Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-02APPROVED APRIL 16, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir None A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on March 19, 1985. Commissioner Schumacher requested that the minutes be continued to the next meeting, due to the fact that page 2 of the set of minutes issued to the Commission was missing. Chairman Livengood also stated that action was taken on Item F-1 Old World Oktoberfest which the minutes did not reflect. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE MARCH 19, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WERE CONTINUED FOR RE -SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION TO THE APRIL 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. (7 AYES 0 NOES PORTER ABSENT) A-2' Proposed Underground Utility Secretary Palin stated that the applicant requested to have this item pulled from the agenda until further notice to research supplemental information. Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern regarding the funds being used for this project. She also stated that she would like to see other areas explored for underground utilities, especially Goldenwest Street, due to the.proposed street widening project. B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood stated that City Council set a date for a Planning Commission and City Council Study Session for Saturday April 13, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. B-1 Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Dick Harlow gave a presentation to the Planning Commission on the proposed Main -Pier Redevelopment Project. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 HUNTINGTON SHORES MOBILEHOME PARK RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN (RESOLUTION NO. 1338) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Hal Simmons of the Planning Staff, made the presentation on this item stating that there were two corrections one being that this item was to be continued from the last hearing as a closed item and that staff was recommending approval of the item not continuance as the agenda indicated. He stated that the resolutions attached to the staff report have been slightly modified and copies of the new resolution were distributed. On March 19, 1985, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the Huntington Shores Relocation Assistance Plan to April 2, 1985. The continuance was to allow staff to work with the City Attorney's office in preparing a legal document which would constitute a binding agreement between the City and the Huntington Beach Company. Staff's recommendion for the April 2, 1985 meeting was for approval of two Huntington Shores Relocation Assistance Plans and Resolution No. 1338 and recommend that the City Council enter into a formal agreement with the Huntington Beach Company describing the precise terms of assistance to be provided and the City's role in the process. Commissioner Porter stated that he was not satisfied with the resolution. He felt that it was not specific. Commissioner Erskine expressed concern about the letter from the Huntington Beach Company dated March 8, 1985 in regards to how long the Commission was assured this plan will be locked into place. He asked if the Planning Commission recommends this or do they depend on the City Council to lock this proposal into place. Commissioner Erskine felt that the recommendation to the City Council was not tight enough. Chairman Livengood questioned if the letter submitted by the Huntington Beach Company was a legal document or asked if the city needed to propose a proper legal document to back this up. Art Folger stated that the original document must stand on its own. Commissioner Porter stated that the staff should be more specific in regards to what the Commission requested at the last meeting. At this point, the Commission directed staff to come back with a more specific resolution reflecting the relocation plan standards contained in Article 927 in the first portion of the resolution and establishing more detailed wording regarding the agreement with the Huntington Beach Company in the second portion of the resolution. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER HUNTINGTON SHORES RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN (RESOLUTION 1338) WAS CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None (2230d) -2- P.C. 4/2/85 C-2 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9653 (REVISED), USE PERMIT NO. 85-7 Applicant: Beach Front Properties/Rick Jeffrey/John Tillotson On March 19, 1985, the Planning Commission continued the subject request so that the applicant could consider revising his plans to reflect a larger one bedroom unit and reduced density for the project. In response to this request, the developer has redesigned the project by eliminating all 1 bedroom units (8 total) and replacing them with four 2-bedroom units. All other features of the development will remain the same. Original Plan Revised Plan 1.2 gross acre site 1.2 gross acres ( 8) 1 bedroom units ( 0) 1 bedroom units (20) 2 bedroom units (24) 2 bedroom units ( 4) 3 bedroom units ( 4) 3 bedroom units 32 Total Units Requested 28 Total Units Requested Density Bonus Requested Density Bonus Requested 84% as a 1 lot subdivision 65% as a 1 lot subdivision 69% increase in density 48% as a 5 lot subdivision above a 5 lot subdivision Because the applicant has reworked the floor plans to eliminate the 1-bedroom units, the filing of a Conditional Exception for reduction in minimum square footage is no longer necessary. Commission review ensued. Commission discussed the applicant's resubmittal of floor plans to eliminate the 1-bedroom units and the mechanism by which the City's housing and Community Development Department monitor units for persons of low and moderate income. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Tillotson, applicant, stated that he had complied with all of the Commission's concerns presented at the last meeting. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell requested clarification of the different types of housing bonds. Howard Zelefsky of staff stated that there was only one type of housing bond. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would like to see the extra density bonus credits go to the City instead of the developer. Art Folger, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the developer has the rights to the credits but is permitted to grant them to the city. Commissioner Erskine stated that the he did not feel that there was a problem involved with this application because the developer stated that he was willing to go into an agreement with the city to trade credits. Commissioner Rowe (2230d) -3- P.C. 4/2/85 questioned staff if adding three extra units would be beneficial to the City. Mr. Palin, Secretary, stated that it was three units the City did not have to build. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9653 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-7 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None C-3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10414 - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-01 Applicant: Robert D. Mickelson Tentative Tract Map No. 10414 is a request to subdivide a 1.27 acre site on the north side of Los Patos between Sims and Lynn Street into six lots for the purpose of constructing four single-family residences. Conditional Exception No. 85-01 is a request to permit a four foot reduction from the minimum 45 foot wide frontage requirement for the subdivision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bob Mickelson, applicant, stated that he agreed to all conditions proposed. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. After a brief discussion, it was noted that the applicant did not have a Coastal Development Permit and the Commission with the applicant's concurrence decided to continue the item to the April 16, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10414 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-01 WAS CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None L (2230d) -4- P.C. 4/2/85 C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-7 Applicant: Eileen Clark The applicant's request is to utilize two classrooms at the Bushard School for a pre-school which would serve forty-four students between the ages of 2-1/2 and 6. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the week. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mrs. Bondrel, neighbor, stated that she did not understand why it was necessary for another pre-school in this area. She stated that it caused a problem with traffic. Eileen Clark, applicant, stated that she felt the City need more children centers. She felt that the presence of this pre-school did not cause an undue traffic problem. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. Commission and staff discussed the childrens play area which was sufficient. Staff stated that the proposal was compatible with the -uses in this area. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOT 85-7 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FTUnTMnq- 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or to the property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed pre-school is generally compatible with surrounding land uses because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 4. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use which designates the property as Low Density Residential. 5. The granting of a conditional use permit is consistent with the development standards contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (2230d) -5- P.C. 4/2/85 CONDITIONS• 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated February 6, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. The use shall be approved for an initial five year period, with an annual review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this Conditional Use Permit in the event of any violation of the terms of this approval or violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 4. The applicant shall provide a separate fenced play yard for the school a minimum 3,300 square feet in area. 5. The applicant shall only occupy Rooms 23 and 24 as approved, and any expansion shall require modification of the conditional use permit. 6. Evacuation plans are to be posted which show two (2) means of egress. 7. Monthly drills and times shall be recorded and maintained on file. 8. A fire extinguisher approved by the Fire Department shall be installed in each classroom. 9. A smoke detector shall be installed in each classroom. 10. A telephone shall be installed in each classroom for the purpose of reporting emergencies. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-9 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-12 Applicant: William J. Sullivan Conditional Use Permit No. 85-9 is a request to permit establishment of an interim recreational vehicle, machinery and equipment storage yard on approximately 4.4 acres of property zoned Ml, Light Industrial District located on the south side of Woodwind Drive, approximately 200 feet east of Sampson Lane pursuant to Section 9530.01(c)(2) of the Ordinance Code.. The proposed storage yard will consist of six parking bays for recreational vehicles, machinery and equipment, and a storage area containing approximately 20 to 25 storage containers. These containers measure 8' x 8' x 40' and would be located on the northwest corner of the facility. The proposed hours of operation for the storage yard will be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days per week. The applicant has indicated that bathroom facilities will be located within the office trailer. (2230d) -6- P.C. 4/2/85 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mr. Sullivan, applicant, stated that he has been a resident of this property for 15 years. He commented on the expenses he has accommodated to improve this property. He stated that out of the 14 conditions of approval, there were 4 he did not agree with. Mr. Hartge, engineer, concurred with Mr. Sullivan. Seven of Mr. Sullivans clients spoke in favor of the proposed project in view of the necessity of the storage yard. Don Walter, neighbor, spoke in opposition of the project stating that it was unsightly and felt it would decrease the value of his property. Mrs. Sequevos, neighbor, spoke in opposition of the project. She also felt it was unsightly and would also decrease the value of her property. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff if the storage bins were approved in 1983. Staff replied no. Chairman Livengood asked staff what condition number 9 meant. Mike Strange of staff, stated that this meant staff would do an on -site inspection to make sure that he was maintaining all conditions proposed without a hearing. He stated that this application was good only until September 20, 1988. The applicant will have to submit another application for the continued operation of the park. Commissioner Rowe questioned the traffic going through the site. Mr. Sullivan, applicant, stated that there were never more than 7 people on the site. The Commission discussed the required parking which they proposed 10 parking spaces will be installed. The Commission discussed the proposed masonry screening. The Commission felt that since this was an interim use that a chainlink fence would be feasible. The Commission took a straw vote on the chainlink fence. AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Livengood suggested deleting condition no. 4. Tom Poe of the fire department discussed the surface of the drive into the project. He stated that the drive must be a hard packed oil based surface and the first 50 feet into the project must be asphalt. Tom Poe of the Fire Department stated that these plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. (2230d) -7- P.C. 4/2/85 The Commission discussed the storage bins on the site stating they shall have to be removed and replaced with RV parking. Chairman Livengood requested a straw vote on this request. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-9 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-12 WAS APPROVED WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity since the storage facility is compatible with surrounding land uses which are also industrial. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building since the storage facility has full street improvements and an 8' high fence around the facility. 2. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach which is industrial. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use which permits uses of this type. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated February 20, 1985, shall be the approved layout subject to the following alterations and conditions; 2. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Ten on -site parking spaces shall be provided. b. Storage bins shall be prohibited on the site and replaced with RV storage. 1 (2230d) -8- P.C. 4/2/85 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. 4. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 5. All signs shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 6. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. 7. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 8. The Conditional Use Permit shall be valid until September 20, 1988. 9. Semi-annual reviews shall be performed by the Department of Development Services. 10. The 8 foot high chainlink screening wall along the front property line shall be set back fifteen (15) feet from the property line and such setback shall be fully landscaped and maintained pursuant to approval of the Department of Development Services and Public Works. The entry gate shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the front property line and the 15 foot high gate to remain open during business hours. The the first 50 feet of the entrance drive shall be paved. 11. All development shall be in accordance with the standards of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Water supply shall be provided for fire protection; each recreational vehicle site and accessway shall be marked for identification; empty L.P.G. containers shall not be placed or stored under recreational vehicles. The applicant shall provide on -site sewage pump -out facilities for the recreational vehicles. 12. The perimeter fencing shall consist of an 8 foot high slatted chain link fence capable of screening the vehicles and equipment from surrounding properties. 13. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days per week. (2230d) -9- P.C. 4/2/85 14. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this Conditional Use Permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decisions shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based upon specific findings. D. Items not for Public Hearing D-1 Site Plan Review No. 85-2 and 85-3 A request for the development of two single family residential units located on two neighboring 25' x 115' lots at 120 and 122 18th. Street, which is at the southeast corner of Walnut Avenue and 18th. Street. The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District 2. The two lots combined would support a total of three units. The Downtown Specific Plan permits residential uses in District 2 subject to a Site Plan Review. Commission review ensued. There was some question about the floor plan in which it appeared that the single family residents could be easily converted into multiple family residents, which would not be in accord with uniform building codes and zoning. The Commission also felt that these site plan reviews should not be reviewed until action was taken on Code Amendment No. 85-2 which could result in more stringent standards and requirements. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO 85-2 AND 85-3 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MAY 7, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None D-2 Site Plan Review No. 85-5 A request to move a single family dwelling onto a fifty (50) foot wide lot at 111 9th. Street (at Walnut). The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District 2. The Downtown Specific Plan permits residential uses in District 2 subject to a Site Plan Review. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SITE PLAN REVIEW 85-5 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT; Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (2230d) -10- P.C. 4/2/85 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 used 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 March 19, 1985 shall be amended to reflect the following changes: a. The exterior building material shall be light-colored stucco. b. A mission clay -tile roof shall be provided as the roof material. C. Special window treatment shall be incorporated on the front elevation. Other windows shall have an offset relief from the wall on which they are placed. d. Entry locations on the front and side elevations shall be recessed into the building. e. Accent colors shall be incorporated on the window trim and chimney. 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 applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The project shall be taken before the Board of Zoning Adjustments for a relocation permit, at which time appropriate dedications, street improvements, and other requirements shall be addressed. (2230d) -11- P.C. 4/2/85 E. Discussion Items E-1 Code Amendment No. 85-2 (Oldtown/Townlot) The Commission requested that Code Amendment No. 85-2 be continued as a public hearing to the May 7, 1985 Planning Commission meeting with which staff concurred. F. Pending Items: Chairman Livengood requested the Commission to review the Pending Items List for comments at the next meeting G. Planning Commission Items: Commissioner Porter suggested to reiterate position with Fountain Valley School District in regards to requiring an entitlement for using surplus school sites for uses other than school related. G-1 Code Amendment No. 85-11 (Board of Zoning Adjustments review of procedures) Staff recommended that the Commission come back with recommendations. G-2 Town Square Redevelopment Project Chairman Livengood stated that he has had no response from Mayor Bailey in regards to information submitted on the Town Square Redevelopment Project. H. Development Services Items: H-1 General Plan Conformance Capital Improvements Program 1985-1986 (information only) Recommendation is to bring back to the April 16, 1985 Planning Commission meeting for action under "D" items. I. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:51 p.m. to the City Council and Planning Commission study session on April 13, 1985. «v""I Tom Liv n ood, cfhairan 1 (2230d) -12- P.C. 4/2/85