Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-05APPROVED 1-7-86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Schumacher A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes October 15, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WITH MODIFICATIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A -la Corrections to September 17, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Item C-2 Special Sign No. 85-8, page 5) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE CORRECTIONS TO THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-2 - GENERAL''PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 85-7 'Applicant:- City of Huntington Beach Abandonment of 2' by 150' strip fronting located at Delaware Street, southeast of Main Street. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 85-7 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, A-3 EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 - CONVENIENCE MARKET CONVERSION - 18972 BEACH BLVD. Applicant: ARCO A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 - CONVENIENCE MARKET CONVERSION TO NOVEMBER 19, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Erskine suggested that the staff prepare a hazardous waste ordinance for industrial uses. He stated that the City of Irvine and County of Orange have adopted a hazardous waste ordinance. He suggested that the City Attorney prepare this with private sectors. A MOTION WAS MADE TO PREPARE A HAZARDOUS WASTE ORDINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL USES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Richard Lewis of 7561 Center Ave, #31 Huntington Beach, resident of Oldworld, expressed great concern for the continuance of the Oktoberfest in 1986 due to problems with overcrowding, trash, noise and the lack of security. He requested that the Commission carefully consider the project when it is reviewed in March. He also requested that public notice for the review of Oktoberfest in March be sent to homeowners in Oldworld so they have the opportunity to express their concerns again. I 1 P.C. November 5, 1985 Era (3879d) Chairman Livengood requested that the Board of Zoning Adjustments refer Conditional Exception No. 85-53 submitted by Cambro Manufacturing Company for a 17,000 sq. ft. warehouse to the Planning Commission due to the sensitivity of the area. Glen Godfrey of staff stated that Cambro Manufacturing has requested continuance of their applications. Mr. Godfrey further stated that he would inform the Board of Zoning Adjustments Board Members and also the applicant of the Commissions' request. Commissioner Porter reminded the staff that Charter Center development was required to underground the utility lines on Beach Blvd. adjacent to the development as per the conditions of approval of their entitlement. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12410/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-55 Applicant: Casa Linda Development Co. On August 6, 1985, the Planning Commission denied Tentative Tract No. 12410 in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 85-55, a request to permit a one lot subdivision for the purpose of constructing twenty townhouse condominiums. The applicant has subsequently revised the plan by reducing the number of units, modifying the circulation, and eliminating two special permit requests. The developer is still seeking relief from the bulk provisions of the ordinance code for end unit profiles. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On August 6, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 85-18, which assessed the environmental effects of a 20-unit condominium project on the subject site. Staff has determined that additional environmental analysis is not necessary at this time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Vince Cole, representing Casa Linda, spoke in support of the project, and brought the Commission's attention to the various changes the applicant made to concur with staff's recommendations. He added there were no objections to the proposed conditions. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission questioned the ownership and position of the adjacent property. Vince Cole responded that the applicant had made an offer to purchase the property at market value, but the offer was rejected. Commissioner Livengood asked if the applicant was going back to the Design Review Board regarding the projects Warner front elevation Howard Zelefsky of staff stated yes, this would be added as a condition. P.C. November 5, 1985 -3- (3879d) Vince Cole, stated that going back to the Design Review Board will be a problem if there is a loss of time. He added that the front elevation was nicely landscaped with lots of trees. Chairman Livengood asked staff what the Design Review Board was recommending. Glen Godfrey of staff stated he did not know but would be willing to meet with the applicant the next day after the meeting. Commissioner Porter expressed the feeling that there was not as much problem with the design as with the landscaping. Commissioner Winchell stated she agreed with Commissioner Porter. Glen Godfrey of staff stated that the Design Review Board could look at the landscaping treatment as well as the Warner front elevation. Commissioner Mirjahangir felt the application should be moved ahead. Commissioner Winchell said to move with the application the applicant should meet with the Design Review Board regarding the roof line. She did not want major modifications just some break in the roof. She added that she would like the Board to review that in addition to the landscaping. Commissioner Porter requested that in the future, specific points or precise requests of a special permit be listed under recommendations in the staff report. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT 140. 12410/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-55 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT: The Planning Commission may approve the Special Permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the proposed development will: 1. Promote better living environments, insofar as the project.is providing an excess amount of private open space for residents. 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design of which this plan has incorporated to create interesting shapes, planes, and areas to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings. P.C. November 5, 1985 -4- (3879d) 3. 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 the property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. This project has been designed as an integrated part of the neighborhood. 4. Be consistent with the objectives of the planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The project has been designed to mitigate the majority of environmental effects on the surrounding property while maximizing features of the natural terrain. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-55: 1. The proposed 16 unit townhouse condominium development on a 1.16 acre site zoned R3, Medium Density Residential, will be constructed in compliance,with approved development standards as modified by the Special Permit. 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, a 16 unit planned development 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 are proposed to be constructed in compliance with Standard Plans and Specifications on file with the City. 4. A 16 unit airspace townhouse condominium will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. FINDINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12410: 1. The proposed 1-lot subdivision of this 1.16 acre site zoned R3 Medium Density Residential will be constructed having 13.7 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 widths, and through the use of the special permit all 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. P.C. November 5, 1985 -5- (3879d) SUGGESTED CONDITIONS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-55: 1. The site plan and elevations shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Recommendations of the Board shall be incorporated into a revised set of. site plans and elevations. The Board shall give special consideration to the elevations on Warner Ave as well as the landscaping at the front and interior elevations. 2. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 5. 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. 6. The 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 building permit(s). 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. All landscaping along Warner Avenue shall be constructed on private property per City standards. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan,prior to issuance of building permits which reflects a landscape treatment compatible to'the adjacent development to the west and screening to the east. P.C. November 5, 1985 -6- (3879d) 41. The driveway on Warner Avenue shall be of the radius type construction. Left turns in and out of the project will be prohibited when future median modifications (either painted or raised) are installed. 12. A driveway security gate shall not be installed for this development, unless prior approval is obtained from the Public Works Department. 13. A State of California registered geologist shall submit a geologic report to the Department of Public Works per the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act. 14. Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Fire Department and Public Works Standards. 15. Fire lanes shall be posted and no parking signs installed to comply with Fire Department Standards #415. 16. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed pursuant to National Fire Protection Association Standards. A residential (13d) system may be used provided each two units are separated by two hour fire walls. 17. Security gates must be approved by the Fire Department and installed in accordance with Fire Department Standard #403. Also, gates shall be installed on the east side of the complex for Fire Department access. 18. Weather surfaced access roadways are to be installed prior to combustible construction. 19. Building address is to be posted at the front of the complex in a conspicuous location, readily visible from the street. Each unit number shall be displayed near the front entry and on the garage of each unit. 20. Pursue consolidation or submit reasonable offer and proof of rejection in writing. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12410: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 12410 dated September 16, 1985, shall be the approved layout subject to the following: a. A water main shall be constructed from Lynn Street to the tract's westerly boundary. If the fire -flow demand cannot be met, the water main shall be extended to Sims Street. b. The master planned storm drain facilities shall be extended in Warner Avenue from the westerly to easterly tract boundary., c. All access rights along Warner Avenue, except for the intersection of the private drive shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. P.C. November 5, 1985 -7- (3879d) d. The sewer facilities shall be privately owned and maintained. e. Water easement and -lines shall be dedicated' -to Huntington Beach. C-2 APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-50 Applicant: Eugene B. Swick Conditional Exception No. 85-50 is a request to permit a 3 foot addition to an existing garage having a 20 foot -apron. The 3 foot addition would result in a total encroachment of 5 feet into the required 22 foot setback for a front entry garage. After denial by the Board of-;Zo`ning'Adjustments, the applicant -appealed the request to the Planning Commission,for_reconsideration.. On October 15, 1985, the Planning Commission continued the appeal of Board of Zoning•Adjustment`denial'of"Coridtional,'Exception-No. 85-50 as requested by' ,the --'appi cant'to allow tithe` to obtain 'medical documentation to justify'ttie 'elevator . ` As `justification for retaining the elevator the applicant has,,submitted.two letters from doctors- who indicate 'the ;elevator' is -necessary 'for' 'Mr. 'Zwick to transport him b-etWeeri'`flodYs;_teducing'the risk of further back injury. , ENVIRONMENTAL'STATUS:' The proposed pr6j'ect is 'exempt Class' 5 Sectiori 1'5305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS'OPENED Eugene B. Swick, appli'c,int" 'stat'e"d th'at `in `r'ega'rds" to" the elevator he thought the contractor had obtained all the permits required. He stated that.he made a personal survey of houses in his neighborhood." He' -staid` 'he 'found 'twenty homes with driveways with setbacks of -17' feet `or 'less -of` the 22 foot" requirement._ He stated that he was- suffering "a hardship: with''medical problems. There being ho_ further--t'est'im�ohy`,. the public hearing, was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff what`wou'1'd be=accomplished by sending this item back to the Board of Zoning,Adjustments. Glen Godfrey of° staff 'stated' tti's't if the" Commission feels the garage expansion is not warranted;�the'applicant has -'a substandard parking space and in order to legalize this a conditional exception would have to be- filedt'and'rev'i`eved:`' `This`i's'not an al'terna-tive before the Commission - nor ha`s •the Board of " Zoning Adjustments' reviewed the substandard space: �I P.C. November 5, 1985 -8- (3879d) The Commission -asked the applicant what type of cars he proposed to park in the garage. Eugene Swick, applicant, two lincolns, an old one and a new one. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE THE APPEAL OF THE -BOARD OF-ZONING,ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL-OF.CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-50 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-50: 1. The garage addition 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. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size and shape, 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. The site is approximately 5,100 square feet in -size. 3. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. An elevator exists within the residence which encroaches 2 feet into the 19 foot depth requirement for a garage. Expansion of the garage 2 feet will create a conforming garage. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-50 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 5. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-50 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing residence. P.C. November 5, 1985 -9- (3879d) b. The garage door shall be the remote control electric roll -up type. C. The garage extension shall only be 2 feet instead of 3 feet. d. The addition shall not cause the development to exceed the required building site coverage of 55%. 2. All required building permits shall be obtained for the elevator. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-64/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMFNT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 Applicant: Coastal Properties Ltd. Creation of a one lot sub -division and construction of three unit condominium project. The conditional exception is to permit the elimination of two required guest parking spaces. The special permit is a request to permit a reduction in size and width of the private open space for Unit C and a reduction in the required third story setback from the second floor facade from 10 feet to 6 feet. In a telephone conversation with the applicant on October 25, 1985, he indicated that he will be submitting a formal letter to withdraw the application. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL OF 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 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 USE PERMIT NO. 85-43/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-51 Applicant: Hamilton Properties The appellant (who is the original applicant) is appealing several conditions of approval imposed by the Board of zoning Adjustments on a request to add 825 square feet of retail space to an existing shopping center which included variance requests to both the minimum overall percentage of landscaping on the site, and the minimum width of streetside landscaping. The code specifies that existing developments may meet reduced landscaping requirements totaling 6 percent of the site, with streetside planters a minimum of six feet in width. The Board granted a portion of the variance request to permit the existing five foot wide streetside planters to remain, P.C. November 5, 1985 -10- (3879d) 1 �1 but required that the site plan be modified to incorporate the minimum 6 percent landscaping requirement, specifying certain locations on the site that would be appropriate for such planter areas. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kent Reynolds, part owner and applicant of the proposal, spoke in support of his request. He also reviewed several conditions he was appealing that were imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood expressed concerns regarding imposing a condition of approval on a project which would require improvements to adjacent parcels. Florence Webb of staff explained that the commercial center was treated as one integrated center and each parcel within the center did not stand on its own. Therefore it would be appropriate to impose a condition that would effect the entire integrated center. Commissioner Porter inquired about the parcel in the corner asking the applicant if he planned on developing it in the future. Mr. Reynolds responded that he had no control of this land and he did not know who owned it or what was to be proposed on it. Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Reynolds if he was proposing a new sign. Mr. Reynolds said if they did it would be the same size and color. Commissioner Winchell stated that the integrated center needs to be cleaned up before there is an increase in the commercial area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-51 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe,. Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 APPEAL: USF PERMIT NO. 85-61 Applicant: David Oddo Use Permit No. 85-61 is a request to detached structure at the rear of a single family residence abutting an construct a two-story, two unit parcel containing an existing arterial highway (Main Street). P.C. November 5, 1985 -11- (3879d ) The original plan submitted with Use Permit No. 85-61 included a request to maintain an existing garage with a zero sideyard setback in conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 85-66 to permit two of the six required off-street parking spaces on the street; both entitlements were denied'by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The applicant has substantially revised his plans to conform with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code which is the basis for his appeal. No variances are required for the revised layout. , ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt by Class 3, Section 15303 under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED David Oddo, applicant, stated he was not a building contractor. His intent with this project was to keep the property. He spoke in favor of his proposal. Mrs. Cusolito, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the project expressing she did not want rentals in this area. Alfred Cusolito, spoke in opposition to the project, commenting that the applicant is not taking care of the property. Gae Brummett, spoke in opposition to the project expressing she did not want renters in this neighborhood, adding the project will impact the quality of the neighborhood. Arlene Howard, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the project expressing concern,about the parking. She also brought to the Commissions attention that the error in the entitlement heading on the public notice sent to adjacent property owners. Don Flinn, spoke in,opposition to the project. In regards to the incorrect public hearing notice, Mr. Sangster, Attorney, stated that although the entitlement title was wrong the information was correct and informative enough to clarify exactly what the intent of the notice was. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission asked staff where on the plans it showed laundry facilities. Florence Webb of staff stated that the existing structure has provisions for a washer and dryer within the unit. The new site does not have provisions for laundry facilities but stated it is not required for tri-plexes. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff how many units could this site have. Florence Webb stated four or more units because it is under apartment standards. P.C. November 5, 1985 -12- (3879d) Commissioner Rowe asked how many units could be added. Florence Web said the maximum was proposed unless the applicant removes the existing house. Commissioner Rowe commented he would be voting against the proposal because he lives near the area and he would like it to remain the way it is. Chairman Livengood stated that he supported the alternative action for denial his feeling being that the zoning is wrong, adding he did not think this type of project was intented for the area. He suggested a moratorium for this area to consider a zone change. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO DENY THE APPEAL TO AND UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: USE PERMIT NO. 85-61 1. The proposed duplex addition to the single family residence is too intense for the site. Although the zoning and lot size permits the three (3) units, the site's irregular configuration and existing single family residence limits its developability. 2. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working in the vicinity. 4. The proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan because the development is 12 units per gross acres and the Land Use Map designates this property as Low Density Residential (7 units per gross acre). C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-54 Applicant: Orville Hanson Conditional Use Permit No. 85-54 is a request to add a unit to an existing single family dwelling generally located on the north side of 13th Street, 150 feet west of Main Street. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the subject request is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. P.C. November 5, 1985 -13- (3879d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Orville Hanson, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal, stating that the project was a place of security for his mother-in-law of 81 years. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-54 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTF: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-54 for the addition of a second unit of not -to -exceed 650 square feet will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-54 will substantially comply with the requirements of Article 9103 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, as depicted on the approved site plan dated September 25, 1985. 3. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-54 for the addition of a second unit to a single family dwelling is consistent with the Master Plan of land use and the development standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-54: 1. The site plan, floor plan and elevations dated September 25, 1985 shall be the approved layout. a. Prior to issuance of building permits a covenant shall be prepared and recorded to maintain one parcel. b. The applicant shall make an irrevocable offer to the city to dedicate 2 1/2 feet for additional alley width. 2. All buildings 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. 3. 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. P.C. November 5, 1985 -14- (3879d) C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 85-56/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-33 Applicant: Joe Hartge Conditional Use Permit No. 85-56 is a request to allow a bay window, 24 square foot bedroom addition and 96 square feet of decks to an existing condominium unit. Coastal Development Permit No. 85-33 is a request to allow improvements to an existing structure within 300 feet of the mean high tide line. Because the proposed project results in less than 10 percent increase of internal floor area, the proposed project is exempt (S.989.5.3.1) from the provisions of a coastal development permit. Staff recommends withdrawal of Coastal Development Permit No. 85-33. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisons of the California Environmental Quality Act. i ! THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Joe Hartge, engineer representing Mr. Beutler, spoke in support of the project. Lyle Beutler, applicant, stated that the reason for this request was because there was alot of noise coming from Sam's Seafood although he said he has insulation. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commission questioned why this project needed an entitlement. Staff answered that any addition to an exterior building encroaching into common area must go through the process. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-56/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-33 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None 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; P.C. November 5, 1985 -15- (3879d) b. Propefty 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 proposal will not create an additional demand for parking or recreational area. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 27, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The condominium tract map shall be revised to reflect the proposed alterations and a recorded copy submitted to the Department of Development Services prior to final inspection. 3. The property owner shall obtain all necessary permits. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Building Division and Fire Department. 5. 'Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 6. 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. 7. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. C-8 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-9 Applicant: Campbell Nissan Special Sign Permit No. 85-9 is a request to permit four internally illuminated, freestanding signs at a site with 445 feet of street frontage which permits only one freestanding sign. There are four existing freestanding signs at the site and the applicant is requesting to replace the existing signs with new signs which identify the new name of the retail establishment (Campbell Nissan formerly Dot Datsun). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. P.C. November 5, 1985 -16- (3879d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Norm Maldovoch, spoke in support of the proposal, emphasizing signs at other Nissan locations. Commissioner Porter said he would like to see some of the other locations. He added that the three signs proposed by staff would be a great improvement. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the dimension of the sign proposed, and the .differences compared to the sign code. Commissioner Porter said he wants to see alternatives from other sites to be seen at the next meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-9 TO THE NOVEMBER 19, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-27/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-34 Applicant: Access Controls Inc. Site Plan Amendment No. 85-27 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-34 are requests by the applicant to install an automated slide gate system, and pedestrian gates at the main entry -way to the condominium development. The applications also include a request to permit the closure of an existing driveway on Countess Drive by installing manual swing gates for fire access only. Pedestrian gates will also be installed in conjunction with the fire access gates. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class I Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Geoff Gzabo, representing Access Controls, spoke in support of the project stating that he concurred with staff recommendations. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. P.C. November 15, 1985 -17- (3879d) Florence Webb of staff stated that condition no. 2 regarding the closure of th- easterly gate shall be deleted Commissioner Winchell asked staff how will staff enforce the conditions that states the gate shall remain open. Florence Webb of staff stated that if the applicant does not abide by all conditions imposed, the entitlement may be revoked. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-27/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-34 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-18: 1. The installation, maintenance and operation of the automated slide gate system 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 installation of the fire access gate at the easterly driveway will not be detrimental to the residents because the main entry -way provides adequate ingress and egress. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General'Plan of Land Use. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-34: 1. The proposed automated gate system is consistent with the General Plan of Land Use. 2. Because the development enhances the use of this area of the City and the harbour area, the application conforms to applicable plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the California Coastal Act and General Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone requirements, 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. 4. The proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. P.C. November 5, 1985 -18- (3879d) 1 5. The proposed project conforms with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Driveway adjacent.to kiosk shall be stenciled "one way only" and shall include directional arrows. b. Relocation of the southerly automated gate approximately 25 feet southwest to provide for 3 guest parking spaces. C. Entrance gate to be unlocked for the public to gain access to the bulkhead. d. A gate control box shall be installed at the entry -way to be used by fire personnel only. The control box shall be located on the north side of the proposed kiosk. 2. Public access to the channel and walkway system through the proposed pedestrian gates located on Countess Drive and adjacent to the public park shall remain open during daylight hours. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Code, and Fire Department. 4. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 5. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-10 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Due to the more restrictive definition of site coverage incorporated in the Oldtown/Townlot code amendment (Ordinance 27801), staff believes that in the following circumstances it would be apppropriate to allow an additional 5 percent site coverage, for a maximum of 55 percent. As proposed, the exception would apply only to two-story, single family dwellings and the additional site coverage over 50 percent would have to be offset by providing an equal amount of additional open space in the form of balconies or decks. A deed restriction would be required to guarantee that the structure would remain a maximum of two stories. The intent of the P.C. November 5, 1985 -19- (3879d) code amendment is to permit additional ground floor square footage for developers who do not choose to build a three story structure. This change will provide some incentive for the construction of two story structures in the Oldtown and Townlot areas. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 TO THE NOVEMBER 19, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach The attached modifications to the City's Housing Element are proposed in response to comments received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the revised Housing Element adopted by the City in July, 1984. These modifications would bring the element into conformance with the Government Code as interpreted by HCD and would extend the time for the next revision of the element from 1988 to 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 85-65 has been prepared in conjunction with Housing Element Amendment No. 85-1. Negative Declaration No. 85-65 was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days prior to this public hearing. No comments have been received. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE THE HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None 1 rl P.C. November 5, 1985 -20- (3879d) f MOTION PASSED C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 85-21 establishes a new form of tentative map for residential subdivisions.called "Vesting Tentative Map" in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Approval of a vesting tentative map constitutes "vested rights" to the subdivider so that he may proceed in substantial compliance with the City of Huntington Beach's ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time the map is approved. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 85-66 has been filed in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BYN PORTER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 TO THE NOVEMBER 19, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 LAND USE OF PROPERTY IN VICINITY OF LOTH AND MAIN STREET The Commission requested that staff find out how many multiple family units are in this area. Commissioner Winchell also requested that staff check to see if Crest is a break line between single family and multi -family land uses. D-2 CONVENIENCE MARKETS The Commission reviewed the report and requested that this be continued to the next meeting as a D item for further information and a final report to the City Council. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: E-1 BUILDING HEIGHTS Commission reviewed the information and requested staff to work further on this for a report back to the November 19, 1185 Planning Commission Meeting, 0 P.C. November 5, 1985 -21- (3879d) E-2 E-3 F. G. H. I. POSSIBLE LOEHMANN'S FIVE POINT PLAZA/CIVIC CENTER GROUND SIGN LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND MAIN STREET Chairman Livengood stated that a letter had been received by Ron Sher owner of Five Points in favor of the proposed signs. Commissioner Winchell expressed concern about the city sharing a sign with a commercial center although she said she would like to see a city directional sign by itself in the public right-of-way. Chairman Livengood asked staff if the non -conforming Five Points sign would remain until this proposal was completed. Glen Godfrey stated no, that a Planned Sign Program has been submitted which would replace the existing sign with a lower profile sign. Commissioner Winchell stated that she did approve of a combined sign in the public right-of-way and encouraged staff to continue with the Planned Sign Program. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STUDY Discussed. PENDING ITEMS: CLOSED SCHOOL SITES Discussed. ST. BENAVENTURE CARNIVAL Discussed OKTOBERFEST - PROGRAM REPORT Discussed PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Porter requested that staff submit to the Commission an the old Sign Code for comparison to the new. Chairman Livengood requested staff to investigate the progress of the incomplete homes located on 17th Street and Main DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Mr. Palin reviewed the actions taken by the City Council at its most recent meeting for the information of the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. to the next regular meeting of November 19, 1985. P.C. November 5, 1985 -22- (3879d) ?MeAt4.Palin, Secretary 1 Tom L ven oo , air an P.C. November 5, 1985 -23- (3879d)