HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-22APPROVED February 5, 1985
1
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, January 22, 1985 - 7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Erskine
Commissioner Porter presented Resolution 1339 and memorabilia to
former Commissioner Higgins for his outstanding performance as a
Planning Commissioner for the City of Huntington Beach.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner Schumacher stated that on page 9 of the minutes from
January 8, 1985, she was credited for comments made by Commissioner
Winchell and also stated that her request for a report from the
Attorney's Office on the estate area (stables being used without a
use permit) adjacent to Goldenwest Street was not included in the
minutes.
ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ROWE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY
8, 1985 WAS APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
B-1 Dean Albright, Member of the Environmental Board, commended
the Planning Commission along with Frank Higgins as being one
of the best in the City in a long time. He requested that the
Planning Commission develop a liaison with the Housing
Community Development Committee and the Environmental Board
feeling that it would be beneficial for all parties. He also
stated that the Environmental Board was sponsoring a clean
sweep involving the clean-up of the City and requested that
all campaign signs be cleaned up as soon as possible.
B-2 Chairman Livengood related correspondence to fellow
commissioners from Diversified Securities Inc. in regards to a
note of appreciation for the favorable consideration from the
Planning Commission on Conditional Exception No. 84-70.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
C-1 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-72 (Referred by the Board of
Zoning Adjustments)
Applicant: Stanley A. Blackett
Conditional Exception No. 84-72 is a request to allow an existing
accessory structure (playhouse) to encroach 3 feet,into the 5 foot
rear and side yard setbacks required for accessory structures; a
request for variance from Section 9105.3. This application was
referred by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to the Planning
Commission with the recommendation that Section 9730.22 be amended
to allow this,type.of structure.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED:
Stanley A. Blackett, applicant, stated that staff basically covered
everything . He stated that the building has been up for two years
and is used as a playhouse for his children.
Commissioner Rowe asked Mr. Blacket why the Commission was
considering this at this late date in that the building has been up
for two years.
Mr. Blackett stated that a neighbor, the gentleman who filed the
complaint, built a structure similar to his own and the city made
him tear it down due to a complaint lodged by another neighbor.
Kenneth Hann, interpreter for Mr. Hann Poc, neighbor lodging.a
complaint against Mr. Blackett, spoke in opposition to the
conditional exception due to the fact that Mr. Blackett had a
structure similar to the applicants and the city made him tear it
down.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed
project, and the pubic hearing was closed.
Chairman Livengood recommended discussing Conditional Exception
first and the code amendment second.
Commissioner Winchell felt that the intent of the Accessory
Structure Code Section's was not to allow intrusive structurs
adjacent to neighbors. She felt that the applicant was violating
this intent.
Commissioner Schumacher stated that she could see no reason for an
eight foot high play house. She felt it could easily be a pool
house adjacent to the pool.
1
IL
(1780d) -2- P.C. Minutes
Commissioner Rowe felt that since the building has been there for
two years it should be allowed to stand. Commissioner Rowe was
reluctant however, in changing the assessor structure section of the
code.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO DENY CONDITIONAL
EXCEPTION NO. 84-72 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell, Schumacher
NOES: Rowe, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION FAILED
Commissioner Porter stated that he was in favor of Conditional
Exception No. 84-72 but with some type of landscaping screen to
camouflage the structure. Chairman Livengood stated that he was
also in favor of the request along with suggestions such as
Commissioner Porter's suggestion.
ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION
WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Winchell, Schumacher
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order
to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property
rights.
2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-72 will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to
property in the same zone classifications.
3. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
4. The granting of the Conditional Exception from S.9105.3 of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general
purposes or intent of the code which is to regulate location
of (major) accessory structures on a lot.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The site plan and elevations received and dated December 13,
1984 shall be the approved layout.
2. All water drainage from the roof shall be directed onto the
applicant's property.
(1780d) -3- P.C. Minutes
3. Landscape screening sufficient to screen the accessory
building shall be provided in the setback areas subject to
review and approval of the Director of Development Services.
Commissioner Livengood stated that staff has requested that the
Commission look at a possible amendment to the existing code in
regards to Minor Accessory Structures.
Commissioner Winchell stated that she was opposed to the amendment
as far as the changing the height to 8 feet. She stated that she
would go for changing the square footage to 64 feet but not the
height in which Chairman Livengood concurred with.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO CHANGE S. 9730.22
TO 64 SQUARE FEET BUT KEEP THE 6 FOOT HEIGHT WAS APPROVED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe,'Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-32/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.
84-01
Applicant: Hoelscher -Guggenheim
Howard Zelefsky, of the planning staff, presented the case.
Conditional Use Permit No. 84-32 is a request to develop a mixed use
site consisting of 152 apartment units and a mini -storage facility
having 120,367 square feet of floor area. Conditional Exception
84-010 is a request to allow: 1) A 5 foot reduction in the exterior
side yard setback. 2) Reduction in minimum unit size from 650
square feet to 620 square feet. 3) Reduction in driveway width from
28 feet to 27 feet. 4) Reduction in rear yard setback for the mini
warehouse from 45 feet to zero setback.
Chairman Livengood brought to the attention of the Commission a
letter from the Fountain Valley Planning Department in which he read
the second paragraph: "The development of this property will impact
Fountain Valley primarily in the area of traffic congestion. For
that reason, I want to request that the hearing be continued until
after January 23, to give the Fountain Valley Planning Commission an
opportunity for review and that you ask either the developer or a
member of your staff to attend the Fountain Valley Planning
Commission Meeting on January 23 to brief our Commission and assist
with the interpretation of the plans."
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN:
Dan Guggenheim, applicant, spoke in behalf of his project. He
stated that the Linborg Dahl name be removed from the project due to
the fact that they have not been involved for several months. He
stated that he reviewed all the conditions and was in agreement with
these conditions. He stated that he would like to clear up one
(1780d) -4- P.C. Minutes
1
misunderstanding involving the private open space requirement. The
square footage that is shown does not include the private open
space. He stated that the 28 square feet of private storage in
addition to 154 square feet of private open space with each of the
one bedroom units, and with the two bedroom units was 28 square feet
of storage as well as 178 square feet of private space.
Commissioner Schumacher asked how many parking spaces were on the
site plan submitted. Mr. Guggenheim stated that there were 279
parking spaces, he stated that the exact number should be stated on
the site plan. Commissioner Schumacher stated she could not locate
this number. Chairman Livengood requested that staff get together
with the applicant to be sure this is on the approved site plan.
Commissioner Porter questioned the type of roof material to be used
on the project structures He stated he would prefer a covering such
as tile or concrete shingle -material that would add to the structure
rather than detract from the structure. Mr. Guggenheim pointed out
the cost of such material and explained that the asphalt shingle
does have relief and appears to have a shingle appearance rather
than a flat appearance. Glen Godfrey of the planning staff,
responded to Commissioner Porter's concern stating that the Planning
Commission could require the applicant to submit a sample palette of
roof material. Mr. Godfrey stated that he was aware of the asphalt
shingle type of roof material and that it did have a shadow affect
but, was in no way comparible to any type of tile roofing.
Commissioner Porter said he would leave the approval of the roof
material in staff's hands with the understanding of his position on
the matter.
John Brown, owner of Plaza Ciudad Shopping Center located south of
the project, spoke in regards to the parking problem within his
center and having to forfeit 9 parking spaces to the new project.
He requested the approval of a joint access and parking agreement
between himself and Mr. Guggenheim, due to the fact that it would
enhance both properties. He stated that Mr. Guggenheim and he had
discussed this subDect on several occasions and both were in
concurrence with the idea.
Commissioner Porter stated that Mr. Brown should not be penalized 9
parking spaces, but had reservations of commercial customers in a
residential area. Mr. Brown stated that the parking over the flood
control channel was not for residents but for visitors of the
project which does not make the driveway physically accessible to
the residential area.
The Commission felt that if there was an access, the spill over
would affect the ability to accommodate parking for tenants or
visitors.
(1780d) -5- P.C. Minutes
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
request item. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Mirjahangir expressed concern about two applications
being processed concurrently with two separate owners. Mr. Zelesky
stated that the property was under one owner and that owner was
developing the project as mixed use development.
Commissioner Mirjahangir questioned the mini -storage area of the
project as to the Fire Department's ability to get their equipment
in and out of the storage area easily in case of an emergency. Tom
Poe stated that one of driveways in the apartment area is equipped
with a gate with controlled access to the mini -storage area. The
applicant has also agreed to fire sprinkler the complex. He stated
that the Fire Department was satisfied with the conditions proposed.
Commissioner Schumacher requested that a condition be added for
property adjacent to mini -storage area between the rear wall and
existing site property line along Conner be grouted to the buildings
where property owners chose not to have their walls removed.
Deputy City Attorney Sangster recommended there be language added to
conditions number three and four, involving the access agreement, to
be approved as to form by the City attorney's Office.
The Commission and Staff with concurrence of the applicant discussed
and revised conditions and findings of concern.
The Commission discussed the access between the applicant's proposed
project and the commercial center south of the project. Staff was
opposed to a vehicle driveway access at that point, but suggested a
condition to require a pedestrian passage instead.
Commission discussed access and exiting of Magnolia Avenue with a
revision to condition number 21.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 84-32 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-010 WAS APPROVED WITH
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Schumahcer, Mirjahangir
NOES: Porter
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN None
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-32:
1. The proposed use will not have a detrimental effect upon the
general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons
residing or working in the area or be detrimental to the value
of the property and improvements in the neighborhood.
2. The proposed use is in conformance with the City's General
Plan.
(1780d) -6- P.C. Minutes
1
3. The proposed use is compatible with existing or other proposed
or anticipated uses in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will property
adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other
adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner.
5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to another
on the site are properly integrated.
6. The access to and parking for the proposed use will not create
traffic and circulation problems.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-010:
1. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the land
due to the unique configuration of the parcel that do not
apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same
district.
2. The granting of the conditional exceptions necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
3. The granting of such conditional exceptions will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare or injurious to the conforming land, property or
improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which
such conditional exception is sought. The project will be
consistent with the General Plan for land use.
4. The applicant has indicated he is willing and able to carry
out the purposes for which the conditional exception is
sought; that he will proceed to do so without unnecessary
delay.
5. The configuration of the land in conjunction with the presence
of the flood control channel has created a physical hardship
for property development. The use of the flood control
channel is an integral part of the mixed use project. It will
facilitate access and improve circulation in the project.
6. The granting of the conditional exception is in accordance
with Section 9830 and Article 986, of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent
of the code as sited by the following:.
a. The reduction in rear yard setback from 10 foot to 5 foot
will be off -set by intensified landscaping and a high
block wall.
(1780d)
-7-
P.C. Minutes
b. The applicant is compensating for the reduction in unit
size from the minimum requirement of 650 square to 620
square feet by providing large private open space per
unit:
One Bedroom 154 square feet
Two Bedrooms 179 square feet
C. A zero rear yard setback for the mini -warehouse (as
opposed to the 45 foot required setback) will provide a
:visual and sound buffer between the apartment complex and
the existing single family dwellings.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Site Plan, Floor Plan and elevations dated January 18, 1985
shall be the approved layout subject to the following
conditions and or revisions.
a. modification of the Magnolia Street driveway shall comply
with the department of Development Services, Department
of Public Works, and Fire Department standards.
2. A copy of the legal agreement between the Orange County Flood
Control District and the property owner shall be submitted to
the City Attorney's office for review and approval, and
recorded with the County of Orange prior to issuance of
building permits. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be
filed with the City Attorney's office and the Department of
Development Services.
3. The applicant shall purchase or enter into a maintenance
agreement with the City of Huntington Beach for a strip of
property fronting on Magnolia Street (designated as assessor
parcel number 107-231-16.) A copy of said agreement shall be
approved as to form by the City Attorney and recorded with the
County of Orange and filed with the Department of Development
Services prior to issuance of building permits.
4. A reciprocal parking and access agreement with the commercial
property owner to the south shall be approved as to form by
the City Attorney and recorded with the County of Orange and
filed with the department of Development Services prior to
issuance of building permits. The agreement shall specify the
number of spaces which are lost to the reciprocal access
driveway on Magnolia Street and replaced on the applicant's
property.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for improving Conner Drive
with a modified cul-de-sac within the public right-of-way in
accord with Public Works standards.
6. The proposed box culvert for the flood control channel shall
be completed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued
for any portion of the mixed use complex.
(1780d) -8- P.C. Minutes
1
7. Structures on the subject property, whether attached or
detached shall be constructed in compliance with state
acoustical standards set forth for units that lie in the 60
CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of
the dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation
standards of 45 DBA CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall
consist of submittal of acoustical analysis report prepared
under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of
acoustical engineering, with the application for building
permits. All measures recommended to mitigate noise to
acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design and
the project. This report shall also make recommendations as
to the height of the block wall which is to be located on the
exterior side of the project immediately adjacent to the San
Diego Freeway.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit to the city for approval, a tentative parcel map. A
parcel map shall be reviewed by the City and recorded by the
County of Orange prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
9. A revised elevation plan shall be submitted to the Department
of Development Services for review and approval which reflect
the following:
a. Special architectural treatment for the mini -storage
facility which is visible from the north/east west
elevation of the freeway off -ramp.
b. Detail of the carport design to be constructed along
Magnolia Street. (Depicting a sloped roof design.)
C. Roof material and design for all structures shall be
subject to review and approval of the Director of
Development Services.
10. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the
locations of the clothes dryers. This requirement maybe
waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy
efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of
the Department of Development Services.
11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking
facilities, port -a -heaters, and central heating units. This
requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will
install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the
review and approval of the Department of Development Services.
12. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers.
13. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and
other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at
an off -site facility equipped to handle them.
(1780d) -9- P.C. Minutes
14. If lighting is installed in the parking lot or recreation
areas, energy efficient lamps shall be used such as high
pressure sodium vapor or metal halides. All outside lighting
shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties.
15. A detail soil analysis shall be prepared by a registered soil
engineer. This analysis shall include off -site soil samplings
and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill
properties, foundation and retaining walls, streets and
utilities.
16. If foil type insulation is to be used, the fire retardant type
shall be installed as approved by the building department.
17. An emergency exit gate shall be located from the project to
Conner Drive.
18. Automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department is
to be installed throughout the residential and two-story
mini -storage complex.
19. The mini -warehouse storage facility shall be installed in
compliance with Fire Department standard No. 414.
20. All access gates and security lock boxes shall comply with
Fire Department standard No. 403.
21.
The access turning radius from Magnolia Avenue into the
complex must be designed to the Fire Departments standards.
The access onto Magnolia Street shall permit right turns only..
22.
On -site fire hydrants shall be installed to the Fire
Department standards.
23.
The site shall be posted and signed with no parking in
accordance with Fire Department standard No. 415.
24.
A fire alarm system approved by the fire department shall be
installed throughout the complex.
25.
The access onto Warner Avenue shall permit right turns into
and out only.
26. A detailed landscape plan shall,be submitted to the Department
of Development Services for review and approval prior to
issuance to building permits. Said plan shall depict the
proposed landscaping for the City owned property immediately
adjacent to the east property line.
27. If the project is to be developed in phases, the applicant
shall submit to the Department of Development Services a
phasing plan which indicates that the residential portion of
the site will proceed concurrently with the construction of
the mini -storage facility and flood control channel.
(1780d) -10- P.C. Minutes
28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
bond for all necessary street improvements as determined by
the Department of Public Works in consultation with Fountain
Valley.
29. All fencing adjacent to the mini -storage building shall either
be removed or grouted to or otherwise attached to the building
wall of the mini -storage facility. In addition, all exposed
portions of the mini -storage building facade on the west
elevation shall be constructed with split face concrete block.
C-3 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT
Applicant: Myers and Company
Special Sign Permit No. 84-5 is a request to install a 25' high, 7'x
7' (49 square foot) freestanding sign with a solid 7' wide base
abutting the front property line on Edinger; and to install a 9'x 9'
double face cabinet sign on an existing 20' high Licorice Pizza pole
sign on Golden West. Both signs consist of an orange background,
and.white letters with black outline advertising "The Home Depot".
The sign on Edinger will have a bronze color corrugated steel base.
A special sign permit is required because the sign on Edinger
exceeds 20' in height (Section 9760.7.b) and constitutes a fourth
freestanding sign on one street frontage; two within an integrated
shopping center with 840' of street frontage are permitted (Section
9760.7.c).
After a brief discussion, the Commission, with the concurrence of
the applicant, decided to continue Special Sign Permit No. 84-10 to
the next Planning Commission Meeting on February 5, 1985.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE THE REQUEST
TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-10 TO FEBRUARY 5, 1985 BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
C-4 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-10
Applicant: Artech Signs, Inc.
Special Sign Permit No. 84-10 is a request to maintain the
replacement of a cabinet sign at the top of an existing
non -conforming 40 feet high freestanding sign structure. The sign
is located on the south side of Edinger Avenue approximately 500
feet east of Sher Lane. The new "OLE'S" internally illuminated
cabinet sign has a bright yellow background, bright red lettering,
and a bright red strip around the edge of the cabinet.
The applicant has initiated a special sign permit because the
existing sign is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code, Article 976, Sign Code. The sign does not conform
to the sign code.
(1780d) -11- P.C. Minutes
Due to scheduling problems, Artech Signs, Inc. requested a
continuance for Special Sign Permit No. 84-10 to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 1985.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE MOTION WAS
PASSED TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-10 TO FEBRUARY 20,
1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
C-5 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-11
Applicant: General Neon and Plastic Sign Co.
To replace an existing pole sign with a 1013"xl9' double face
cabinet sign, 3113" in height; to add a new 216"xl2' entrance sign
on the south building facade; and to change the copy of two existing
wall signs on the east and north building facade.
After a brief discussion, the Commission, with the applicant's
concurrence, decided to continue Special Sign Permit 84-11 to the
next regularly scheduled meeting of February 5, 1985 .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER THE MOTION WAS PASSED TO
CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-11 TO FEBRUARY 5, 1985 BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING
D-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-1
Applicant: Thom Jacobs
Site Plan Review No. 85-1 is a request for the development of two
single family residential units located on two 251x 115' lots on the
south east side of 12th Street in District number 2 of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
The applicant is proposing 2 four bedrooms, four bath single family
dwellings each with two enclosed parking spaces and two open parking
spaces on the driveway pad. The design of the exterior elevations
and material specifications are compatible with the Downtown Design
Guidelines, which call for a contemporary mediterranean theme.
The project, as proposed, complies with all the requirements of the
Downtown Specific Plan and the other applicable provisions of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
(1780d) -12- P.C. Minutes
Commission review ensued. Staff and the Commission discussed the
outside stairway giving access to the unit on top of the garage.
Commissioner Livengood was concerned that this project could be
turned into a rental in the future. Thom Jacobs, applicant, assured
the Commission that he and staff had worked on the details and
addressed the concerns in question.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PORTER SITE PLAN REVIEW WAS
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The proposal will not have any detrimental effect upon the
general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood; or be detrimental or
injurious to the value of the property and improvements in the
neighborhood.
2. The Proposal will not adversely affect the General Plan of
Land Use.
3. The proposal is compatible with other uses and proposed uses
in the neighborhood.
4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed use
properly orients the proposed structures to streets,
driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and
uses in a harmonious manner.
5. Access to and parking for the proposed use will not create any
undue traffic problem.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The Site plan, floor plans and elevations dated January 15,
1985 shall be the approved layout.
2. Any changes to the exterior elevations or materials
specification shall be subject to review and approval of the
Director of Development Services.
3. The project shall comply with all other applicable provisions
of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
D-2 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1
Applicant: Jerwel Enterprises
Site Plan Amendment No. 85-1 is a request to revise a previously
approved project for a 224 room hotel within Jerwell Development's
One Pacific Plaza located on part of 12.82 acres of property at the
(1780d) -13- P.C. Minutes
northeast corner of Huntington Village Lane and Center Drive. The
project was originally approved as part of Conditional Use Permit
No. 83-28 by the Planning Commission on November 15, 1983.
The Site Plan Amendment is a request to permit relocation of the
hotel entrance drive off of Center.Drive approximately 100 feet
west, revise parking layout to eliminate two levels of subterranean
parking below the hotel and create a new level of subterranean
parking to the east of the hotel. In addition, the applicant is
proposing a change in the layout of surface parking and increase the
percentage of compact parking from 24 to 50 percent.
Commission review ensued. Staff and the Commission discussed the
parking layout in reference to the reduction of parking space.
Commission requested that findings be included to verify reason for
reduction. Commission Porter voiced his objection to the satellite
dish located in front of the project. The applicant suggested
placing the satellite dish on the roof of the restaurant level and
screened. Applicant stated that he would like more time to research
the matter and would like to submit a final design and screening of
the satellite dish to staff.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SITE PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES:
Rowe, Schumacher,
NOES:
Winchell
ABSENT:
Erskine
ABSTAIN:
None
Findings for Approval:
Livengood, Porter Mirjahangir
1. The revision of the parking layout, increase in the percentage
of compact spaces from 24 percent to 50 percent and reduction
in parking space size from 9 foot to 8 foot 6 inches and door
opening area from 3 foot to 2 foot 6 inches will not
constitute a substantial change in the approved project.
2. The use of the subject property will remain the same.
3. The project density will remain the same.
4. The revision of the parking layout and increase in the
percentage of compact parking space from 24% to 50% will
result in an improved development by providing a greater
percentage of surface parking and a more efficient use of
subterranean parking.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The Site Plan dated January 2, 1985 and the parking layout of
January 8, 1985 shall be amended to include the following:
(1780d) -14- P.C. Minutes
a. A minimum drive aisle width of 25 feet shall be provided
where possible reductions are subject to review and
approval of the Director of Development Services..
b. A minimum car door opening area of 2 1/2 feet adjacent to
parking structure walls.
C. The relocation of any parking stalls which block access
to storage areas or pedestrian access ways.
d. A minimum compact car space width of 8 feet and standard
space to 8 1/2 feet.
e. A minimum perimeter landscape width of 10 feet.
f. A minimum building setback from drives of 8 feet.
2. The landscape plan shall address the following additional
issues:
a. The relocation of and screening of a satellite dish in a
landscape area subject to review and approval of the
Director of Development Services.
b. The size, design, and configuration of the landscape area
adjacent to the service dock shall be subject to review
and approval of the Director of Development Services.
3. The underground parking areas shall be automatic sprinklered.
A class III stand -pipe shall be installed on the lower and
upper levels. Fire extinguishers shall be located within 75
feet of travel. A statement shall appear on the
specifications indicating that all specific fire protection
plans be submitted to the Fire Department prior to
installation.
4. The access drive to the hotel from Center Drive shall be for
right turn in an out only.
5. The sewer and storm drain shall be relocated and the existing
storm drain easement shall be vacated and a new easement
dedicated subject to approval of the Department of Public
Works.
6. All applicable conditions on the previous approval shall
continue to apply.
7. The revised layout shall comply with all applicable provisions
of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
D-3 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-2
Applicant: Wycliffe Associates Inc.
Site Plan Amendment No. 85-2 is a request to revise a previously
approved project for a 185 one bedroom units elderly housing project
(1780d) -15- P.C. Minutes
with 80 parking spaces located on 2.06 acres of property at 18765
Florida Street. The project was originally approved by Conditional
Use Permit 78-04 by the Planning Commission on March 21, 1978. The
Site Plan Amendment is a request to permit the construction of
thirteen additional parking spaces and a hammer head turn around on
the southwest corner of the site.
Commission review ensued. Staff and Commission reviewed the parking
space per unit. Commissioner Mirjahangir questioned the difference
of requirements from other projects recently approved. Mike Adams
stated that there is a greater demand for cars in this particular
project than with the other projects.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher out of the room
ABSTAIN: None
Findings for Approval:
1. The revision of the parking lot will not constitute a
substantial change in the approved project.
2. The use of the subject property will remain the same.
3. The project density will remain the same.
4. The revision of the parking lot will result in an improved
development by increasing the capacity of the parking lot.
5. The revision will comply with all applicable provisions of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The site plan dated January 11, 1985 shall be the approved
layout.
2. A "DEAD END" sign shall be installed in planter area at the
entrance to the new parking lot area.
3. Red reflector markers shall be installed on the wall at the
end of the driveway.
4. Parking lot addition shall comply with Article 979.
5. All applicable conditions on Conditional Use Permit No. 78-04
shall continue to apply.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: None
(1780d) -16- P.C. Minutes
II�
PENDING ITEMS•
Commission requested time to review pending items list and bring it
before the next Planning Commission Meeting on February 5, 1985.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commission requested from the last meeting a Standing Committee
List, however, an incorrect list was submitted to the Commission.
Mike Adams stated that he would have the correct list for February
5, 1985 meeting.
Commission requested a permanent binder be prepared with
organization chart and parlimentary procedures.
Commission suggested contacting the City of Anaheim on a Spa located
at Magnolia and Broadway in regards to the impact on parking in that
area. Commission discussed the Heil and Beach Center Redevelopment
Project in the City of Westminster, and requested that staff obtain
a copy of the City's landscaping and sign standards.
Chairman Livengood stated that he would like to see the following
items be discussed at the January 28, 1985 City Council, Study
Session, Meeting:
1. Budget more time to future planning review.
2. Improve communication with City Council on actions taken by
the Planning Commission.
Commission discussed the General Plan and scheduled a special
meeting on February 12, 1985 and suggested special meetings every
quarter to discuss, review and be updated on planning issues.
ADJOURNMENT•
There was no further business, and the meeting was adjourned at
11:30 p.m.
Thomas Livengoo , Cha'rma
(1780d) -17- P.C. Minutes