Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-07APPROVED JUNE 41 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TUESDAY MAY 7, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood Erskine, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on April 16. 1985. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1985 WERE APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood stated that the City Council would not be meeting on their regular Monday, May 20, 1985, but on Tuesday May 21, 1985. Chairman Livengood asked the Commission if they would like to meet on Monday, May 20, 1985, or Wednesday May 22, 1985. Mike Adams of staff advised the Commission that staff assumed the meeting would be on May 22, 1985, with which the Commission concurred. C. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (Holly Property) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1 was scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 19, 1985. At that meeting, the applicant (Huntington Beach Company) requested that the Commission review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 84-1) for the amendment, but continue the hearing on the amendment itself to May 7, 1985. The Planning Commission agreed to the continuance. On April 30, 1985, the Huntington Beach Company submitted a letter requesting further continuance of the public hearing to the May 22, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Livengood asked staff if they were recommending continuance of the public hearing to May 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff stated yes. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) WAS CONTINUED TO THE MAY 22, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-18, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 Applicant: Huntington Bay & Racquet Club On April 16, 1985, the Planning Commission continued the subject requests in order to allow staff time to research contradicting development standards contained in the Huntington Bay Club Specific Plan. Page 16 of the document states "structures having dwelling units attached side by side shall not be composed of more than six (6) dwelling units on any one level." This section is inconsistent with the density provision which allows for 42 units in two buildings (21 units per building, 3 stories in height). The staff researched the City Council tapes to determine the Council's intent when adopting the Specific Plan for the Racquet Club. Attached for the Planning Commission's review was a transcript from two City Council meetings which addressed the issue of bulk. It indicated that the Council understood and intended to have 7 units side by side for the project. It should be noted that Section 9800 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code states "the recommendations of the Commission in legislative matters shall be only advisory, but its decisions in other matters such as interpreting the applicable provisions of Division 9, passing on plans submitted to it in accordance herewith, and the disposition of petitions shall be binding and effective, subject to appeal as hereinafter provided." The applicant has also indicated to Staff that the request for Conditional Exception No. 85-18 will be withdrawn, and the height will not exceed 45 feet as measured from the bulkhead line. The meeting tape clearly indicated that building height was a major concern of the Council and that no deviation for height should be allowed. Commission review ensued. Chairman Livengood suggested an amendment to the Planning Commission to correct the Specific Plan as far as the bulk is concerned. Mike Adams of Staff stated that mistake was a clerical mistake so a code amendment is not necessary. I - Commission Rowe questioned the earthquake fault stating that he had researched this issue and found that a fault goes through the proposed property going directly under where the buildings are located. He stated that he has spoke with a geologist who said that this was a very serious fault line in California at the present time. The Commission asked the applicant if a professional geologist had been consulted. John Mandrell, Civil Engineer on the project, stated that no consultant has been contacted at this point. He stated that they were aware of the requirement for a geologist to take tests to specifically determine where the fault lies and make recommendations for the structural design of the building. This must be accomplished before the building permits are issued. Commission Schumacher stated that she felt the plan should not be approved until the geologist report and field testing has been done. Commission Erskine stated that this issue is not a new one and referred to condition no. 28 in regards to the Alquist Priola Act stating that an engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property before issuance of building permits. He stated that if the building needs to be modified after the report, the applicant will have to come back to the Commission to modify the site plan. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that as a past city employee as structural engineer he studied the city of Huntington Beach and there was no evidence of any fault line that can show a surface rupture. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would be voting against the motion because she was opposed to the original Zone Change removing the recreational open space designation due to the overall lack of open space in the harbour. She also stated that she feels the project contradicts the Coastal Plan due to the fact that it does not adequately address view corridors. In addition, she felt the project was to intense a use for this piece of property. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WITH STAFF's RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Secretary Palin stated that a lack of four affirmative votes automatically continues the item to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Erskine asked staff to bring this item back to the next regular meeting for information that was being asked regarding the discrepancies between the description of locations of the earthquake fault. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-18, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 WAS CONTINUED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None C-3 OLDTOWN/TOWNLOT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 1343 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On April 2, 1985, the Planning Commission last discussed the problems within the Oldtown, Townlot and Downtown Specific Plan, District Two areas where a unit approved as a single family dwelling has later been modified to add illegal rental units. The current code does not have provisions limiting floor plan design or other specific restrictions which could help in preventing such illegal conversions. The Planning Commission requested that a code amendment be prepared to reflect the discussion items generated by staff and the Planning Commission which are listed below. 1. Require additional parking for units with four or more bedrooms. The additional spaces could be provided on a driveway pad twenty feet in depth. 2. Limit height over garage and require a minimum connection with the main dwelling before any upper level living areas over the garage are permitted. 3. Increase setback requirements for upper stories. 4. Allow only partial credit for recreation space above ground level (i.e. balconies). 5. Limit development square footage by a floor area ratio of 0.75. (Example: A typical lot of 2,875 square feet would accommodate a maximum dwelling size of 2,156 square feet. Commissioner Erskine'commented on the 28 violations that staff is aware of at the present time. He stated that the key to correcting these existing problems is additional code enforcement and he stated that he was informed that the city does not have adequate inspectors to accomplish this. He stated that he would hope that any action that was taken at this date to urge City Council to find additional dollars to strengthen the code enforcement. Commission review ensued. The Commission discussed the side yard set back requesting explanations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Mike Abraham, spoke in opposition of the code amendment. He stated that he was opposed mainly to the limited height over the garage. Kent Pierce, from the Board of Realtors, stated that he wished to express strong opposition to a number of provisions in the proposed amendment pertaining to the square footage of 2100 square feet, the height limitation, the definition for bedroom. He stated that he was in support of the parking requirements and the front set back. Mike McMahon, spoke in opposition of the code amendment stating that it was too restrictive towards a "bootleg" problem which has room for other solutions. Robert Corona, stated that he has built many homes in the downtown area. He spoke in opposition to the code amendment. John Purdue, stated that the restrictions being imposed are restricting citizen's businesses, and stated that he was very much opposed to the code amendment. Norman Morrison, professional license engineer in control systems, stated that the city blocks anybody trying to make improvements in the city. Natalie Kotsch, real estate agent, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. Tom Jacobs, builder, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. However, he did indicate that solutions to this problem are not easy. He he stated he was very disappointed -to see a moratorium as a solution. He was opposed to the 30 foot height limitation, upper story setbacks, and requested a better definition of bedroom. He requested the Fire Department comment on the outside stairs. He stated that the floor area ratio was unrealistic. Jim Mershman, spoke in support of the code amendment stating he did not want to see the city turned into an overcrowded slum. Tony Ursino, stated that he has resided in Huntington Beach for 22 years. He stated that he was in opposition of the code amendment because it is to restrictive. Jane O'Reilly, spoke in opposition of the code amendment. Jacque Petty, spoke in support of the code amendment. He stated that he lives next door to a single family home that is occupied by more than one family and stated that he hopes the Commission can do something about this. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. Chairman Livengood stated that some concerns were brought up in the public hearing such as the outside stairs. He asked staff how this would impact the Fire Departments regulations. Another concern was the definition of bedroom. He stated that the other question was to the City Attorney for a way to control "bootleg" units on deed restrictions. Commissioner Winchell stated that it appeared that the Commission needed at least two weeks or maybe longer to have some input. It seems that the most disagreement is the square footage and the height restriction. Commissioner Schumacher stated that it irritates her to hear people say that the city is creating a slum and stopping progress. She felt the square footage is too restrictive and should be on a 1 to 1 basis. She stated that the definition of bedroom and the parking are the areas she is most concerned with. Chairman Livengood stated that he was informed of a known 54 illegal units.He asked staff why nothing has been done to rectify this prior to this time. His feelings were that the 54 units should be cleared up first. He stated that his main concerns were the traffic and parking. Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt the parking standards need to be increased and that the definitions need to be tightened. He stated that he understands what the public speakers were referring to as far as the bedroom definition. He stated that he felt the height restriction of 22 feet was too restrictive and that something a little under 30 feet would be adequate. He stated that he agreed with Commission Schumacher on the square footage should be on a 1 to 1 basis. Commissioner Erskine also stated that code enforcement must become a reality not a concept. He stated that a deed restriction would add teeth to the ordinance and that he would like to get some resolution to that idea. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that that staff should tone down some of the regulations to the ordinance in order to meet the demands of the market. Chairman Livengood asked the City Attorney to make a recommendation on the deed restrictions. Attorney Sangster stated that it did not provide any significant assistance to the City only in respect to giving people a little more notice of limitation. He stated a system that Newport Beach uses would be more effective by requiring anyone who is transferring property or purchasing property would have to obtain a certificate of compliance stating that the property is in compliance with the city ordinance and building codes. Chairman Livengood asked the Fire Department to explain the impact on the outside stairs as far as fire regulations are concerned. Tom Poe of the Fire Department stated that the Fire Department only requires one exit and an emergency window for people to exit from the second floor. After further discussion, Commissioner Erskine did not feel that the Commission could achieve a resolution. Commissioner Erskine said he would favor a motion to continue with direction to staff to recommend some sort of deed restriction, more code enforcement, evaluate the floor ratio, the height restrictions and definition of bedroom. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER OLDTOWN/TOWNLOT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 1343 WAS CONTINUED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-38/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-011/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-3 Conditional Use Permit No. 84-38 is a request to allow the addition of a second unit to an existing single family residence pursuant to Section 9101.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception 84-011 is a request to alter the reduction of a rear yard setback from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet as required in Section 9103.3, R1, Low Density Residential Zoning District. Coastal Development Permit No. 85-3 is a mandatory entitlement pursuant to provisions set forth in the recent certification of the Local Coastal Plan by the Coastal Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Jim Poper, speaking for Andrew Alegretti, spoke in support of his proposal. He stated that staff at first gave the go ahead but later told him that the project was unacceptable. He stated that he and his client felt they were misled. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff for clarification on the sitting room. Mike Adams of staff stated that this plan is new to staff this evening, stating that the rendering on the wall is not part of the submission that was submitted to the Commission last Friday, although that did not change the staff's recommendation on this project. Chairman Livengood asked staff if proper notification was sent out to the neighbors. Mike Adams of staff stated yes, he also stated that staff has received some phone calls from concerned neighbors but it seemed that none had showed up for the meeting. Commissioner Winchell asked staff what the problem was with the architectural integrity. Mike Adams stated that the intent of the code section was to make it a unified whole. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff if the issue here was the set back or the 50% connection. Mike Adams of staff stated that that the 50% connection was staff's interpretation of a way to make the project a unified whole. The primary issue was the encroachment into the setback area. Chairman Livengood stated that this is an unusual lot with a configuration which seems like the latest design fits into the lot which must have been a challenge with the way the lot is situated. He stated that he would be in favor of the project. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-38/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-011/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-3 WAS VOTED TO BE DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED AND CONTINUED TO MAY 22, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DUE TO THE LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20 Applicant: Robert Zinngrabe Conditional Use Permit No. 85-18 is a request to develop an 81 unit (two efficiency units, 59 one -bedroom units, and 20 two -bedroom units) retirement home. Conditional Exception No. 85-20 is a request to permit the following: a) Portions of the building to be setback 16 feet from the north property line in lieu of the 20' perimeter setback requirement (Sec. 9645.6); b) Twenty two -bedroom apartment units instead of all one -bedroom units (Sec. 9645.9); c) Two efficiency units with a minimum area of 435 square feet in lieu of a minimum sq. ft. of 500 (Sec. 9645.9); d) A parking ratio of one space for each three one -bedroom units and one space for each 1.5 two -bedroom units instead of one space per unit (Sec. 9645.10); and e) Eighteen compact size parking spaces at a ratio of 19.6 percent; no compact spaces are permitted for residential projects with less than 100 units (Sec. 9645.10). A new C.U.P. was required because the proposed development contains two -bedroom units which is a substantial change over the previously approved plan and a new C.E. because there are no provisions in the Pacifica Community Plan for two -bedroom units. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Dick Harlow, representing Robert Zinngrabe, spoke in support of the project. He stated that this project was similar to the project that the Planning Commission approved some months ago. He stated that his client agrees with the staff report and the recommended conditions of approval. Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Harlow how many rooms were proposed in the original proposal. Mr. Harlow stated probably a total of 101 rooms. Additional parking is available to accommodate this. Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Harlow if this is a project designed for senior citizens, and if so, how come there is only one unit for the handicapped. Mr. Harlow stated that this was one of staff's conditions of approval. He stated that he did not know how many units were normally designed for the handicapped but they will have to meet State requirements. He stated that the Delma Core Corporation will be operating under different standards since it is a senior citizen housing. Commissioner had to have Schumacher on the last asked Mr. Harlow how many parking spaces he project. Mr. Harlow stated 91 spaces. Commissioner Schumacher asked Mr. Harlow why he had more compact spaces on this project than the other one. She asked if this was due to more landscaping. Mr. Harlow stated that it was just laid out that way and there is going to be more landscaping. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20: 1. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the project due to the unique proposal of a variety of senior residential opportunities that do not apply generally to other property or uses in this district. 2. Conditional Exceptions for unit size, number of bedrooms per unit, number and size of parking spaces and perimeter setback are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and consistent with post project approvals in this area. 3. The grant of this Conditional Exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood as identified below: a. The reduction of a 20 foot primary setback to 16 feet along the north property line will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent land uses since the north and east property lines of the subject site abut parking lots. b. The inclusion of twenty two -bedroom apartment units conforms to the intent and purpose of the Pacifica Community Plan by providing a wider variety of unit types available to senior citizens. C. The reduction in unit size for two units from the required 500 square feet to 435 square feet will not have an adverse impact on surrounding land uses since the units are intended for senior citizens and additional open space for the residents is being provided in a common recreation room and common dining room. d. The reduction in the number of on -site parking spaces from one space per unit to one space per three one -bedroom units and one space per 1.5 two -bedroom units plus the inclusion of 18 compact parking spaces will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding land uses since the senior citizens living within the development generally will use public transportation or walk to shopping facilities located within the area. 4. The applicant is willing and able to carry out this request and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. 5. The granting of this Conditional Exception is not inconsistent with the general purpose or intent of the Pacific Community Plan because it promotes senior residential housing. FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18: 1. The proposed 81-unit apartment project will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area nor be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood because it is similar to existing surrounding developments. 2. The proposed 81-unit apartment project will be compatible with existing medical, commercial and residential uses in the Pacifica Community Plan vicinity because it is designed to house the elderly. 3. Site layout, building design and location of the proposed project will be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of adequate building setbacks, intensified landscaping and integrated parking. 4. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated. 5. Vehicular parking and circulation on -site is integrated with the adjacent southerly development and will not create traffic or circulation problems. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated March 5, 1985 shall be the approved layout with the following modification: a. The trash area shall be relocated to the southeast corner of the parcel. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Development Services Department for review and approval the following: a. Revised elevations with additional architectural treatment on the west and south building elevations showing all elevations . b. A revised "Agreement and Covenant" indicating an "81-unit" residential retirement apartment complex annex and showing that the total number of residential units shall not exceed "252" on both properties. The document must be signed by all affected persons, including property owners, and must be recorded with the County Recorder. C. A copy of an irrevocable access easement between the two parcels that has been recorded with the County Recorder. d. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan. e. Elevations showing the design and materials of all perimeter walls. 3. All on -site parking at the Huntington Terrace retirement facility and the proposed 81-unit development shall be restricted for residents, guests and employees of those facilities only. 4. The applicant shall notify the Department of Development Services when the 81-unit development is 75% occupied so that staff can conduct a parking assessment study for the two senior residential projects. The parking study shall include analysis of the approved parking ratio (one space per three one -bedroom units and one space per 1.5 two -bedroom units) to determine if this ratio is adequate. If the parking study determines that the above ratio is inadequate, the applicant shall provide employee parking off -site or provide additional parking on -site that does not encroach into the required open space area. 5. The project shall preserve all existing trees on site and shall incorporate them into the landscape plan. a. Intensified landscaping shall be utilized along the north and east property lines to buffer the use from adjacent commercial uses. 6. One unit shall be designed exclusively for the handicapped. 7. At least one occupant of each dwelling unit shall be 60 years of age or older. 8. Water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach Water system. 9. Sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed to City standards. 10. Drainage for the subject project shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and shall be designed to provide for erosion and siltation control both during and after construction of the proposed project. 11. Street improvements (e.g., streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 12. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 13. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers. 14. All building spoils such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. -12- 15. Energy efficient lighting such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used in parking lots. 16. The development shall meet all requirements of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 17. If an entry gate is proposed at the main entrance, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Fire Department. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-13 Applicant: German Evang. Lutheran Church Conditional Use Permit No. 85-13 is a request to permit a church office to be located in the festival hall at Old World Village and to permit worship services on specified occasions pursuant to Section 9331 (b) unclassified uses of the Ordinance Code. If Conditional Use Permit No. 85-13 is approved by the Commission, the applicant would also like to use the festival hall for Bingo to help support their mission work and for their building fund to construct their own church. A letter was submitted by the Old World Homeowners Association requesting that this item be continued to a later date due to the fact that the matter had just came to their attention and they would like an opportunity to study its impact on the Association. Chairman Livengood questioned the applicant in the audience if this was agreeable with him to which the applicant stated no. Chairman Livengood questioned the City Attorney if the Commission go continue this item. Attorney Sangster stated that the notice the city sent out was sufficient. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-13 WAS CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None C-7 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-03/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1205/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-17 Applicant: Hartge Engineering Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1205 is a request to permit a two lot subdivision on the subject property pursuant to Section 9920 Parcel Map Requirements of the Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception No. 85-03 is a request to permit a two lot subdivision; one lot having 60 feet of frontage, the other having 55 feet of frontage in lieu of Section 9162.2 of the Ordinance Code. This section requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. -13- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: John Mandrel, representing the applicant, stated that he was in agreement with the staff report and conditions of approval. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-03/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1205/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-17 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-03: 1. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the land and premises that generally do not apply to other properties in the District. The subject property was part of a previous subdivision consisting of forty, 115 foot wide lots. Approval of this request will allow parody with other property owners within the same vicinity and zone. 2. A conditional exception for reduction in lot width from 60 feet to 55 feet is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and will permit development of the property consistent with other properties within the area. 3. The granting of this conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. With the exception of lot frontage, the proposed development substantially complies with all applicable codes related to setbacks, parking, open space and street improvements. 4. The applicant is willing and able to carry out this request and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. 5. The granting of this conditional exception from Section 9162.2 Minimum Lot Width and Frontage of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to standardize the minimum lot frontage within the R.2, medium density residential zone. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1205): 1. The proposed subdivision for purposes of subdividing one lot into two lots is consistent with the City's General Plan. The property was studied and approved for this intensity of land use and for this type of residential structure at the time the R2, Medium Density Residential designation was placed on the property. -14- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Development Services on November 29, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with the City and approved by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works and recorded with the County of Orange. A copy of the recorded map shall be filed with the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. 3. At the time of new construction of dwelling units on the subject property, a common driveway shall be installed to service both developments. In addition to the required landscaping, the applicant shall also be required to install additional landscaping equal in amount to the area of the reciprocal driveway. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall record reciprocal driveway easements for lots one and two. 4. Grading and street improvement plans shall be provided to City standards at the time the parcel is developed. 5. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system at the time said parcels are developed. 6. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach sewage system at the time said parcels are developed. All utilities shall be installed at the time said parcels are developed in compliance with all applicable City ordinances. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-17 Applicant: Doris Enderly Conditional Use Permit No. 85-17 is a request to establish a health spa/tanning operation in a vacant suite of the Boardwalk shopping center in Huntington Harbour. Section 9332(p) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that health spas 2,500 square feet or larger obtain a conditional use permit. The applicant's proposal is 4,130 square feet. The suite was previously used for a health spa and a conditional use permit had been obtained for that use in 1977. Since the suite has been vacant for over six months, a new conditional use permit is required. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Doris Enderle, applicant, stated that she was in agreement with the recommended findings and conditions proposed in the staff report. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. -15- Chairman Livengood stated that this use has been used since 1977 and he was not opposed to it. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-17 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a health spa 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 health spa is generally compatible with surrounding land uses and should not have any more of an impact than would retail uses. 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 General Commercial. 5. The granting of a conditional use permit is consistent with the development standards contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans dated April 10, 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. Aerobics or other general assembly -type classes shall be not be permitted. 4. The use shall apply to all applicable provisions of Section 5.24 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regarding massage parlors. 5. The structural integrity of the second floor weight room shall be verified by the building department and the applicant shall be required to submit an equipment layout plan including the weights of all equipment. -16 - 6. The building shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Department. C-9 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-06 Applicant: Logan A. Boggs Conditional Exception No. 85-06 is a request to permit an interim use of open space for a period not to exceed six (6) months. The site is currently zoned M1-MHP (Industrial, allowing a mobilehome park). 5.9270.3 allows the continued use of a mobilehome park as regulated by the State of California. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: William Steele Jr., owner, stated that the law requires a manager to be present at the park, and we have no place to put a manager. He stated that he was in agreement with the staff report. He stated that he would like to request that staff eliminate the carport due to the fact that it will not fit. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir motioned for approval. Commissioner Erskine asked if the maker of the motion would be willing to eliminate the carport/garage structure to which Commissioner Mirjahangir agreed. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-06 WAS APPROVED WITH AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. There are exceptional circumstances that do not apply generally to other property or uses in this district due to the need for an on -site manager. 2. A Conditional Exception for the temporary location of a new mobilehome is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The granting of this Conditional Exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. 4. The applicant is willing and able to carry out this request and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. -17- 5. The granting of this Conditional Exception will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the City's Ordinance Code. 6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan received and dated April 8, 1985 shall be revised and resubmitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Relocation of mobilehome to 25 feet easterly of the west property line; 3 feet from north and east property lines. b. One open parking space. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, a $1,000 cash bond shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City Attorney for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the temporary mobilehome and necessary accessory structure(s). If the site is not restored to its prior use within six months of this approval, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter onto the property where said temporary mobilehome is located and remove said mobilehome, and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach, and the remainder, if any, returned to the person depositing the bond. 3. A building permit shall be obtained for the temporary installation of the new mobilehome. 4. All necessary electrical, plumbing, and/or mechanical permits shall be obtained. 5. The new mobilehome shall remain on wheels. 6. No skirting shall be permitted around the new mobilehome. 7. The new mobilehome shall be relocated to the first vacant space within the park within the six month period. 8. Conditional Exception No. 85-06 shall expire on November 6, 1985. C-10 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-12 - "FORTUNETELLING" - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-16 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 84-12 is a request to permit "fortunetelling" in the C4, Highway Commercial District and the North Huntington Center Specific Plan subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 1 �1 Code Amendment No. 84-12 was previously before the Planning Commission on July 10, 1984. At that time, the Planning Commission was informed that final court action was still pending on fortunetelling and recommended postponing action until a final decision was reached by the court. Based on this information, the Planning Commission voted to table Code Amendment No. 84-12 until a final determination is made by the State Supreme Court regarding the subject use. On June 4, 1984, the City Council enacted a zoning moratorium prohibiting the practice of fortunetelling. The moratorium will expire on May 19, 1985. The City Attorney's office has indicated that as of April 26, 1985, a decision had not been rendered by the State Supreme Court with regards to the freedom of speech issue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked the City Attorney how the Commission should act on this item. Attorney Sangster stated that he was unable to foretell the consequences of the lapse of the moratorium on this item because he can not exactly determine what zones this will impact. In view of the legal aspects, he stated that it would be preferable to act on this item tonight. The Commission's action is merely a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Erskine asked staff to explain what the recommendation is saying when it states remove the Code Amendment No. 84-12 from the table. Mike Adams of staff stated that this item was tabled by the Planning Commission July 10, 1984 pending final court action on fortunetelling. The Planning Commission will have to take action to take this item off the table and then take action on it. Commissioner Erskine asked staff if the motion to take from the table and approve this item can be made in the same motion. Staff stated yes. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-12 - "FORTUNETELLING" - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-16 WAS TAKEN FROM THE TABLE AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None -19- C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 (ARTICLE 975 - ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Article 975 (Adult Entertainment Businesses) requires that massage parlors be located at least 200 feet from residentially zoned property, 500 feet from schools and churches and 1,000 feet from other massage parlors. Those existing businesses which do not meet the locational criteria must move to a site which does meet the criteria by June 2, 1985. The locational criteria of Article 975 requires that non -conforming businesses, which may presently be located in "non -family -oriented" areas, such as along Beach Boulevard, relocate to new sites which may be "family -oriented." After discussion by the Planning Commission, the City Council on March 18, 1985, directed that a Code Amendment be prepared to keep massage parlors out of "family - oriented" areas and to exempt those existing non -conforming massage parlors located along Beach Boulevard from the limitation on location requirements and allow them to remain in their present locations upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 (ARTICLE 975 - ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE) WAS CONTINUED PENDING ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-10 - TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENTS Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 85-10 proposes to clarify the language pertaining to temporary outdoor events. By amending S.9700.18(e) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, public service events, i.e. bloodmobile, chest x-ray, or rabies vaccination clinics, sponsored by a nonprofit organization will be exempt from review and approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell stated that she felt including all non-profit organizations was a little loose stating that there is broad spectrum of organizations. Commissioner Winchell asked the Attorney if there was any better description of what the staff's intent is. 1 -20- Attorney Sangster stated no, he didn't think there was a better description. It is difficult to anticipate what kind of uses are going to come along. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-10 - TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENTS WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 Site Plan Review No. 85-2 and Site Plan No. 85-3 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-2 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-3 WAS CONTINUED WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE TO THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None D-2 Planning Commission Review Commissioner Schumacher motioned to approve the thirteen sets of building plans presented in the staff report with modifications outlined. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR PRE -MORATORIUM PLAN CHECKS WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None PLAN CHECK NUMBERS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT LISTED BELOW: Plan Check No. 13545 was continued. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PLAN CHECK NO. 13545 WAS CONTINUED TO THE May 22, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -21- AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Plan Check Nos. 13652 & 13653 were continued. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PLAN CHECK NUMBERS 13652 AND 13653 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MAY 22, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None D-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-36, CHEVRON USE SOUTHWEST CORNER MAIN STREET AND BEACH BOULEVARD The applicant had submitted revised plans which the Commission had not had the opportunity to review, the City Council felt it was appropriate to have the applicant return to the Commission for approval. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-36 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval: 1. The service station/convenience market will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area nor be detrimental to property values or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use is in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan. 3. The proposed use is compatible with existing or other proposed or anticipated uses in the area. 4. The proposed location, site layout and design will properly adapt the site to streets, driveways and adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses on the site are properly integrated. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the service station/convenience market will not create traffic or circulation problems. -22- 1 Conditions of Approval: 1. The site plan dated March 19, 1985 and the floor plan and elevations dated January 27, 1985 shall be approved, with the following modifications: a. The Main Street driveways shall be redesigned in conformance with Public Works Standard Plan No. 211. b. Striping shall be provided on the site to indicate the directional flow of the pump islands. c. All perimeter landscape planters shall be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from their inside dimensions. d. Four ninety degree parking spaces shall be provided in front of the building adjacent to ensure a minimum ten (10) foot wide pedestrian access to the store entrance and cashier window, and to provide better automobile circulation. Such redesign shall be subject to the approval of the Director. e. The air/water service area shall be relocated to the side of the building and shall be properly striped. f. A protective curb or landscape planter shall be continued along the Main Street side of the building. g. Landscaping shall be provided to the rear of the building to include some large palm trees that will be visible over the roof of the building. 2. All signs are subject to separate permits. A planned sign program shall be submitted for approval by the Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The fuel operations at the site shall be full -serve only in order to ensure safe and efficient traffic circulation. 4. An attendant shall be on the site during all hours of operation directing traffic circulation to ensure safety. 5. Architectural treatment shall be provided for the building in order to make it more attractive and compatible with the new shopping center to the south and the recently remodeled shopping center to the west. The design shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. 6. The project shall conform to all applicable provisions of the city's ordinance Code and all building division requirements. -23- D-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-21 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-21 WAS APPROVED AS REQUESTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS: Commission requested a copy of the EIR for the Sanitation District G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Erskine requested an update on the Downtown Hotel Project. Secretary Palin stated that they were working on the project. Commissioner Schumacher stated that Courmier Cheverolet on Beach has changed the face of their sign and requested staff to investigate this. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: H-1 Open Space and Conservation Element Committee Commissioner Winchell stated that if the Commission had any questions on this item to contact Jeanine Frank of the Planning Staff. I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:25 a.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 22, 1985. Tom Liven o d, C a rman -24-