Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-01APPROVED OCTOBER 15, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL A. CONSENT CALENDAR: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: None 21. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-64/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 Applicant: Coastal Properties Ltd. On September 17, 1985 the Planning Commission voted to continue the proposed project until October 1, 1985 in order to give the applicant time to revise their plans to meet the requirement for two on -site parking spaces and to incorporate an improved architectural design. Staff has discussed with the applicant one possible alternative to provide the guest spaces on site. The applicant's representative has indicated that no revised plans will be submitted, that either they will be requesting a continuance or a withdrawal of the application. Commissioner Porter stated that the problem with continuing this item is the Mandatory Processing Date of October 4, 1985, expressing he did not want this to be determined approved because the Commission did not follow the time line concluding he did not want to continue this unless there is a date certain. Deputy City Attorney Sangster replied that an application can only be extended once in a period of 90 days but in a 60 day period, only a waiver is needed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-64/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 TO THE OCTOBER 15, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 Applicant: Don Hartfelder The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11140 and Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 on the subject property on October 71 1980. Tentative Tract No. 11140 was a request to subdivide the subject property into a one lot subdivision. Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 was a request to permit the construction of eight residential condominium units. The proposed layout indicated eight units contained in two buildings located towards the front of the site with semi -subterranean garages underneath each unit. The required open space was located at the rear of the site. The project was never built and both approvals received extensions of time first to April 1983 and then to April 1984. The applicant redesigned the site plan for the eight units and submitted it under a new conditional use permit application No. 83-14. On August 2, 1983, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 83-14, a request to permit the construction of an 8 unit condominium complex. The two year time limit on the approval of this project has since expired because actual construction has not commenced. The staff has recently learned through a detailed analysis of the site plan that the actual lot size, after full street dedication, is 20 feet shorter in length. Thus, the allowed density is reduced to 7 units from the original approval. The applicant is now seeking a density bonus for one -unit to allow for the construction of an 8 unit development. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 80-41 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1980 for an eight -unit condominium development on the subject property. Staff has determined that no additional environmental assessment is necessary. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -2- (3459d) On September 4, 1985, the subject requests were continued to the next regular Planning Commission Meeting due to a lack of 4 affirmative votes for approval. On September 17, 1985, the Planning Commission continued the subject request in order to allow time for Commissioners not present at the initial public hearing to review the audio tapes. Commissioner Mirjahangir excused himself from the dais because of his involvement with the project, being owner of said property, he would have to abstain from participating in or voting on any action concerning this proposal. Commissioner Porter commented that he reviewed the August 20, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting tapes and stated he was prepared to act on this item. Commissioner Schumacher said she felt there were to many exceptions requested. The project was too much for the lot. Commissioner Rowe agreed with Commissioner Schumacher adding the application has not changed since the last time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Don Hartfelder, applicant, stated that the owner was willing to redesign the project at this time and added that he would prefer not to deal with the City Council. Commissioner Schumacher suggested dropping one of the units to solve the problem of parking. She added that she was not agreeable with the findings stating that they did not address the real concern. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Erskine, Porter NOES: Rowe, Schumahcer, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11140 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: At this point, Chairman Livengood requested to change his negative vote. AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: Winchell, Erskine, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -3- (3459d) MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: Rowe, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMIT: TO APPROVE 11140 WITH FINDINGS 1. The proposed 8 unit condominium project will provide better living environments and better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design because the layout will minimize building bulk as viewed from Newland Street and will provide open space in excess of code requirements. 2. The proposed 8 unit project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general because the code deviations are mitigated by the project's design features such as private open space, lofts for roofline variation, and orientation perpendicular to Newland Street. 3. The proposed project will be consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment by utilizing design features to mitigate adverse impacts from the code deviations. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 0.55 gross acre parcel of land zoned R2, is proposed to be constructed having 14.6 units per gross acre which is within the maximum permitted density of 15 units per acre under the R2 zoning. Further, the granting of a one unit density bonus (12%) is consistent with Government Code Section 65915A. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation for this type of housing. The proposed project complies with the land use element and all other elements of the General Plan for medium density residential. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for medium density residential was placed on the property. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -4- (3459d) 4. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and through the use of a special permit all other design and implementation features of the proposed project 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 supplementary City subdivision ordinance. FINDINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT 11140: 1. The proposed one lot subdivision of this .55 gross acre site zoned R2 will be constructed having a density of 14.6 units per acre. 2. 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 housing. Therefore, the project as proposed complies with the City's General Plan. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width and through the use of a special permit all other design and implementation features for 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 85-8: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 26, 1985 shall be the approved floor plans and elevations. 2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of 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. 3. 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 the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 4. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers. 5. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 6. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -5- (3459d) 7. 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. 8. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those structures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An on -site fire hydrant shall be provided as deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 9. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall contain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles on site, unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage and which is in compliance with the provisions of Article 936 is provided for in the project. 10. If at any time an entry gate is proposed at the main entrance, the location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Fire Department. 11. A detached soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include on -site sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. 12. The design and materials of all perimeter walls shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. The sewer, drainage and street improvements shall be in accordance with Public Works standards. 15. The development shall include a retaining wall at the rear of the site to accommodate the proposed fill. 16. No parking shall be permitted on Newland Street for the length of the site frontage. 17. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall draft a development agreement which addresses the following: Mechanism for monitoring the affordable unit P.C. Minutes 10/l/85 -6- (3459d) J Set aside unit for families of low income C-3 USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-63 Applicant: Lincoln Properties Use Permit No. 85-60/Conditional Exception No. 85-63 is a request to permit the development of a 102-unit apartment complex on the north side of Warner Avenue between Lynn and Sims Streets. The project was previously approved as a 102-unit apartment project in March, 1985 (Conditional Use Permit No. 85-13). Prior to that (January 1984), the Planning Commission approved a 102-unit condominium project for the site. The proposal presently under consideration is substantially the same project as the prior approvals. However, the applicant is seeking to convert 24 one -bedroom with den units to two -bedroom units. In addition, there will be setback encroachments for balconies/storage areas and deviations from the height limit. The project site is approximately 3.73 gross acres in size, with a net site area of approximately 2.60 acres. In determining density for apartment projects, gross acreage is used to calculate the total number of units permitted. The City's General Plan designates the area as high density residential and the subject property is zoned R3 (24.89 units/acre maximum). On September 17, 1985 the Planning Commission continued Use Permit No. 85-60 in conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 85-63 (a request to permit a 102 unit apartment project with deviations from setback and height criteria) until the October 1, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. A committee comprised of Commissioner Porter, Commissioner Rowe, the applicant, and staff was formed to reconcile the project design as it relates to two of the conditional exception requests. As a result, the applicant has agreed to eliminate the balcony encroachment into the rear yard setback which would alleviate one of the concerns raised by the property owner to the north. The other balconies will remain as originally proposed. The second issue raised by the Planning Commission involved the height of the two structures. As discussed at the Planning Commission, there has been a change in the method used for determining building height for proposed buildings on this site. In a previous approval, staff referenced top of slab as a low point, to peak of roof, to arrive at the height of 35 feet. Regardless of the method used to determine building height, the structures have remained basically the same. Each consist of 3 floors (9 feet in height) plus 7 feet for the roof, for a total of 35 feet. The current proposal differs from the past approval by a 2 foot substructure plenum which is needed to provide additional structural support. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -7- (3459d) In an effort toward resolving the building height concerns, the architect has prepared three alternative roof designs for the apartments. SCHEME A Design as originally presented to the Commission on September 17. SCHEME Bl Roof redesign to accommodate a louvered "Mansard" roof on Building 1 (the building closest to the property line). This scheme basically says Building 2 is left in the original state as designed due to its distance of 50'-0" from the property line. SCHEME B2 Roof design of both Building 1 and 2 are of the louvered "Mansard". SCHEME_ C Both roofs are designed as a flat roof scheme with a 2'-6" high parapet all around the three-story portion, and pitch roofs are retained on the two-story section. SCHEME D Reduction of 12 units to eliminate 3 story to 2 story. (This scheme was added by the Planning Commission) The last area of concern addressed by the Planning Commission is the density bonus and how it relates to affordable housing. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In January 1984, the Planning Commission adopted Negative Declaration No. 83-47 which assessed the environmental effects of a 111-unit condominium project (Conditional Use Permit No. 83-32, Tentative Tract 12084). Staff's analysis indicates that a change from ownership to rental units will not alter the status of Negative Declaration No. 83-47. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is warranted at this time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED William Morningstar, owner of property in the back north of the property, spoke in opposition to the development adding that the project will hurt the value of his property in the amount of $100,000. Ernie Vasquez, architect, spoke in support of the project and was open for comments or questions. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the architect if this project was the same as the other two projects proposed. Mr. Vasquez said yes, except now they are two bedrooms. Commissioner Schumacher asked why the change of roof materials. Mr. Vasquez answered that there was a concern about the weight of the building. Minutes 10/1/85 Dick Harlow, representing Lincoln Properties, requested in regards to the affordable housing issue that condition no. 24 could also read that the requirement be satisfied at another location. Commissioner Porter said he would agree to Mr. Harlow's request if this requirement was met on or prior to completion of the project. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rowe stated that he met with the applicant and staff to revise the plan and said he would support scheme B1. Commissioner Porter expressed concern about the flat roof design stating it was not appealing and requested that added wording to condition no. 18(a) for mature headgrowth of 25 to 30 feet be placed along the northern property line. Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern that the slab was only able to support 66 units not 102. She also asked if an exception for height was granted to Mola's development. Howard Zelefsky stated no. Mr. Vasquez addressed the first question explaining that the previous design of 66 units were 2 to 3 bedrooms but the floor area is still the same, and further explained they were not adding additional weight to the slab. The Commission discussed the height and flat roof design commenting that there were no flat roof designs in the immediate area or in the harbour area. Commissioner Winchell asked if the middle area of the building on the north property line could be reduced to 2 stories. Mr. Vasquez said this would impact the project with the loss of 10-12 units. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff if the floor design plan needs to be changed and how that will be handled. Howard Zelefsky of staff said it would have to come back to the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed affordable housing. Dick Harlow stated that Lincoln Properties and Mola Development were aware and agreeable to the requirement but requested they be allowed to satisfy this requirement off -site so as not to burden the proposed project. Commissioner Winchell stated she would support the relocation of the units on this project to eliminate the need for a density bonus. She added she would like to nail down the 17 unit affordable housing. Commissioner Erskine reworded condition no. 24 to reflect the suggested changes. Chairman Livengood took straw votes on the four schemes submitted by the applicant for revising the three-story roof configuration. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -9- (3459d) SCHEME A AYES: None NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir SCHEME B1 AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher SCHEME B2 AYES: Rowe, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter SCHEME C AYES: None NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir SCHEME D AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir Commissioner Rowe stated that if there was a choice of two or three stories, he would go along with two stories. Commissioner Porter supported Commissioner Rowe's statement. Commissioner Erskine reminded the Commission that they approved a project two years ago for 102 units, concluding that he did not feel the Commission should talk about reducing the units at this late of a period. Commissioner Winchell stated she would not be supporting this application because of the connection of the units and bulk of the building. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-63 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -10- (3459d) LJ FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-60: 1. The granting of Use Permit No. 85-60 (herein described as Scheme B1 on the site plan dated September 26, 1985) for a 102-unit apartment will not adversely affect the Master Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing. 2. The granting of Use Permit No. 85-60 for a 102-unit apartment complex will not be injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity because the lot size, depth, frontage and other design features as modified by Conditional Exception No. 85-63 are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City. 3. The granting of Use Permit No. 85-60 (herein described as Scheme B1 on the site plan dated September 26, 1985) for a 102 unit apartment project will not be detrimental to persons residing or working the vicinity because the property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the land use designation for Medium -High Density Residential was placed on the property. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-63: 1. Due to the slope of the property coupled with the existing parking structure constructed on the site, the applicant has demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the land that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same district. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-63 described as Scheme Bl on the site plan dated September 26, 1985 for a 1 foot encroachment of storage areas into the front yard setback and a 1 foot 6 inch encroachment into the side yard and a maximum deviation of five feet from the 35 foot height limit for building no. 1 and the maximum deviation of 4.7 feet for a portion of building no. 2 will provide architectural variations in the building face and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which such conditional exception is granted. 3. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for the conditional exception as sought and proceed without necessary delay. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-63 for height and setbacks is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -11- (3459d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated September 26, 1985 herein described as scheme B1 shall be the approved layout subject to any revision described herein. 2. The floor plan and elevations received and dated August 29, 1985 shall be the approved layout subject to any revisions described herein. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a parcel map with the Board of Zoning Adjustments, which shall be recorded prior to final inspection on the last unit. 4. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 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. 5. 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. 6. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers. 7. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 8. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 9. 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. 10. 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. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -12- (3459d) 11. A chemical analysis, as well as physical properties of the soil on subject property, shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. A fire alarm system, approved by the Fire Department, shall be installed throughout as per NFPA standards. 13. An automatic sprinkler system, approved by the Fire Department, shall be installed throughout as per NFPA standards and City specifications. 14. A standpipe system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed as per Huntington Beach Fire Code and NFPA standards. 15. A pedestrian access gate, minimum 6 foot width for Fire Department use, shall be provided from Warner Avenue to gain access to the east side of Building 2, the recreation center, and the west side of Building 1. 16. Hydrants must be installed on -site to provide a hydrant within 150 feet from any part of the perimeter of any building. 17. Prior to any combustible construction all roadways, water supply systems, and fire hydrants shall be installed and operable. 18. All perimeter block walls shall be on private property. 19. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission a landscape and irrigation plan for review and approval which depicts: a. Heavy screen planting, specifically trees with mature head growth of 25 feet in height, shall be required along the northerly property line of the development. b. Special attention shall be given to the front yard setback. C. Special plant material including additional planting not less than 12 tropical trees along the Warner Avenue elevation as depicted on the three dimensional plan submitted to the Planning Commission on September 17, 1985. 20. All on -site sewer and storm drain facilities shall be private and constructed per Public Works standards. 21. All on -site accessways shall be private and constructed per Public Works standards. 22. No on -street parking will be permitted on the north side of Warner Avenue. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -13- (3459d) 1 23. The developer shall provide and install any traffic control devices as required by Public Works. 24. All public improvements shall be completed per approved plans. These plans shall be reviewed by the City's engineering staff and revised to current City standards by the developer's engineer. 25. The applicant shall draft a development agreement which addresses the following: Mechanism for monitoring of affordable units Set aside 10 units for families of low income (less than 80 percent of Orange County median income) In addition to the above described 10 units it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to provide 17 affordable housing units as required by Tentative Tract 11716 located at this project or within three miles of the coastal zone as required by the Mellow Bill prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition to the 10 units required for the density bonus for a cumulative total of 27 units. 26. A common cable television antenna shall be provided for the apartment complex. The developer shall pursue "bulk rate" package with Cable systems in order to provide cable television to residents that desire it. In no case shall the residents be required to purchase cable service to receive quality reception of "over -the -air" broadcasts. 27. The Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 28. Architectural treatment for all exteriors of the structures shall be of uniform aesthetic treatment, especially as it relates to relief, materials, landscaping and roof treatment. 29. Roofing materials shall be of sufficient quality and bulk to provide shadow and relief similar to that provided by tile or shake. 30. If bond financing is obtained for the proposed 102 unit apartment project, the applicant shall provide an additional 20% of the units (above the density bonus related units) for persons of low income as defined by the County of Orange. 31. If the site plan or Use Permit No. 85-60 is modified by the structural engineer, the applicant shall submit a site plan amendment to the Planning Commission for review and approval. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -14- (3459d) C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 Applicant: West Coast Family YMCA C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-44 Applicant: West Coast Family YMCA A request to operate a child care program in two classrooms at the closed Meadow View School located at 5720 Clark Drive and Larkview School located at 17200 Pinehurst Lane. These two items must be continued to the meeting of October 15, 1985 because the applicant failed to submit property owner mailing labels for the required public notice. Commissioner Porter requested that the applicant be responsible for the cost of re -advertising. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-43 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-44 TO THE OCTOBER 15, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-46 Applicant: Montessori of Huntington Beach The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school at the closed Lark View School at 17200 Pinehurst Lane, which is east of Springdale Street and south of Warner Avenue. The pre-school is proposed for Rooms B1 and B2 which total approximately 1,920 square feet. Forty-four children between the ages of 2 to 6 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the facility. Section 9331(c) lists private schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and S1 subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mrs. Marion, applicant, spoke in support of the project and requested that condition no. 8 be revised to change the starting and ending times as requested in the application. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -15- (3459d) Florence Webb said staff would be willing to go along with the earlier and later hours but will be monitoring this time situation. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter asked why staff had been recommending 6:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and how would this effect the traffic. Florence Webb of staff said this time was established as a uniform condition and most of the applicants concur with this time; as far as traffic, pick up and drop off times for the children will be staggered throughout the day. Commissioner Porter asked staff if the Commission were to modify the hours could the Commission require a clause of 6 months or so for a review. Florence Webb of staff said staff would concur with this. Commissioner Winchell requested that staff add Monday through Friday to this condition. Florence Webb of staff said that would be agreeable. Commissioner Winchell asked staff how signs for the school are going to be monitored stating she did not want alot of signs for these schools with other uses. Florence Webb said that it would have to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Winchell requested this be added as a condition stating any signs for this use shall be approved by the Department of Development Services. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-46 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Livengood ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. P.C. Minutes 10/l/85 -16- (3459d) 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated August 30, 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. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms B1 and B2 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of forty-four children. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. 6. The chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 7. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 8. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM only. The use is to be reviewed by the planning staff after a period of six months to determine neighborhood impact. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. The Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Adjustments reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 11. Any signs for this use shall be approved by the Director of Development Services. 1 P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -17- (3459d) 1 J C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-45 Applicant: Patricia Lockhart Conditional Use Permit No. 85-45 is a request to continue operation of a temporary commercial horse stable at 18622 Edwards Street, approximately 600 feet south of Ellis Avenue and on the east side of Edwards Street. Use Permit No. 72-65 established the use and Conditional Use Permit No. 78-20 permitted the continued operation in 1978 and expired on October 3, 1983. The applicant is applying for another five year approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Erskine asked why there was a two year lapse. Florence Webb stated that the applicant claims she submitted a letter of continuation which is not filed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Pat Lockhart, owner of the stable, expressed concern about condition no. 3. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if similar application were using the same condition. Florence Webb stated yes as far as the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan was concerned. Commissioner Porter asked staff when the other stable uses are due to renew their Conditional Use Permits. Florence Webb said staff did not have that information at this time but will investigate this and have this information at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Porter felt that condition no. 3 should be rewritten his feeling that the condition is to stringent. Chairman Livengood, referring to condition no. 3, stated that 5 years is a long time and suggested that 3 years would be more appropriate. Commissioner Erskine commented that he agreed with Chairman Livengood's imput of 5 years stating the time line should be 3 years. He also added that the condition is worded unfairly. Attorney Sangster suggested either for a 3 year period or until certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential structure within 300 feet of the property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-45 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -18- (3459d) MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 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 the conditional 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. 4. The proposed use is substantially in conformance with the intent and objectives of Article 939, Temporary Commercial Horse Facilities Standards. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 30, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Building Division and fire code. 3. Approval shall be for a three (3) year period or until certificate of occupancy is issued for a residential structure within 300 feet of the subject property, which ever comes first. 4. The applicant shall clean up and rehabilitate the existing landscaped areas, corrals, fences and signs within two (2) months from the approval date. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-8 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-14 Applicant: Robert R. Mandic Zone Case No. 85-14 is a request to rezone a 0.12 ± acre site (50 x 110.5) from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to C4 (Highway Commercial) for the purpose of constructing a two story office building. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -19- (3459d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-54 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The Staff in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be adopted; prior to action on the project application, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 85-54. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Wayne Pennek, architect on the project stated he was open for questions and stated that he did not have any problems with the staff report. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-14 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-14: 1. The proposed zone change from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to "Q" C4 (Highway Commercial -Qualified Suffix) will be compatible with the surrounding land uses because of the restrictions on the type of businesses which can occupy the building. 2. The land use element of the General Plan designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential. The zoning designation of "Q" C4 will be consistent with the General Plan because the property is less than one acre in size and is limited to office uses. 3. A building constructed for office uses on the subject site will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. C-9 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-42 Applicant: Shell Oil Company Code Amendment No. 85-16/Negative Declaration No. 85-42 was a request by Shell Oil Company to add convenience markets as a permitted use with service stations within the Pacifica Community Plan. The Code Amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1985 and recommended to the City Council for adoption. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -20- (3459d) In light of City Council's and Planning Commission's concern regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the sale of gasoline, the Commission may wish to reconsider the code amendment and modify it to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 84-4 for ten days. No comments, either verbal or written, have been received. The Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any recommendation on Code Amendment No. 85-16, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 84-42. There being no testimony, the public hearing was opened and closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-42 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN:" None MOTION PASSED C-10 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-8 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A draft ordinance has been created that prohibits the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages on the same premises with gasoline sales. It also establishes an amortization period to eliminate such uses existing in the City within one year from the effective date of the ordinance. P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -21- (3459d) 1 The one year amortization period is designed to allow ample time for the operator to deplete inventory, depreciate equipment such as coolers or use them to store other beverages, and to write-off the costs of obtaining an alcoholic beverage license. The State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control indicates that the cost of obtaining a license for off -site (packaged) sales of beer and wine is a $100 initial fee and a yearly fee of $28. Staff field investigation has determined that there are four gasoline station convenience markets existing within the City that currently sell beer and wine. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed code amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Porter complimented staff on the thoroughness of the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dick Churchill spoke in support of the code amendment and requested the Commission's approval. Robert Sands spoke in support of the code amendment. Marge Lankin spoke in support of the code amendment. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine expressed his concern that gas and alcohol do not mix. Commissioner Porter concurred with Commissioner Erskine. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-8 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Commissioner Livengood suggested notifying service stations that are presently selling gas and alcohol of the new code amendment. D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -22- (3459d) F. G. H. I. PENDING ITEMS: Florence Webb of staff presented update of truck parking near Talbert and Beach. She stated that the Police Department had been contacted and they will investigate the matter. The Commission discussed the heavy agendas suggesting an additional meeting per month and an increase in their pay. They requested a survey of planning commission salaries in their next packet. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to a 6:30 Study Session on October 15, 1985. Tom Liv ngood,,Zhaitman 1 P.C. Minutes 10/1/85 -23- (3459d)