Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-02APPROVED AUGUST 5, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, July 2, 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 May 22, 1985. A-2 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on June 4, 1985. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, AND JUNE 41 1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood requested an update on the progress of the proposed ordinance "inspection Upon Resale" Commissioner Erskine asked staff if the Holly Committee has gotten off the ground. Secretary Palin stated that the committee has been formed but no meeting has been scheduled to his knowledge. Chairman Livengood asked if there were Commissioners included on this committee to which staff responded yes. C. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS C-1 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 - "PALM COURT Applicant: BWC/Vanderwood The subject request is for a mixed use development consisting of 205 senior apartment units, 30 assisted care units, 30 convalescent care units, 14,500 square feet retail commercial and 2,400 square feet office located at the approved realignment of Lake Street, Atlanta Avenue and Orange Avenue. Because the project is located in two distinct zoning districts, and is a mixed use project, there are several ways to analyze it for compliance with development standards. Staff used a formula arrived at by taking a proportional percentage of the site area in relationship to the zoning of both Oldtown Specific Plan District II or Downtown Specific Plan District VI Access into the project will be from two locations: north end of Lake Street and the intersection of Atlanta and Orange Avenues. Lake Street is designed as a secondary arterial with a 90 foot right-of-way with a 7 foot sidewalk capable of accommodating 15,000 to 20,000 vehicle trips per day. Atlanta Avenue will be a primary arterial (100 foot right-of-way) able to accommodate between 20,000-25,000 vehicle trips per day. It is anticipated that summer beach -traffic will use Atlanta Avenue. On June 18, 1985 the Planning Commission continued the subject applications with the developer's consent due to the length of the agenda and to allow time for a meeting between the applicant and concerned property owners. Staff has revised the findings and conditions of approval. The Commission asked staff if an agreement could be made that would go with the land if for some reason the use was changed and a conversion to apartments or a hotel is requested. The commission asked staff if they could lock the project into senior housing. Mike Adams of staff answered that the Commission could add a condition to state any proposed change of use will require a new entitlement. Chairman Livengood asked staff if the statement on granting affordable housing for 35 years was a true statement. Secretary Palin answered yes. Commissioner Erskine asked staff what mechanics were going to be used to keep the public out of the facility. Howard Zelefsky of staff stated the applicant should respond to the question. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ken Skolyan spoke in opposition of the project. His concerns included parking, parking structure, primary use of the hospital and the height of the building. PC - July 2, 1985 -2- (2859d) Pat Marshall spoke in support of the project stating seniors need this type of development. Cecilia Ruir spoke in support of the project indicating it would be a wonderful addition to the Downtown area. Kevin Kelly spoke in opposition to the project stating that he feels parking will not be adequate based on his experiences in similar complexes. Charles Pelky spoke in opposition to the project. Robert F. Beremy spoke.in support of the project. He stated that it is a good project but expressed concern about the parking. Mary Rose Skolyan spoke in opposition to the project. Don Slaven spoke in opposition to the project. Tom Windfield, applicant, referred to future projects that could be built in this area if this proposal was not approved. He stated that the standards by which the senior project was being developed was a much smaller ratio in all ways compared to condominiums or apartments. Commissioner Erskine question the applicant if there was a full medical staff. Tom Windfield stated that a full senior citizen staff is required by the state of California. A licenced medical supervisor or nurse is on the site at all times. Commissioner Erskine asked in the event one of the congregate residents breaks a bone and there is nobody there to handle this, does the patient have to be transported to another hospital. Tom Windfield stated that an emergency medical facility is located on the site. Commissioner Erskine asked if a doctor would be on call. Tom Windfield stated yes a doctor would be on call for all emergencies. Commissioner Erskine questioned pedestrian control along the retail node. Tom Windfield responded that this was subject to modification. He stated that access to a portion of the facility would be through a key or number punch. Guest access would come through a security facility located in the lobby. Commissioner Erskine questioned the security of the facility. Tom Windfield stated that the intent is to have the property secured on a 24 hour basis. Susan Conrad stated that she felt the project should be continued for further study and analysis. Sue Prato stated that she met with the developer and did not feel satisfied. She stated that she was still concerned about the parking and the height of the building and the density of the project. Doctor Morris Ehrlich stated that he was concerned with the outcome of the project if the concerns cannot be worked out. PC - July 2, 1985 -3- (2859d) Mike Adams also read a letter submitted by by Robert Allen, resident and property owner in the Downtown area, which reflects his support of approval of the Palm Court project. Mike Rogers, senior citizen, spoke in support of the project. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine asked staff how they planned to preserve the character of the neighborhood and the safety of the senior citizens. He felt the design feature of the project is not concurrent with the renderings or site plan the Commission has been given to date. He stated that the design feature needs to be spelled out by the Commission. He suggested that the Commission consider some diagram parking with landscape median along Atlanta and Lake Streets. This should happen whether or not the project is able to handle -internal parking. Commissioner Erskine added that the convalescent care should be limited to 30 only, and only available to residents of the project. Finally, he was ready to recommend support to the City Council. Commissioner Mirjahangir said that he was concerned about the parking. He stated that he would like to see staff work with the applicant to try and work out an alternate which should be done before construction commences. He added that the density bonus should show assistance to make this affordable -housing. Finally, that if the city is going to give a 50% density bonus, what would the developer back to the city in return. Commissioner Rowe stated that he was not biased against senior citizens, but felt that this is not the place for this development due to parking. Commissioner Winchell stated that this project was unique, but in a complicated way. She asked staff if .6 parking ratio would be adequate for active seniors who drive and visitors. She stated that the height limit in Oldtown District 6 does not allow 45 foot. She stated that she would like to see only three stories in the northern area. She stated that the tenant age should be specified. She added that there should be.some type of alternative plan in case this is not a marketable plan. Finally, the greatest density bonus she could support would be 25%. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff what the city was getting in return for the density bonus. She stated that there was no problem with senior housing in this area. She also commented on the retail downtown stating that there was too much. She suggested eliminating some of the retail which would eliminate some of the parking problem. Chairman Livengood stated that one of his concerns is the density bonus. He stated that he is concerned this project will change. He stated that he would also favor the 25% density bonus and would support the project. PC - July 2, 1985 -4- (2859d) Commissioner Erskine asked Bob Sangster, Attorney, if the City could require a convenant that would run with the land. Bob Sangster stated yes, that we could make it a recorded development agreement. Commissioner Erskine stated that he would like to see the convenant be a condition of the conditional use permit. Chairman Livengood stated that he would like to see a list of what the developer is proposing and what the city is proposing. Commissioner Winchell discussed the retail required for district 6. Chairman Livengood asked staff if they could come up with a figure for the 25% density bonus. Howard Zelefsky stated that in the Oldtown area it allows (158 units with 39 1/2 units above). A straw vote was taken on 205 units at 51% Density bonus. AYES: Schumacher, Erskine NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Commissioner Mirjahangir asked if the height will still be over 30 feet. Mike Adams stated this will only effect the height on one side there is a portion of the project that is still 45 feet higher located towards Lake away from residential. A straw vote was taken on 192 units instead of the proposed 205 which is 13 units less. AYES: Schumacher, Livengood Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Schumacher asked staff about the stamped concrete standards in the Downtown Design Standards. Mike Adams of staff stated that the project will be subject to Design Review Board approval and that a materials pallet would be submitted. Commissioner Erskine asked staff if the Commission was willing to consider diagonal parking and if this would effect the conditions. Mike Adams stated yes, this would have to meet the satisfaction of Public Works. The Commission discussed the revised conditions which are reflected in the final conditions adopted. PC - July 2, 1985 -5- (2859d) Commissioner Erskine stated that staff should incorporate input from the Commission on architectual design. He stated that he liked the original archetect renderings submitted to the Commission the first time. Mike Adams asked Commissioner Erskine if he would be available for a Design Review Board meeting. Commissioner Erskine stated yes. Commissioner Winchell requested a condition for the applicant to provide 20% low income housing off -site to satisfy Mello Bill if Bond Financing is not used. She stated that the city needs low not moderate income off -site projects. Commissioner Erskine stated that the Commission should vote on the design. Chairman Livengood asked staff if they could word a condition for Project Architectural Review to come back to the Planning Commission after Design Review Board comments for a final decision. Mike Adams stated yes. A straw vote was taken on the applicant being required to provide 20% low to moderate income units offsite if bond financing fails. AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir A straw vote was taken to resolve the number of nursing beds which would be 60 beds; 30 convalescent and 30 assisted care. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVED 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 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell ABSENT:- Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 1 PC - July 2, 1985 -6- (2859d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12208: 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 Medium Density Residential. 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 Subdivisions. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-24: 1. The proposed mixed use development consisting of 192 apartment units with a total of 60-beds for both the convalescent and assisted care facility having a 41% density bonus and 14,500 square feet of retail area 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 Downtown Specific Plan and Oldtown Specific Plan. 2. The proposed mixed use development consisting of 192 apartment units with a total of 60-beds for both the convalescent and assisted care facility having a 41% density bonus and 14,500 square feet of retail area 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 as approved by the Planning Commission. 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. Lake and Atlanta Avenues, being a primary means of access, are arterial highways and have sufficient capacity to accommodate project -generated traffic. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-27: 1. The granting of the Conditional Exception for deviation in the height limit of 30 feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The project will maintain a 30 foot height limit for the portion of the building adjacent to the Oldtown District. PC - July 2, 1985 -7- (2859d) 2. There are exceptional circumstances which apply to this property that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications because of the realignment of the street pattern. 3. Granting Conditional Exception No. 85-27 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property the same zone classifications because the proposed will not adversely impact surrounding property and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Downtown Specific Plan District 6 and Oldtown Specific Plan District 2. 4. Conditional Exception No. 85-27 is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and approval of Conditional Exception No. 85-27 will not result in any modification to the requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2: 1. The proposed mixed use project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix and the Downtown Specific Plan Standards except as provided for in Conditional Exception No. 85-27 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. 3. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-15: 1. The Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations dated June 10, 1985 shall be modified to include the items listed below, then resubmitted subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services which reflects: a. A parking ratio for the apartment units of 1 space/studio and 1 bedroom units 2 spaces/2 bedroom units As an alternative, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Huntington Beach (to be reviewed by the City Attorney's office as to form and content) which will commit the developer/applicant to fund the cost of a parking study PC - July 2, 1985 -8- (2859d) (administered by City Staff) at 90% occupancy of the 192 apartment units. Said study will be used as a decision making tool to determine the amount of financial participation (if any) the developer/applicant will have toward a public parking facility up to the difference between the number of spaces proposed and the number of spaces required by code. An annual review shall be conducted thereafter to determine any future participation subject to the discretion of the Director of Development Services. b. A fully dimensioned plan reflecting compliance with open space requirements. C. Turning radius of 27 feet for retail parking areas. d. A total of 60 beds for the convalescent care facility. e. A total of 192 senior apartment units. f. The number and location of all trash bins. g. The elimination of all office square footage above the commercial. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, a copy of the guidelines for tenant occupancy 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 provisions for: establishing the minimum age requirements (55 years), prohibiting persons from residing in the convalescent care/assisted care facility without first being a tenant of the apartment project for a minimum of six months or have a lease to that effect. This requirement of a minimum age shall run for 30 years. 3. A parking management plan shall be submitted and be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. It shall address: a. Signing b. Control of parking by use C. Van and limousine service d. Parking by unit assignment e. Security 4. orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed as a 100 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works. standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines. 5. Lake Street shall be dedicated and constructed as a 90 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines. PC - July 2, 1985 -9- (2859d) a. Pecan Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed to Public Works standards. 6. Vacation proceedings will be initiated by the City of Huntington Beach for the vacation of Chicago Avenue (Gross Avenue) and a portion of Lake Street. The -remaining portion of Chicago Avenue (Gross Avenue) between Lot 1 (Block 301) and Lot 17 (Block 201) of the Vista Del Mar Tract shall be cul-de-saced to Public Works standards . 7. Patterned concrete within public right-of-way shall be limited to locations and design established in the Downtown Design Guidelines. 8. All required landscaping shall be installed on site, not within public right-of-way, and -maintained by the developer. A detailed landscape plan and sprinkler plan' shall be submitted in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. 9. Water mains shall be constructed in Pecan Avenue, Lake Street and Orange/Atlanta Avenue to tie into existing systems. 10. Storm drain facilities shall be constructed as required by the Department of Public Works. 11. The primary driveway and access widths shall be a minimum of 27 feet wide. The parking lot aisles shall be 27 feet wide in the commercial area. 12. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the complex to comply with Pamphlet.13, Standards of the National Fire Protection Association. 13. The elevator, cars shall be a minimum. of 618".wide by 413" deep to allow the use of an ambulance stretcher which has a minimum size 22" x 78" in its horizontal,position. 14. Fire hydrants shall be apprgyed,and installed.as per Fire Department specifications. 15. Any entry gate shall be approved and comply with Fire Department Standards. 16. A wet standpipe system shall .be installed in,the stairway landings an parking garages as Per Uniform Building Code Standards, ; 17. A public address..system and voice communications system shall be installed throughout health care and residential area. PC - July 2; 1985 -10- ;_(2859d) 18. An automatic fire alarm system approved by the Fire Department is to be installed throughout. 19. No parking area shall be designated. Fire lanes shall be posted per Fire Department Standard #415. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter an agreement to provide low or moderate income housing units in order to comply with Mello Bill requirements with regard to coastal areas. The applicant shall provide housing units for persons of low or moderate income subject to the provisions of Government Section 65590 (d). The applicants compliance with Section 65590 (d) of the Government Code in terms of amount and location of affordable housing provided shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's office as to form and content and approved by the Director of Development Services. 21. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 45 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. 25. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report 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. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. PC - July 2, 1985 -11- (2859d) 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance or Municipal Codes occur. Any proposed change of use, intensity or significant change in design shall require a new conditional use permit subject to Planning Commission review. 29. If the applicant does not obtain bond financing for the project, the requirement for 20% of the units (38 total units) to be made available to persons earning less than 80% of the Orange County median income figure may be satisfied off site subject to approval of the Director of Development Services. The loss of bond financing will not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to provide affordable housing in conjunction with this project. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits a materials pallet indicating final color choices of the building materials and product types along with detail design features and shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for comment with final review and approval by the Planning Commission. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12268: 1. The Tentative Tract No. 12268 received and dated May 24, 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. �1 PC - July 2, 1985 -12- (2859d) C-2 USE PERMIT NO. 85-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-19/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-14 Applicant: Ron Lingenfelter On June 18, 1985 the Planning Commission continued Use Permit No. 85-19 and Conditional Exception No. 85-19, requesting expansion of retail into restaurant, reduction in parking, and a special permit to deviate from setbacks, landscaping and parking located at 226 Main Street, in order to allow the applicant time to file for a Coastal Development Permit and to allow staff to review the parking agreement provisions. The Coastal Development Permit has been filed pursuant to S.989.5.3.1(b) which requires a Coastal Development Permit when improvements to any structure would result in a change in the intensity of the use of the structure. The applicant submitted two agreements. One of which stated the business owner/operator would participate with the Redevelopment Agency with the condition that the restaurant use would be transferable. The Redevelopment office, City Attorney's office, and Planning Staff concur that the parking participation agreement must be with the property owner. Compliance with City codes is the property owner's responsibility. There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing opened and closed. Commissioner Livengood asked staff if food would be the only item sold. Mike Adams of staff stated that it was an expansion of the restaurant only. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 85-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-19/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-14 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter - Schumacher and Erskine out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-14: 1. The Coastal Development Permit application will be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan by the implementation of a parking participation agreement. 2. The proposed restaurant use is located at a site where the existing street pattern is consistent with the Certified Land Use Plan, 3. Because the development enhances the use of the downtown core and the beach area, the application conforms to applicable plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the California Coastal Act and Certified Land Use Plan. PC - July 2, 1985 -13- (2859d) 4. The proposed project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix 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. 5. The proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 6. The proposed project conforms with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-19: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including the existing building configuration and location with a redevelopment area, the strict application -of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-19 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications provided the conditions described herein are complied with. 3. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS - USE PERMIT NO. 85-19: 1. Use Permit for the expansion to restaurant only is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 2. The granting of this use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The applicant is willing and able to carry out this request and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. 4. The granting of this use permit will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the City's Ordinance Code. 5. The granting of the.use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-19: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated March 15, 1985 shall be the approved layout. PC - July 2, 1985 -14- (2859d) 1 2. In lieu of providing on -site parking, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to participate in a parking district formation or post a bond in an amount adequate to cover the cost of the 28 parking space deficiency. 3. The property owner shall submit an irrevocable offer of dedication of 7-1/2 feet for alley widening purposes. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Building Division, Fire Department, and Orange County Health Department. 5. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued upon satisfaction of the above conditions. 6. The building must be brought into seismic safety compliance prior to expansion to restaurant. C-3 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-8/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-25/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-26 Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Change of zone from R2-PD-0-CZ to ROS-O-CZ for the purpose to construct six tennis courts with reduced setbacks located on the east side of Palm Avenue approximately 300 feet south of Cherry hill Avenue. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE 85-8/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-25/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-26 PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO THE JULY 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-29/ESTABLISHMENT OF MASSAGE THERAPY Applicant: Roland T. Clark Town '& Country Spa located at 18582 Beach Boulevard was rendered a non -conforming use on November 6, 1981 when the City Council adopted a zoning ordinance (Article 975 - Adult Entertainment Business) which established locational criteria for spas and massage parlors and required approval of a Conditional Use Permit for all such uses in the City. The request is to close Town & Country Spa and open a new massage therapy business under a new name in a location which meets the locational criteria contained in Article 975 and to obtain the required Conditional Use Permit. PC - July 2, 1985 -15- (2859d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-29 PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO THE JULY 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 84-1210/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-17/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-33 Applicant: Ted and Olga Stavros Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1210 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-12 is a request to divide a 24,121 square foot (79.06' x 305.101) lot on the east side'of Sims Street approximately 350 feet north of Los Patos Avenue into two parcels within the coastal zone. Conditional Exception No. 85-17 is a request to permit each of the two lots to have less than the minimum 60 feet of street frontage (Sec. 9102.2); one has 59.06 feet of frontage and the other has 20 feet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Lurcher, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the project complied with the general land use. There were no -other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL-AND'SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1210/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-17/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-33 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter - Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-26/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-11' Applicant: Nan Patel Conditional Use Permit No. .85-26 in conjunction with a Special Permit and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-11 is a request to develop a three-story, 52-unit motel including a manager's unit and maid's quarters ona 0.45 net acre vacant site at the northwest PC - July 21 1985 -16- (2859d) corner of Pacific Coast Highway and 8th Street. The Special Permit request is to allow the encroachment of a canopy with support columns 10 feet into the required 15 feet exterior side yard setback from 8th. Street, for an 18 foot wide drive ramp in lieu of the required 24 foot width requirement, and for 25 feet-6 inches wide driveway aisles in lieu of the required 27 foot wide requirement. The proposed motel project is exempt from environmental review because it is in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she does not like the method used for access to the parking area. She asked if it was possible to design the ingress/egress to be on the same side of the canopy. Scott Hess of staff stated that access off Pacific Coast Highway is not allowed. Commissioner Schumacher asked about 8th Street. She stated that she felt the alley is a buffer for residential. Mike Adams of staff stated that it can be designed that way, but will lose a portion of the landscape buffer in front. If the applicant keeps the plan of parking in the rear, we will preserve the landscaping on Pacific Coast Highway." Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would like to see plans with access off 8th Street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ken Moody, former owner of the property,.spoke in support of the project. Michael Thompson, owner of the property behind the project, stated that he likes the design but is opposed to the access through the alley. Margaret Wilson stated that she liked the design of the project and feels it will enhance the area. She stated concern, however, to the access off the alley. Pat Standby spoke in total support of the project. Simon Lee, project archetect, spoke in support of the project stating concern about the conditions of approval of the'Conditional Use Permit 85-26 No. 1 letter (b) requesting that it be only 18 feet. He also stated concern for condition no.'l(c) stating that a valet will be handling all parking for this area, and no. 4 stating that the property owner is requesting too high a price for the land. Larry Vastil spoke in opposition of the project stating that the idea of the Downtown Specific Plan was to consolidate all of the parcels. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Simon Lee, archetect, stated that he was still opposed to Condition #4. PC - July 2, 1985 -17- (2859d) Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt the project was very beautiful but added that it violated the intent of the specific plan in regards to consolidating all lots along Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that condition No. 4 should be enforced because the extra 50 foot lot next door would eliminate the driveway and turning radius problem. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that maybe there were too many units on the site. He suggested eliminating some of the units to solve the parking and traffic circulation concerns. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would like to see the adjacent 50 foot parcel incorporated into the project. She stated that she also did not like to see the applicant held back because the adjacent property owner is asking to high a price for the parcel. She stated that she liked the plan but feels there will be trouble with the traffic and parking problem. The Commission requested that this item be continued due to concerns with the parking, access to the project's parking, and the consolidation of the adjacent 50 foot lot. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMI NO. 85-26/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-11 TO THE JULY 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:, AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12410/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-18 Applicant: Casa Linda Development Co. Tentative Tract No. 12410, in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 85-20 and Negative Declaration No. 85-18 „ is a request for a one lot subdivision on a 1.16 acre site for the purpose of constructing 20 airspace townhomes. The applicant is seeking two special permit requests for the development of the project: reduction in turning radius from 25 feet to 24 feet (Section 9791d), and reduction in building separation for units side by side from 20 feet to 16 feet-(Section'9362.7d). PC - July 2, 1985 -18- (2859d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12410/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-18 WITH APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE TO THE JULY 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, C-8 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-10 Applicant: Thomas Jacobs The applicant's request is for the development of seven single family dwellings on seven lots at the southwest corner of loth. Street and Walnut Avenue. The conditional exception request is to waive the requirement of a 2.5 foot alley dedication on the south side of the property. (Section 9730.4 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code covers required dedications.) The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. The specific plan permits residential uses in District Two subject to a site plan review. Article 989 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provides for site plan reviews to be approved by the Planning Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Thomas Jacobs spoke in support of the project Commissioner Erskine asked Mr. Jacobs what each dwelling would cost. Mr. Jacobs stated in the area of $170,000. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine stated that he would like to see a revised site plan before he would vote for this project stating that the houses all looked the same. Mike Adams stated that a list of design modifications staff would like to incorporate into the project are listed in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Winchell questioned relocation of the alley. Chairman Livengood suggested continuing this item until the next Planning Commission Meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO CONTINUE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-10/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-24 WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE TO THE JULY 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None PC - July 2, 1985 Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, -19- (2859d) MOTION PASSED D. Items not for public hearing: D.1 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-32/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-34. A request for a 100± unit mobilehome relocation park at the northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-32/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-34 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. Discussion Items: F. Pending Items: F-1 Pending Items List Chairman Livengood requested the Commission to review the Pending Items List and bring back comments to the July 16, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. G. Planning Commission Items: H. Development Services Items: Secretary Palin reviewed the action taken by City Council on the Oldworld project. I. Adjournment: The Planning Commissioner adjourned at 12:45 a.m. to the next regular meeting of July 16, 1985 lcp Tom Li a good, CVirmab 1 1 PC - July 2, 1985 -20- (2859d)