce Gilmer of the Department of Pub- lic Works described the master -planned drainage system of which the new drains required for this project are a part. This system when complete will drain the area down to Graham Street and will be sufficient to accommodate the MWD property when and if it is developed. In the opinion of Public Works the drainage plans, which are submitted but not completely calculated out as yet, appear to be adequately sized to handle the expected flow. The system being installed by this developer -will become a City -owned system after a period'of one year. Extensive discussion of -the setbacks took place. In response to a suggestion that the structures be moved back, Mr. Mola replied that it would be possible to move them but this would require use of retaining walls and grade differentials which would have a much more adverse visual impact upon adjoining residences than would the reduced setback. He repeated his intention to screen the structures by extensive landscaping, saying that they would put a "forest" between the project and the existing Rl dwellings. After further review, the Commission directed the developer'to pay special attention to the whole southeasterly portion of the project to assure landscaping treatment to protect the neighbor- ing residences. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PORTER TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10853 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-26 (REVISED) WERE APPROVED THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION, WITH THE FOLLOWING 'FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: SPECIAL PERMIT: A special permit has been granted for the subject project to permit the following deviation from=the ordinance code: A reduction in the required setback for the three structures located adjacent to the south property line - allowed setback is between 22 and 25 feet. FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: The Planning Commission may approve a special permit application in whole or in part upon the finding that the proposed development will: -11- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.S. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 12 1. Promote better living environment, insofar as the project has been designed to minimize vehicular traffic while integrating greenbelt areas throughout the entire project. 2. Promote better land planning techniques with the maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site lay- out and design, of which this plan has incorporated architecture that has created interesting shapes, planes, and areas, and which has incorporated landscaping in order to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings, and which has utilized land planning tech- niques that reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, or conveni- ence of the neighborhood or the City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the values of the property or improvements of the neigh- borhood or of the City in general. This project has been designed as an integrated planned residential development and has been adapted to the terrain and is compatible with surrounding land uses. FINDINGS - C.U.P. 81-26: (Revised) 1. The proposed subdivision of this 12.51 acre parcel of land, desig- nated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan as medium and high density residential and zoned R3-23, is proposed to be developed having a density of 23 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. 2. With the granting of the special permit the proposed plan as presented is in substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 936, Planned Residential Development, and will be in keeping with the intent of said ordinance. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street widths and, through the use of the special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision will be in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compli- ance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-26 (Revised): 1. The site plans, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 2, 1981 shall be the approved layout, floor plans, and eleva- tions subject to revisions to the site plans and floor plans to bring all parking dimensions and balcony sizes into compliance with the pro- visions of Article 936. All items not addressed by the approval of the special permit must comply with the provisions of Article 936 and any other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations .of clothes dryers. -12- 10-6-81 = P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 13 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facili- ties, water heaters, and central heating units. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used in all showers. 5. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, or other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 6. Energy -efficient lighting, such as high-pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in the parking lot to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 7. Lighting in the parking court located in the southeast corner of the project shall be of a low-level type, as opposed to overhead lighting poles. 8. Special intensified landscaping treatment shall be utilized along the southeast and south property lines of the project and this treat- ment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services. 9. All approved drives shall be considered fire lanes and shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 10. A fire sprinkler system, standpipe system, and fire alarm system shall be designed and installed in those structures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. These systems shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions. 11. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical stand- ards set forth for units within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of the submittal of an acousti- cal analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering with the applica- tion for building permits. 12. If at any time an entrance gate is proposed at the main entrance, location and design of such gate shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services and by the Fire Department. 13. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall contain a pro- vision which shall prohibit storage of boats, trailers, and/or recreational vehicles onsite, unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage and which is in compliance with the provisions of Article 936 is provided for the project. -13- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 14 FINDINGS: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10853: (Revised) L. The proposed -subdivision of this 12.51 acre parcel of land, desig- nated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan as medium and high density residential and.zoned R3-23, is proposed to be developed having a density of 23 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. 2. With the granting of- the special permit, the proposed plan as pre- sented is in substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 936, Planned Residential Development, and is in keeping with the intent of said ordinance. 3. The lot size, depth, -.frontage, street widths and, through the use of a special permit,. -all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file_ -with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10853: (Revised) 1. The tentative tract received and dated October 2, 1981 shall be the approved layout, with the modification that the distinct border be extended to the centerline of Bolsa Chica Street. 2. The water system shall be -through the City of iuntington Beach water system. 3. The sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed to City standards. 4. The property shall participate in all local drainage assessment district requirements -and fees. 5. Drainage for the subject subdivision shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final map. Said drainage system shall provide that the existing drain- age flow across the southeast corner of the subject property shall be properly conveyed -so as not to cause any flow onto adjacent properties. Said drainage system shall be designed to provide for erosion and siltation control both during and after construction of the proposed project. 6. All access rights along Bolsa Chica Street, except for the inter- section of the private drive, shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Winchell- ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher .� ABSTAIN: None -14- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-25/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11603 Applicant: R & R Investments To.permit a 50-unit residential condominium development on 2.5 acres of land located north of Newman Avenue 660 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Savoy Bellavia reported that staff's concerns over the design of the rear of the buildings and the landscaping along the portion of the project fronting on the private streets have resulted in re- vised drawings from the developer showing additional landscaping and stamped concrete used in some portions of the drives, as well as elevations showing increased use of wood siding to break up the stucco walls. The public hearing was opened. Dave Duplanty, architect, spoke to describe the project and urge its approval. He noted that the recent changes had resulted in a ratio of wood to stucco of about 80/20. There were no other.persons to address the Commission in regard to this project, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the drive access width, the lack of compliance with the requirement for garage setback, and the can- tilevering of part of the habitable portions of the dwellings over the parking. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-25 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11603 WITH APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT AND WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. Chairman Winchell indicated her intention to vote against the proposal because of the cantilevering treatment and the 5-foot garage setbacks, a position also taken by Commissioner Kenefick. In light of the fact that the required four -vote majority could not be obtained, no vote was taken on the motion. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-25 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11603 WERE TABLED TO THE NEXT MEETING ON OCTOBER 20, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Staff was directed to notify the two absent Commissioners of the need to review the tape of this meeting prior to the October 20 hearing. -15- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October_6, 1981 Page 16 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-013/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-573 Applicant: George Rogers To -create three new parcels of land from three existing parcels loc- ated on the west side of Pomona Lane between Lafayette and Auburn Drives. The conditional exception would permit reduction in minimum lot frontage of Parcel 3 from the required 60 feet to 43 feet, a reduction in the minimum square footage of Parcel 3 from the required 6000 to approximately 5,777 square feet, and a reduction in rear yard - setback on Parcel 2 from 10 feet to approximately 4 feet. Savoy Bellavia outlined the various maps existing for this property, stating that the assessor's parcel map is the only one that reflects the existing actual ownerships and the applications under considera- tion are an attempt to bring the legal division of property into con- formance with that assessor's map. It was explained that the problem was caused by the original owner's selling the parcels a few years ago on contract sale without the necessary title reports, an action in which the present owners"had no part. The public hearing was opened. George Rogers, Inadell Mitchell and the owner of the largest piece of property involved all addressed the Commission to urge approval of the requests. There were no other -persons present to speak for or against the pro- posals, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission reviewed the history of the property, including review of the staff report prepared January, 1980, when the request had been approved on a prior parcel map which expired without recordation. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND.SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-013 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-573 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-013: 1. Granting of this conditional exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of residents of neighboring prop- erties or injurious to improvement of property in the vicinity. 2. Granting of�the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Granting of the conditional exception does not constitute a grant of special privilege from other properties in the vicinity. 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject prop- erty, including topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the I. 1 -16- 10-6-81 - P.C. rl .Minutes,*H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 17 subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-013: 1. The plot plan received and dated August 12, 1981 shall be the approved layout. FINDINGS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-573: 1. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the imple- mentation of this type of use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-573: 1. The tentative parcel map received and dated August 12, 1981 shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Depart- ment of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 81-9 (Appeal to BZA Condition of Approval) Applicant: Foxx Development Appeal to Condition B-1 imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjust- ments upon approval of a request for the establishment of use and remodeling of front elevations of an existing building located on the west side of 17th Street approximately 50 feet north of Olive Avenue (305 17th Street). Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the appealed condi- tion had required the filing of a tentative parcel map to con- solidate lots prior to the issuance of a building permit. The public hearing was opened. Susan Haldeman, attorney for the appellant, addressed the Com- mission to state that her client's only objection to the condi- tion is the time element and he is asking only that the condition be modified so that the parcel map does not have to be filed before the building permits are pulled. The applicant has no objection, according to Ms. Haldeman, to the submittal of a par- cel map to consolidate his lots. -17- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 18 The public hearing was closed. Secretary Palin pointed out that the condition as imposed does not require that a parcel map be recorded prior to pulling permits, which is admittedly a lengthy procedure, but only that it be filed and approved, which could be accomplished in two weeks after sub- mittal. Ms. Haldeman responded that preparation of the map itself would require three to four weeks. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS IN IMPOSING THE REQUIRE- MENT FOR FILING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None The applicant's representative was advised of the appeal period and procedure. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER 'AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO TAKE AGENDA ITEM C-12 OUT OF REGULAR AGENDA ORDER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT 81-13 Initiated.by the City of Huntington Beach Proposal for an amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code re- pealing Section 9472.1, amending Sections 9430.7 and 9472, and add- ing Section 9454.1 and new Article 975 relating to zoning of adult entertainment businesses. Said Article 975 and the related section changes.will regulate the location of adult entertainment businesses in the City of Huntington Beach. Secretary Palin outlined the code amendment as presented. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to discuss the amendment. Commission discussion centered on the possibility that the wording of the amendment might prohibit such businesses as tanning parlors, which was not the intent. Legal counsel Art Folger noted that there is a current ordinance controlling massage parlors which would still �. be in effect, the ordinance under consideration would in effect limit the locations in the City where the subject businesses could be established. -18- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 19 ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION APPROVED CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-13 AND DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT APPROVE THE ORDINANCE EFFECTING SAME, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Mahaffey left the meeting at this point (10:25 p.m.). ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-9/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-38 Applicant: Warmington-Huntington Harbor, Ltd. To permit a change of zone on 5 acres of property located south- west of the terminus of Countess Drive approximately one-fourth mile south of Edinger Avenue. Zone change requested is from C4 (Highway Commercial) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential/Planned Development). Jim Barnes explained to the Commission that, while the applicant's request had been only for a 5.1 acre parcel the staff has expanded the zone change to include the 4.2 acre Seabridge Park adjacent to the site. The reason for this expansion is that the whole area has recently been redesignated on the General Plan as medium den- sity residential and the zone change will bring the area into conformance with the General Plan. The public hearing was opened. A representative of Robert Warmington Company spoke in favor of the change of zone. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed zone change, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission's principal concern with the zone change was the density of development which might be expected and the impacts of traffic on the area streets. Staff reported that the proponent expects to build about 50 units and will be required to build the parking for Seabridge park. The Commission discussed with Bruce Gilmer of Public Works the City's plans for streets in the vicinity; he indicated that a street project is planned from where this development's street would end out to the bridge, but due to financial constraints no time frame is available for com- pletion. He added that development of this 5 acre parcel should not generate a large traffic problem at -this location on Edinger. Commissioner Bannister expressed particular concern about the traffic problem and the question of making sure that the street remained a public street for access to the park. -19- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981. Page 20 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-9 FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None The request is automatically continued to the meeting of October 20, 1981. Commissioner Bannister made a motion for adjournment, which failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO SUSPEND ITS POLICY AND HEAR AGENDA ITEM E-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None REVOCATION OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. 39299 Donald Weir Secretary Palin reported that the building permit on the subject property had been issued in error by the department and subsequently revoked upon his determination that the base zoning district did not allow such a use. Paul McClary, attorney for Mr. Weir, addressed the Commission to state that in his understanding Mr. Palin's interpretation of the code had been based upon an upcoming amendment, not upon the code as it existed at the time of revocation. He also pointed out that the permit had been obtained in May of 1981, construction of the building begun, and then stop work orders placed on the building site. It was his con- tention that the district does indeed permit the use and the permit should be reinstated. Mr. Palin responded with a chronological outline of the steps taken in the revocation process and emphasized that no work had begun when the notice to the applicant was issued on June 8, 1981. Work did proceed without a valid permit at a later date, and it was only after this start of construction that the stop work orders were issued. He also informed the Commission that his determination on the permit had been based on the old Article 968, not the amended article. Legal counsel Art Folger clarified the action the Commission has been asked to make, which he explained as a finding as to whether the code should be interpreted as counsel for Mr. Weir interprets it or as interpreted by Mr. Palin. -20- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 21 The Commission discussed the evidence and information presented. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE SECRETARY PALIN'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. No substantial progress had been made on the site prior to the revocation of the permit. 2. Staff has expertise in the wording and intent of the code provisions, acquired over a number of years, and the Commis- sion finds the chronology of the steps taken in the revocation procedure to be adequate. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER THAT THIS MOTION BE TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. THE ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: Bannister The recommendation of the Commission will be forwarded to the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Porter NOES: Kenefick, Winchell ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None Mr. Bannister left the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The remaining items on the agenda, consisting of Zone Change No. 81-10 and EIR 81-1, were continued to the meeting of October 20, 1981, because of lack of a Commission quorum. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the last City Council meeting of October 5, 1981, for the Commission's informa- tion. `�` -21- 10-6-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page 22 There was no further business to be conducted, and the Commission adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to.a special study session to be held on Tuedday, October 14, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. :df s W. Palin, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman 11 I -22- 10-6-81 - P.C.