Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-04APPROVED JULY 2, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter Mirja angir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Gail Hutton, Huntington Beach City Attorney, made a presentation regarding the bootleg unit problem in the Oldtown/Townlot area. She offered the assistance of her department in a cooperative effort with development services to resolve this problem. Chairman Livengood asked members of the Commission if anyone planned on attending the work shop "Transportation & The Quality Of Life" to which Rowe, Porter and Erskine stated that they would like to attend. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-2, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-1, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-27 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On May 22, 1985, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and took a straw vote action on Area 2.1 (Goldenwest and Ellis area) of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2. The amendment also contains 21 City -initiated Administrative Items which are intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning. The Commission continued Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2 to June 4 to hear and discuss these items. Staff recommends approval of LUE 85-2 by resolution with the Staff recommendations. Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1 covers Area 2.1 of the amendment, while Negative Declaration No. 85-27 addresses the 21 Administrative Items. Negative Declaration No. 85-27 was posted on May 25, 1985 for a period of 10 days ending on June 4, 1985. No comments have been received to date. Although not technically covered by EIR 85-1, the Administrative Items were also transmitted for review to interested agencies as pa>t of that process. No comments were received regarding these items. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 AREAS OF CONCERN 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.15, 3.16, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, The Planning Commission then directed staff to incorporate 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.17, 3.20, in the next land use amendment and further be directed to bring back appropriate zone changes to concurrently permit the rezone to the density of existing development. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 AREA OF CONCERN 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.17, 3.20 TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE NEXT LAND USE AMENDMENT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Porter motioned to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 1344 and approve areas of concern and findings for exclusion of area of concern 2.1. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1344 AND APPROVE FINDINGS FOR EXCLUSION OF AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 1. The subject property was originally changed from Open Space to General Commercial in order to develop an equestrian oriented commercial use which would compliment the equestrian uses adjacent to the subject property in Central Park. Medium Density Residential on the subject property is contrary to the City's intended use and density for the property. (2684d) -2- P.C. 6-4/85 2. Medium Density Residential is incompatible with Central Park. 3. Medium Density Residential is inconsistent with the Ellis-Goldenwest study for the Specific Plan area to the south. 4. An overall development plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area should be approved prior to considering a Land Use Element Amendment on the subject property. Additionally, the Ellis-Goldenwest planning area should be expanded to include the subject property as well as the entire Holly Property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-27 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 OLDTOWN/TOWNLOT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-2, DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, DISTRICT TWO RESOLUTION NO. 1343 Applicant: The City of Huntington Beach On May 22, 1985 the Planning Commission continued action on the proposed Code Amendment No. 85-2, for the Oldtown, Townlot, and Downtown Plan areas. The current code does not have sufficient provisions limiting floor plan design or other specific restrictions which could help in preventing units approved as a single family dwelling from being modified to add illegal rental units. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED The following individuals spoke in opposition to Code Amendment No. 85-2, Mr. McMahon, who stated that the amendment was to restrictive; Mr. Corona, who stated he had built many homes in the downtown area and there more effective ways to control bootlegging; and Mike Abraham, who felt the height limitation over the garage was too restrictive. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. They discussed the need for more code enforcement and code enforcement officers and the possibility of adopting a system used by neighboring cites called "Inspection Upon Resale". Chairman Livengood stated that he would like to take straw votes on the amendments to article 970. (2684d) -3- P.C. 6-4/85 A straw vote was taken on the following sections: S. 9700.2 - Bedroom AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: Mirjahangir ABSENT: Rowe out of the room ABSTAIN: None 5.9700.15 - Open Space, S. 9700.17 - Site Coverage, S. 9700.11 - Kitchen, S. 9700.21 - Wet Bar AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None S. 9791.12.7 - Residential Parking AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff if it will be possible to add a bedroom to an existing building in the future if the ordinance ties bedrooms to parking. Mike Adams of staff stated that in some cases, depending on the amount of available parking on site, a bedroom may not be able to be added in the future to an existing structure. S. 9130.3 - Maximum Density/Intensity AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None S. 9130.4 - Maximum Building Height AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None S. 9130.6 - Setback (front yard) AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None (2684d) -4- P.C. 6-4/85 6. 9130.8 - Setback (rear yard) AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None S. 9130.9 - Open Space AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine,. Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None S. 9130.12 Miscellaneous AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erskine requested that the City Council consider budgeting for additional Code Enforcement Officers to help prevent bootlegging in the downtown area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ADOPT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 AND RESOLUTION NO. 1343 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Minute action was taken to recommend to City Council adoption of an "Inspection Upon Resale" ordinance and consideration of three additional Code Enforcement Officers to be added to the Development Services staff. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE MINUTE ACTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (2684d) -5- P.C. 6-4/85 C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 Applicant: Huntington Bay and Racquet Club On May 7, 1985 the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15, Tentative Tract No. 11881 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2, a request to subdivide a 14.68 acre site into 13 lots (7 numbered and 6 lettered, as described in the attached report) and develop 42 condominium units with 20 additional boat slips. At that time, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant submit a geology report prior to the Commission taking action on the project. The Developer has indicated. to Staff that he has engaged the services of a state certified geologist, to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission however he requests the Planning Commission approve the entitlement request prior to trenching due to costs. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15, Tentative Tract No. 11881 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2 until the July 2, 1985 Planning Commission meeting to allow for a geological report to be submitted. Chairman Livengood asked staff if the applicant agreed to the continuance. Howard Zelefsky stated no. The Commission proceeded with the public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dick Harlow, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal and stated that he would like assurance that the geological report was the only concern of the Commission. Sheldon Grossman stated that he was in full support of the project stating that it will enhance the value of the property. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rowe and Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern about approving the project before the geological report was submitted. Commissioner Porter asked staff when the geological report is submitted if it indicates that modification of the site are necessary, will the applicant have to come back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that the geologist will not certify the project if it is not safe. Commissioner Porter stated that he reviewed the May 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting tapes and was prepared to vote on the proposal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (2684d) -6- P.C. 6-4/85 AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11881 1. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of development. Therefore, the project as proposed complies with the City's General Plan of Land Use designation of Mixed Use Development. 2. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design and implementation features of the subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and City Subdivision Ordinance. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-15: 1. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is in conformance with the General Plan policies because the proposed improvements are consistent with the intent of mixed use land use designation. 2. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood because the project will be in compliance with the regulations set forth in the Ordinance Code. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed development does properly adapt the structures to streets, driveways, and other uses in a harmonious manner. Warner Avenue, being a primary means of access, is a major arterial and has sufficient capacity to accommodate project -generated traffic. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2: 1. The 42 unit condominium project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix and the Huntington Bay Club Specific Plan Standards except as provided for in Conditional Exception No. 85-18 as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; and conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. (2684d) -7- P.C. 6-4/85 3. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 4. The proposed development will incorporate a bulk design which will facilitate Public access to the beach and protect the structures from tidal action. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15: 1. The site plan, floor plan and elevations dated March 11, 1985 shall be revised to include the following: a. Compliance with the 45 foot height limit subject to review and approval of the Director of Development Services. 2. All diking, dredging and filling shall be performed in conformance with the Coastal Act (Section 30233) 3. A pump -out system or systems shall be installed adequately to accommodate the total number of boats that can be docked or moored in the proposed facility. The applicant shall provide a sanitary sewer hook-up for the pump -out system at each boat slip or mooring. Said facility shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A copy of the CCR's shall be submitted to -the Department of Development Services and reviewed by the City Attorney's office as to form and content. It shall include a clause prohibiting persons from living aboard any boat docked or moored at the facility. It shall also include a provision which prohibits vehicular access to Edgewater Lane to all but emergency vehicles. 5. Parking lot shall remain open during daytime hours so that the public may have access to the walkway/beach. 6. The developer shall be responsible for all striping, signing, decking and red curb on Warner Avenue. 7. Parking shall be prohibited on Warner Avenue. 8. Warner shall be improved to Public Works Standards. 9. No parking shall be allowed on private 24 foot wide roadway. 10. The developer shall construct all required storm drain facilities within his project limits and dedicate easements for the master -planned facility. 11. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the occupancy in accordance with N.F.P.A. Standard #13. (2684d) -8- P.C. 6-4/85 12. A combination wet standpipe system shall be installed on each floor in accordance with U.B.C. Standards. 13. A fire alarm system shall be installed throughout the occupancy in accordance with N.F.P.A. Standards. 14. All fire lanes are required to be 24 foot minimum width. All turns are to be calculated at 17-45 foot radius dimensions. 15. Fire hydrants shall be installed per Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. The location shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. Emergency access gates shall be installed at Edgewater and the Bay Club entryways. The fire entry access gates shall be installed in accordance with Fire Department Standard #403. 17. The fire protection system for the Marina is to be updated to comply with Fire Department Standard #405. 18. No parking signs shall be installed at all entrances and no parking areas posted per Fire Department Standard #415. 19. Every floor served by elevators shall have access to, at least, one elevator car having a minimum inside car platform of 6' by 8" wide by 4' by 3" deep with a minimum clear opening width of 42". 20. A sidewalk and entryway located off Warner Avenue leading to the stairway on the west side shall be installed for Fire Department access. 21. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the Design Review Board for review of architectural and landscaping quality. The elevations shall reflect a landscape mounding effect which screens the semi -subterranean parking. 22. In the draft development agreement which the applicant will submit, a provision for providing of low and moderate income housing units shall be made in order to comply with Mello Bill requirements. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's office as to form and content and approved by the Director of Development Services. 23. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers. 24. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. (2684d) -9- P.C. 6-4/85 25. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lot and recreation area. A lighting plan shall be submitted to Development Services which illustrates that spillage onto adjacent properties will not occur. 26. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for a building permit. 27. In compliance with the Alquist Priola Act, an engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report identifying the location of any faults, the degree of risk and hazard of project development with mitigation measures identified; as well as indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factor as indicated by the geologist's report; and shall include calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors. This report shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. The findings of this report shall be used to determine the need for any modifications to the project design and will be used to determine the need for any further entitlement prior to the issuance of building permits. 28. The diagonal parking at the westerly end of the project shall be changed to perpendicular. 29. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations of the clothes dryers. 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. 30. 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 provide a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 31. The project shall be phased so that the club facilities shall have sufficient parking during the construction of the residential portion. As an alternative, the club portion may be closed during the construction of the residential units, in order to assure that sufficient parking is made available during the construction of the project. (2684d) -10- P.C. 6-4/85 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT 11881: 1. The Tentative Tract No. 11881 received and dated March 25, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. A copy of the recorded tract map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 3. On -site water system shall be constructed and dedicated per Public Works requirements. 4. On -site sewer system shall be private, but is subject to Public Works requirements. C-4 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. Review of a bingo license does not require any action by the Planning Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Reverend Bless, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal Robert Blue, Attorney representing Old World Owner Association, expressed the concern of several people in opposition of the proposal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if the church was established. Mike Adams of staff stated yes. Commissioner Erskine stated he would be voting against the proposal due to the fact that the church only holds services on 6 occasions a year but wants to hold bingo weekly. Commissioner Schumacher suggested approval of the proposal excluding the bingo. She stated that she could not deny the right for a church organization to hold services. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY ROWE TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-13 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (2684d) -11- P.C. 6-4/85 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed use will have a detrimental effect upon the general health, safety, welfare or convenience of persons residing or working in the area and is detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood since parking and on -site facilities are not adequate for public assembly. 2. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding land uses which include apartments, commercial businesses and residences. 3. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are not properly integrated. 4. The proposed access to and parking for the various church uses will create traffic or circulation problems. C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-7 EXCAVATION OF LANDFILLS Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On September 19, 1983 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2650, an urgency ordinance for a period of 45 days, prohibiting any disturbance, excavation or removal of any materials from the Ascon Landfill. On October 17, 1983, the City Council through adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 2661, extended the moratorium on the excavation of material from the Ascon Landfill for a period of 10 months and 15 days, expiring on September 18, 1984. The Development Services Department Staff was directed by Council during the moratorium period to prepare an amendment to Division 9 of the Ordinance Code, that would regulate and ensure the proper level of environmental control and safety over any proposal to excavate a landfill. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Beverly Titus, Chairperson of the Ad -hoc Committee for the Ascon Landfill, stated that she has reviewed the staff report and is pleased with the staff recommendations. Mike Adams asked the Commission if staff could eliminate the distance of notification for the City Council Meeting from 1/2 mile to 300 feet which the Commission stated that they would incorporate this into the motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-7 WITH THE REQUEST OF THE REDUCTION OF NOTIFICATION RADIUS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED I I (2684d) -12- P.C. 6-4/85 C-6 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-4 Applicant: Mola Development On September 6, 1984, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 84-19 and Tentative Tract No. 12238, a request to construct a 105-unit condominium project on 3.07 acres of property on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between 12th. and 13th. Streets. The project is a one -lot subdivision consisting of 71 one -bedroom units, 12 one -bedroom and den, 19 two -bedroom units to be constructed over a two level parking structure to a maximum height of 45 feet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James Smith, stated that he was not opposed to the proposal but feels that there is a definite problem with parking in this area. Roger Tailor, spoke in opposition of the project stating that there is not enough parking. Dick Harlow, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project stating that project meets the code for parking required in the specific plan. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed landscaping. Commissioner Rowe stated that he was opposed to the amount of density proposed in the development for this area. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff if bond financing was passed by City Council for the project. Dick Harlow responded stating that an Inducement Resolution had been approved. He stated that it does not obligate the city but it is possible that the city would have to supply the bond. The Commission expressed concern about the project being transformed into apartments in the future to which staff stated that there was no guarantee that they would remain condominiums. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she did not agree with the city supplying the bond financing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-4 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Rowe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Commissioner Porter moved to continue the item and requested that staff come back with the program for landscaping and design guidelines. Chairman Livengood requested that these plans be scheduled for the June 17, 1985 City Council Meeting for feedback from the City Council on the proposal so the Planning Commission can take action at the June 18, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. (2684d) -13- P.C. 6-4/85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-4 TO THE JUNE 18, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH INPUT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-25 Applicant: G.P. Building Enterprises, Inc. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-19 is a request to construct a 24-unit apartment. Conditional Exception No. 85-25 is a request to permit the following: a) Portions of the building to exceed the 35 foot height requirement by 4 feet (Sec. 9320.5); b) Two lobby wingwalls to encroach 2 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot front yard setback (Sec. 9320.6); and c) Four compact size parking spaces at a ratio of 8% of all the parking spaces; no compact spaces are permitted for residential projects with less than 100 units (Sec. 9645.10). THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Robert Michelson, representing the applicant, spoke in'support of th proposal stating that he concurred with staff's findings and conditions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commission expressed concern regarding the building height exceeding the 35 foot height requirement to which the applicant stated he was willing to eliminate the conditional exception. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was opposed to this being zoned R3 to which Commissioner Porter agreed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir, NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED (2684d) -14- P.C. 6-4/85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-25: 1. There are not exceptional circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. 2. Conditional Exception No. 85-25 is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. No extenuating circumstances that would warrant a conditional exception to develop this property exist. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19: 1. The proposed 24-unit apartment project may have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and may be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed 24-unit apartment project is to intense a development for the site and not compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood which include a city park, pet cemetery, retail uses, single family residences, and condominiums. 3. Site layout, building design and location of the proposed project may not be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of project intensity. 4. Vehicular parking and circulation on -site may create traffic or circulation problems. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-11 (TRACT 11473, 11805) Applicant: Eric Mossman Conditional Use Permit No. 85-11 is a request to amend previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 to allow a reduction of sideyard setbacks to an aggregate of 20 feet with a minimum of 8 feet on one side, and to allow the optional use of block walls through the project and an 8 foot soundwall on Edwards Street. The project is Country View Estates (Tracts 11473 and 11805) on the east side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue which was originally approved on April 7, 1982. (2684d) -15- P.C. 6-4/85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-11 TO THE JUNE 18, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-24, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12268, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-27, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-7, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-34 Applicant: BWC/Vanderwood One lot subdivision for acceptance; mixed use project consisting of 205 senior apartment units in conjunction with 30 convalescent units and 30 assisted care units; located at the approved realignment of Lake Street, Atlanta Avenue and Orange Avenue. Staff recommends continuance of this item to the June 18, 1985 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-24, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12268, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-27, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-7, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-34 TO THE JUNE 18, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-10 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-7 Applicant: Tait & Associates, Inc. Zone Change No. 85-7 is a request to add the service station suffix (Article 948) to the existing base zone of C4, Highway Commercial. The applicant intends to demolish the existing service station on the site and construct a new service station, the SS suffix is required in order to permit the new construction. Due to the late hour Chairman Livengood requested that Zone Change No. 85-22 be continued. (2684d) -16- P.C. 6-4/85 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-7 TO THE JUNE 18, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTIONED PASSED C-11 USE PERMIT NO. 85-22/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-26 Applicant: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Use Permit No. 85-22 is a request to permit installation of a contained vapor combustor at an existing oil company terminal facility [S.9530.01(a)(D)] determined to be a nonconforming site due to the lack of street dedication and improvements (S.9719). Conditional Exception No. 85-26 is a request to permit a fence to encroach into the front and exterior side yard setbacks (S.9530.06 and S.9530.07), a reduction in landscape buffer (S.9530.13), and a waiver of street improvements (S.9730.14). THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Nancy Wolfe, representing applicant, spoke in'support of the project stating that they concur with staff's recommended findings and conditions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter questioned public works about the addition of trees in the park way. Staff stated that there was not enough room and they did not want to put them in the public right-of-way because the city is liable for any accidents involving the trees. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 85-22/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-26 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Ernktnop Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (2684d) -17- P.C. 6-4/85 Findings for Approval: Conditional Exception No. 85-26 1. There are exceptional circumstances that do not apply generally to other property or uses in this district due to the previous land dedication for park purposes. 2. The applicant is willing and able to dedicate and improve Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue and submit an agreement regarding the specifics and timetable for completion. 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. Placement of the fencing on the existing berm will give a visual appearance of compliance with the setback provisions of the code. 5. A conditional exception for setback encroachment, reduction in landscape buffer, and waiver of partial street improvements is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 6. The granting of this conditional exception will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the City's Ordinance Code. 7. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. Findings for Approval: Use Permit No. 85-22 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; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of th use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. Conditions of A roval: Use Permit No. 85-22 and Conditional Exception No. 85-26: 1. The site plan, received and dated May 28, 1985, shall be the approved layout subject to a revised site plan being submitted depicting the modifications described herein: (2684d) -18- P.C. 6-4/85 a. Relocation of fencing to the top of the berms along Gothard and Talbert. b. Where there is no berm along Talbert, the fencing shall be relocated in compliance with the ten foot setback from ultimate right-of-way. Said fencing may be relocated when Talbert Avenue is improved. 2. 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 and to include a provision for trees along Gothard at City specified standards.. b. Fencing material for review and approval by the Department of Development Services. 3. The applicant shall participate in a landscape maintenance agreement for the sidewalk replacement area. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 6. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 7. Combustor shall be painted to match the existing tanks (light beige or light blue). 8. The applicant shall submit a letter of agreement to the Department of Public Works assuring installation of improvements along Gothard and Talbert. Gothard Street sidewalk may be replaced with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Talbert Avenue improvements shall coincide with the City property street improvements. 9. The applicant shall submit a fire protection analysis to the Fire Department prior to installation of any fire protection equipment. 10. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 11. All signs shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 12. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. (2684d) -19- P.C. 6-4/85 13. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 14. If lighting is included on the lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 15. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 (ADULT ENTERTAINMENT) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On May 7, 1985, Code Amendment No. 85-12 was scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Commission did not open the public hearing, however, and continued the item until such time as the City Council acted to extend the amortization period for non -conforming adult entertainment businesses. On May 21, 1985, the City Council extended the amortization period by 90 days. Code Amendment No. 85-12 is now back before the Planning Commission for public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 DUE TO THE LATE HOUR BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-13 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-11 Applicant: City of Huntingon Beach Due to the length and number of public hearing items scheduled for tonight's meeting, the Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue Code Amendment No. 85-11 until the June 18th. meeting. (2684d) -20- P.C. 6-4/85 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-11 TO THE JUNE 18, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to the next Planning Commission Meeting on June 18, 1985. Tom Liveng o , C ' Irma (2684d) -21- P.C. 6-4/85