Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-22APPROVED 2/4/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1986 - 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, P Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir (Commissioner Erskine was present from 7:25 PM until 9:00 PM) A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes December 17, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 Paul Thompson, Paul Thompson Photography, requested approval from the Commission on his proposed elevations for a photo store located at Warner and "B" Street. He felt he was meeting all conditions of approval of his Use Permit which was approved by the Planning Commission. He was before the Planning Commission because the Design Review Board did not approve his elevations because of the use of wood siding as opposed to stucco. The item was tabled until Commissioner Erskine arrived. Upon Commissioner Erskine's arrival the need for stucco was discussed and it was determined that stucco is needed in order to be compatible with surrounding area. additional additional the MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE AND CLARIFY THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 85-77 AND REQUIRE MORE STUCCO IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, B-2 Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, asked for permission to speak later on Item D-1 (not a public hearing). B-3 Lorraine Faber, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, asked for permission to speak on Item D-1. She stated that the public did not know what is being proposed and that there was real concern. She requested that there be a public access tour and a public hearing on the item. B-4 Richard Short, opposition to Item C-1, wanted to speak against Item C-1 again because the public hearing was closed. He asked for conformance to the General Plan and presented a resolution prepared by adjacent neighbors to the property site. B-5 Lance Berry, opposition to Item C-1, stated for the record that he was not against senior projects, just against high density projects. B-6 MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER SECOND BY LIVENGOOD FOR STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR DORIS FERGUSON, DEDICATED, FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -2- (4124d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 85-3 (AREA 2.1 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4.1)/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 3, 1985 AND JANUARY 7, 1986) Applicant: Meadowland LTD This item was continued from the January 7, 1986 meeting due to tie votes on the approval of the General Plan designation. Environmental Impact Report 85-2 was approved, however. Staff made its presentation. The Planning Commission's concern at the January 7 meeting was that if a Medium High Density Residential land use designation was approved on the site, then the applicant could apply at a later date to have the SR suffix removed from the zoning and then build a regular R3 project. The Planning Commission was looking for some way to guarantee that only a Senior project would be built on the site. Staff researched methods of achieving this goal and recommended that a new General Plan Land Use designation of Medium High Density Senior Residential be created and then applied to the subject property. The only zoning which would be consistent with this designation would be R2 or R3 zoning when combined with the SR suffix. Any attempt to remove the SR suffix would then require a concurrent General Plan amendment for a change to a non -Senior Residential land use designation. Staff feels that this requirement will provide ample protection from future attempts to build non -Senior projects and that it will be of value on Area 2.1 of this amendment as well as on future projects in other areas. In order to implement the new designation staff has added Section 4.1 to Land Use Element Amendment 85-3. This new section administratively creates the new Land Use designation. Creation of the new designation has been advertised under Negative Declaration No. 86-1. To approve this designation the Planning Commission will need to open the Public Hearing on Area 4.1 of the amendment and approve the Negative declaration. Since the Land Use Element Amendment and EIR 85-2 have always addressed the possibility of a Medium High Density land use designation and R3 zoning, there is no need to re -process the document before applying the new Medium High Density Senior Residential designation to the subject property. There is also no need to re -open the Public Hearing on Area 2.1. Staff has provided new Resolution 1349(c) for adoption of the Medium High Density Senior Residential land use designation and the application of that designation to Area 2.1. Staff recommends the approval of Land Use Element Amendment 85-3 with the adoption of this resolution. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -3- (4124d) For concurrent Zone Change 85-15, staff continues to recommend approval of (Q)R3-SR zoning through the approval of Zone Case 85-15(B). The Q would require Design Review Board approval of the building plans for the site. Staff further recommends that a second condition be placed on the Q to limit total units on the site to 114 after a density bonus. Findings for approval of the Zone Change are contained on Page 4 of the December 3, 1985 Staff Report. THE PUBLIC HEARING (ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4.1) WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against Administrative Item 4.1 and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter questioned whether there is a necessity for the designation of a density. Does the State Code govern the establishment of these districts? Mr. Sangster, Attorney, stated that the General Plan sets forth general parameters but it doesn't break things down into specific zoning districts. Our own zoning code, Division 9, establishes the districts in the different general plan areas. (Example: General Plan may be residential, our code would break it down to R1, R2, R3 or add the Q, etc.) Commissioner Porter then asked if there is a designation for Senior Residential? Does the State require that there be a density designation? Can Senior Residential be an area designation in the General Plan irrespective of the density that is going to apply? Mr. Sangster, Attorney, replied that it has been the normal practice in general planning to apply some density guidelines to General Plan areas. Hal Simmons, Staff, stated that in the residential land use designations in the General Plan, each designation does specify density limits. There isn't anything, however, that prevents one from establishing a senior residential designation. There are other designations that are not intensity specific. Commissioner Porter asked if there was a provision in the State Code that requires that residential intensity be specified in some form. "This designation should be broad as opposed to narrow." Mr. Sangster replied that the General Plan statute in the Government Code does not require that density be pinpointed, but instead can be merely a general guideline. Mr. Livengood explained that the resolution was doing two things. It is establishing a new Medium -High Density Senior Residential Land Use Designation and, as a trailer on that, the 3.09 acres located on the westside of Springdale Street would be given that designation. It should be a two-step process. One step would be a resolution to establish the new designation "Medium High Density - Senior PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -4- (4124d) Residential" and the second step would be to determine if that is what we want for that acreage. These are being tied into together and they are two different decision making processes. Commissioner Winchell questioned the verbage of any of the land use designations. Does it state which zones are compatible with that land use designation? If we show a Senior Residential Land Use Designation, can we show which zones (i.e., R1, R2, R3 or R4) are compatible with it? Would it be decided which zone we put on a particular piece of property at the zoning level?. If so, it leaves it entirely open to the zoning discretion and then at the time that the project comes for a conditional use permit there would be a discussion as to whether there would be a density bonus. Do you see any impact in doing it in this matter? Jeanine Frank, staff, replied, "We had not considered leaving it that flexible but it can be done that way. We considered that a Medium or Medium -High density designation would be compatible with the Medium -High Senior Residential suffix but we could place just a Senior Residential District in the General Plan rather than tying it down to a density if you prefer to have that flexibility. Commissioner Schumacher wanted to clarify her interpretation which follows: "If we do a Land Use Amendment, where we take existing property and change it to R2 or R3 with an SR (Senior Residential) suffix on it, in the future if that developer cannot develop that senior housing project, it goes all the way back to square one. What will it revert to? Staff replied: "If the developer wants to remove the SR he has to come in for a general plan amendment (which would include a public hearing and approximately a 4-month process). Commissioner Schumacher felt that this would give the protection that the Commission was looking for. Commissioner Porter recommended that two separate resolutions be adopted as opposed to having them both combined on one. Two would be more appropriate. MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4.1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1349, WHEREAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AMENDMENT - THAT A NEW SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION BE ESTABLISHED, AND STRIKE THE MEDIUM DENSITY. Erskine questioned why Mr. Porter wanted Medium Density struck out prior to the Senior Residential. Porter replied, "To indicate that Senior Residential is compatible with all residential zoning." PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -5- (4124d) Commissioner Erskine questioned whether future Planning Commissions or City Councils would understand what these words meant. He felt that it should be worded in equivalent land use language so that someone looking at this in the future would know what it meant. Commissioner Schumacher feels that two different resolutions were needed, whereas a Senior Residential land use designation is being created. An explanation should be included in the resolution describing the Senior Residential land use designation. She would like to see this resolution made very clear, so that any attempt to remove the SR would force the developer to start over. Staff was requested to prepare, for approval, a second resolution that would address only the creation of the Senior Residential land use designation and then add that wording to the resolution, explaining what the new designation does, and then transfer the wording from the amendment into the resolution. Chairman Livengood, entered for the record, the resolution prepared by the concerned residents. Their feelings were that seniors should be locked into not more than Medium Density because it would allow more impact to the neighborhood. MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4.1 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1349 WITH SENIOR DESIGNATION, WITH ADDITIONAL WORDING TO BE TAKEN FROM SECTION 4.1 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT 85-3 CLARIFYING THE OPERATION OF THE SENIOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Chairman Livengood suggested that the Commission approach the following items in this order: First, look at the conceptual plan for the proposed Meadowland Project for Seniors on Springdale and determine the number of units to allow for that project and then back into the other items that need taken care of (Land Use Element 85-3, Item 2.1, and Zone Change 85-15). Staff reminded Chairman Livengood that the Commission also had to approve Negative Declaration 86-1. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -6- (4124d) MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE LAND USE ELEMENT 85-3 WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Chairman Livengood asked staff for clarification on a Preliminary Soils Report regarding the water level which was submitted by the applicant. Staff explained that the applicant commissioned a report on the site and that the report indicated that the water level was below the level proposed for the subterranean garage. Testing went to a depth of 16 to 17 feet below grade. There was also a lab test to determine the compressibility of soils between 10 feet and 17 feet to determine what kind of footings would be required. Commission Livengood also questioned staff concerning the sewers in that area and the impact that this project would have on them. Staff stated that the Sanitation District felt that since this is a seniors project and the density is lower in a senior project that it would not be a problem. A straw vote was then taken to see what size project the Commission wanted to allow for this site. The applicant is requesting 148 units with subterranean parking. The staff is recommending 114 with surface parking. The majority of the Commissioners preferred 114 units with surface parking. They felt that this would be the best protection for the residents in that area.' Commissioner Rowe questioned the estimate of the intensity of use. It was explained to him that a survey was taken of other senior projects in the State and other states. It is estimated that only 20% of the units in a project such as this will be occupied by 2 people. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -7- ( 4124d ) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE AREA 2.1, REDESIGNATING THE 3.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SPRINGDALE STREET APPROXIMATELY 760 FEET SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO SENIOR RESIDENTIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Chairman Livengood asked staff what the recommendation was on the zone change. Staff's recommendation was Q-R3-SR. Staff also recommended that wording be added for conditions on the "Q" to require Design Review Board approval of the construction drawings for the project, and to establish a maximum number of units of 114 after a density bonus. MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 85-15 WITH ADDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 85-15: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commission. 2. The proposed zone change will be compatible with adjacent properties upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project. 3. The capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the ara. 4. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recreational resources. 5. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -8- (4124d) Staff recommended the following changes to the Developer Agreement: Responsibilities of Participant - A. Should read ... With appropriate City approval, participant shall be allowed to build a maximum of one hundred fourteen (114) Senior Citizens rental units... Provision of Affordable Units - 1. Should read ... With appropriate City approval, par icipan s all be allowed to provide a maximum of thirty-eight (38) affordable units in addition to the seventy-six (76) market rate units...... 2. Should read...Participant shall establish a means to insure, with City Council, that said units remain affordable for thirty (30) years. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT IN CONCEPT, AS AMENDED, AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 Applicant: Avelma Zeno Conditional Use Permit No. 85-64 is a request to add a second unit to an existing single family home generally located on the north side of Slater Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard. A revised site plan was submitted by the applicant on January 22, 1986, removing the greenhouse and closet in the den. 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. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mr. Zeno, the applicant, was present to speak in support of the project and to answer any questions. He stated that he has lived in the subject residence since 1963 with his father and mother. His father recently passed away. He is getting married shortly and is planning to continue living in the residence. The house is being remodeled so that the residence can be shared, allowing privacy for both his mother and for himself and his new bride. He submitted new plans, for staff's review, eliminating the greenhouse and closet in the den, originally included on his plans. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -9- (4124d) 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 PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 TO THE FEBRUARY 4, 1985 MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO REVIEW NEW PLANS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-68 Applicant: Lucy Sisley The applicant, who is the owner and occupant, is requesting approval to construct a second unit addition to her existing single family dwelling pursuant to Section 9101.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code which requires that a conditional use permit be approved by the Planning Commission. California State law requires cities to act on such requests for second units in single family neighborhoods. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that the owner of the home remain the occupant of the main dwelling while the second unit may be rented. The property owner may not live off the premises and rent out both the main dwelling and the second unit. The attached unit can only be used for rental purposes and may not be sold. The attached second unit is considered to be a residential use which is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and the R1 zoning designation. The approval of a second unit by conditional use permit does not change the zoning designation of the lot or neighborhood, nor does it mean that the zoning will be changed in the future to allow multiple family units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15101 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Lucy Sisley, the applicant, spoke in favor of the project, and made herself available for any further questions. Floyd Shaver, neighbor, spoke against the project. He presented a petition signed by 89 homeowners also strongly opposed to the project. They felt that allowing second units with separate entrances to be built, regardless of the intended use, encouraged rental units, which would lead to deterioration of the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -10- (4124d) Ellen Church, neighbor, spoke against the project. She stated that there is only one house in the neighborhood being rented and that there was already deterioration from this rental. She felt that R1 should not include rental units. The applicant stated that her intended use was to provide a separate unit for her mother to reside in. She has lived in the neighborhood for 22 years and has no intention of renting out the unit. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that the findings of approval for the project were subjective. That adding a second story to provide for a second unit would visibly change the character of the one story neighborhood. Also the visibility of the exterior stairway to the second floor would make it obvious that there was a second unit. The applicant may have the best intentions of never renting the second unit but what happens if the home is sold? A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-68 WITH ADDED FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the second unit will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working the vicinity; or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The second unit does cause change in the visible character of the surrounding neighborhood, due to the separate exterior second floor entrance. 4. Currently there are no two story structures in the neighborhood, therefore, the proposed additions would be out of character with the neighborhood. 5. As evidenced by the petition containing 89 signatures of surrounding neighbors the proposed addition would not be compatible with the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -11- (4124d) C-4 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-13 Applicant: Donco and Sons Inc. On January 7, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Special Sign Permit No. 85-13 in order for staff to research and report on why the proposed signage for Arco gasoline stations has been processed previously by building permits rather than by means of a special sign permit before the Planning Commission. Special Sign Permit No. 85-13 is a request to permit facia signage on a freestanding canopy, sign copy on 2 sets of proposed spandrel signs, and 6 bumper post signs, at an existing Arco gasoline station. The applicant has indicated that the proposed sign changes are in conjunction with Arco's image improvement program. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mr. Fink, representing Donco and Sons, was present in support of the request. He stated that he has obtained other permits in the City for identical signs and does not understand how, because of new interpretations of the code, he is being denied this time. He further stated that at every location (without exception) spandrel and bumper signs were allowed. There were no other persons to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners reviewed the report presented to them from staff on previously permitted signage for Arco gasoline stations. They agreed that the current sign ordinance needs to be revised immediately. Commissioner Livengood felt that the denial of this special sign permit would be unfair since other identical requests have been approved. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-13 AS SUBMITTED. NO SECOND WAS MADE. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE A PORTION OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-13 WITH AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Erskine , ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -12- (4124d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed canopy facia signs would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed canopy facia signs would not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed canopy facia signs would be in keeping with the character of the development and neighborhood. 4. The proposed canopy facia signs will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall submit a precise site plan and elevation which depicts sign copy on the canopy facia signs only. 2. All unpermitted, illegal and nonconforming signs shall be removed. 3. Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No. 85-13 if any conditions of approval or violation of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code occurs. C-5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 298/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-70 Applicant: Jerwel Enterprises The applicant is requesting to consolidate a portion of the property adjacent to the railroad and behind an existing commercial shopping center at the southeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive. The tentative parcel map covers the entire shopping center and the adjacent piece and consolidates them into one parcel. The zone change request covers just this adjacent piece of property, and is a request to change the zone from M-1 to C-4, the same zone district as the existing shopping center. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-70 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 issued Prior to any action on the project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-70. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Earl Welch, representing the applicant, was present to answer any questions and to speak in favor of the proposal. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -13- (4124d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners had several concerns including the proximity of the project to the railway, the setback from the tracks and whether there was a right-of-way? Is there an easement for the spur track? What is the intended use? They felt that the 40 foot right-of-way should be preserved for the future and that something needs to be added to protect this corridor. The staff explained that the railroad would maintain their 40 foot corridor. A right-of-way dedication can be maintained during approval of the tract map. The representative for the applicant indicated that the intended use is for paved parking, to be used later for a 4,000-5,000 square foot addition to an existing office building. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-70 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioners felt they needed more information regarding right-of-way standards. They requested that staff provide them with a summary on previous standards and how they are maintained. MOTION WAS MADE BY.WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE 85-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 298 TO THE FEBRUARY 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY ON RIGHT-OF-WAY STANDARDS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - "BUILDING HEIGHTS" Applicant: City of Huntington Beach The Uniform Building Code definition of Building Heights will provide greater continuity between the Planning and Building Divisions of Development Services and would facilitate internal consistency. Also, most members of the development community are familiar with the terms of the Uniform Building Code definition which would reduce the level of confusion which currently exists. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -14- (4124d) If the Planning Commission views the Uniform Building Code definition as being too liberal, the Commission may consider reducing the maximum height limit in residential and commercial districts. This would offset any added building height which could be achieved by using the Uniform Building Code Standard versus the current Huntington Beach Ordinance. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 TO THE FEBRUARY 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-72 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-70 Applicant: T. W. Layman Associates Appellant: T. W. Layman Associates/B. A. Cass The applicant is proposing a 6,604 square foot commercial building situated towards the rear of the property with a ten foot (101) setback from the west property line and zero (01) setback from the south property line (variance request). On December 11, 1985, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved the project based on specific findings and conditions. The Board felt the zero lot line development would be better than a 10 foot setback in order to eliminate the creation of a non -defensible space where trash and debris could collect, landscaping could become a maintenance problem, and vagrants would hide. In addition, it would provide added security to the residences. There were three neighbors at the meeting who objected to the development because of concerns regarding current access through the vacant lot for maintenance of power lines and a transformer at the rear of 16061 Gold Circle and the unattractiveness of an 18 foot high wall abutting their rear property line. Another neighbor objected to the concept of any commercial development on the lot because of associated noise, lighting and signage problems. Another was concerned about burglaries. An appeal was filed by B. Cass because of the aforementioned concerns along with the overall negative impact of the development upon property values, undesirable businesses, hours of operation, security of homes, and trash bin location. In addition, the applicant appealed three conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 85-70. They are: No. l(e) - regarding the location of the transformer; No. 10 - an automatic fire sprinkler system with the building; and No. 17 - limitation of business hours from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -15- (4124d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 and 5, Sections 15301 and 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Porter expressed concern that the distance from centerline of Edwards Street to the building be maintained at not less than 50 feet according to Code. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Leyman, applicant, was present to speak in favor of the proposal. He stated that his original proposal, Plan A, was his first choice but that he would support the alternate proposal, Plan B, however he had a few concerns. His first concern is limiting the hours of operation. To get tenants that cater to the needs of the neighborhood, the hours of operation need to be expanded. The 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM hours of operation is a very narrow band when you are looking at early morning businesses (i.e. bakery, donut shop, florist) or late hour retailers (i.e. drug store, gourmet market, video store). If he is willing to reduce the square footage of the development, to ensure the financial success of the development, he needs to provide the tenants the same competitive opportunities as other businesses in the neighborhood. The second concern regarded the facias being limited to 3 feet as required in Condition l(e) of the Use Permit. He felt his tenants would need larger signs for better advertising. He also had a concern about the yellow hue introduced from the use of sodium lights. Plan A Richard Streifel spoke in opposition to the original proposal, Plan A. He felt his property would be impacted worse by a 0' setback from the project because he is located directly behind the project. It would be devastating to his yard with the absence of sunshine. All he would see is a 16 foot wall, 115 feet wide. John Zimmerman spoke in opposition to the original proposal, Plan A. He was concerned with the maintenance of the power lines. He felt they would have to be raised, or a fire hazard would exist. There are already problems when there are Santa Ana Winds. He feels that the conjestion from the project would destroy his property. Barry Cass spoke in opposition to the proposal. He felt that if the hours were extended there would be too much noise and disturbance to the abutting neighbors. He stated that he encouraged small businesses and submitted a list to the Commissioners of businesses that would be acceptable to him and other residents in the neighborhood. His concerns also included lighting and security problems. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -16- (4124d) Florence Silverstein, spoke in opposition to the project. She felt that the building height would darken her house and therefore increase her use of electricity and gas, and that it would also ruin the vegetation on her property. Joan Zimmerman spoke in opposition to the project. She presented a picture to the Commissioners of a blank wall and asked if they would like that in their backyard. John Locke spoke in opposition to the original proposal, Plan A. He was concerned that the north bound traffic would be impacted from the project. He also had concerns over the possibility of having another business in the area catering to beer and wine sales. He felt that a 10:00 curfew would be beneficial. Plan B Paul Silverstein spoke in opposition to Plan B. His concern is the height of the building. He feels that it should be 13 feet to be in conformance with other buildings in the area. He is afraid that they will lose sight of the sky. Joan Zimmerman spoke in support of Plan B. She feels that they need a gutter behind the building for drainage. She would like to see them plant a vine, such as bougainvillea, on the wall for security purposes. She would also like to see them use sodium lighting, also for security. Barry Cass spoke in opposition to Plan B. He was concerned about the location of the trash bins. He felt that the noise and insect problems would be detrimental to the health and welfare of the adjoining neighbors. He also felt that the transformer should be relocated away from the wall to eliminate security problems. Joan Zimmerman spoke in opposition to Plan B. She circulated the petition given to the Commissioners and remarked that the signatures were easy to obtain because people were concerned with the project, especially the hours, kinds of businesses, debris/trash and the noise impacts. The applicant was given time for rebuttal. He addressed some of the adjoining neighbor's concerns. The height of the rear of the building would be 13 feet making shadow casting minimal. The transformer could be relocated for security reasons. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. THERE WAS A STRAW VOTE TAKEN BY THE CHAIRMAN AGAINST PLAN A. THE RESULT WAS 6 AYES. The Commissioners had some concerns including the power poles, parking, trash enclosures being allowed in setback, attractiveness PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -17- (4124d) of the structure, intense uses of the site. They would like to see the transformer moved, the square footage of the building reduced, and the size of the facia signs reduced. MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 85-72/APPROVE USE PERMIT 85-72 BASED ON ALTERNATE PLAN B WITH REVISED CONDITIONS AND ADDED FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-70: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the commercial building 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 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 conditions imposed will make the commercial building more compatible with the adjacent residential uses. 5. There are sufficient existing businesses selling alcohol within close proximity to the site, therefore no alcoholic sales shall be permitted. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-70: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated January 16, 1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Provide landscaping with 24-inch box trees along the entire area between the building and the south property line. b. Maintain the 15 foot depth of the compact stall along the west side of the parking area. c. No walls shall be permitted around the electrical room. d. No roof projection shall be permitted at the south end or west end of the building (see attached Sheet "A"). PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -18- (4124d) e. The fascia area shall be reduced in width by one foot. f. Decorative, security fencing at each end of the building to secure the rear area. g. Relocation of trash bin. h. Electric transformer shall be moved four feet away from wall. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Landscaping shall comply with 5.979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The corner landscaped area shall be bermed. c. Intensified landscaping, that does not encourage security problems, including twenty-four inch (24") box trees every twenty feet (201) shall be provided along the westerly property line provided it does not create a screening barrier, for security reasons. d. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. All roof -mounted equipment shall be fully screened from public visibility and designed and/or insulated so as not to create any unreasonable disturbances to abutting residential properties. 5. A Planned Sign Program shall be approved for all signing within the commercial center pursuant to S.9760.43 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Only one (1) freestanding sign may be permitted which shall be monument -type. All building signs shall be of channel letters. 6. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27') in width, shall be of radius type construction, and shall be aligned with on -site planters. 7. All existing driveways not utilized by the proposed development shall be replaced with full width curb, gutter, and sidewalk per Public Works standards. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -19- (4124d) 8. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 9. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water heaters and central heating units. 10. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 11. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 12. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 13. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 14. Business hours of all tenants within the commercial center shall be limited to between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and live entertainment and dancing establishments shall be prohibited. No alcohol sales shall be permitted. 15. No man doors shall be permitted along the rear building wall other than for fire exiting purposes only. The Department of Development Services will perform a comprehensive plan check relating to all Ordinance Code requirements upon submittal of your completed structural drawings. 16. The word "compact" shall be painted across the surface of each compact space. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-65 Applicant: John A. Gustafson On December 18, 1979, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 79-30, a request to establish an automobile repair service center on a one -acre site located on the west side of Crystal Street north of Clay Avenue. Section 933.1 of the ordinance code allows temporary uses within R-A (Residential -Agricultural) district subject to the approval of conditional use permit. This provision would apply in cases where a business was displaced from its location by action of a government agency through direct acquisition of an existing parcel upon which the business was located. The applicant's former business location was acquired by the City in December of 1978 and was used to construct the water department warehouse facility adjoining the City -owned reservoir. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -20- (4124d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: 1legative Declaration No. 79-77 adopted by the Planning Commission on December 18, 1979, analyzed the environmental effects of the automotive repair business at the subject site. Additional environmental review is not warranted at this time. Staff added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate 10 feet of street right-of-way along Crystal Street for the future widening of Gothard Street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project and staff's recommendation. He stated that his client would agree to the additional requirement from staff regarding the dedication if the requirement was being made to others in the area. He also asked that something be added to protect his client regarding the dedication if the road was not widened that the property would revert back to his client. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 85-15 WITH ADDED CONDITION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1. The existing automotive repair business complies with the provisions of Section 933.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code related to temporary relocation of a displaced use (Ordinance 2398). 2. The continued use of the automotive repair shop is compatible with the surrounding land uses which are basically oil -related in nature. 3. The location, site layout and design of the automotive repair business does properly adapt the existing and proposed structure to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. An automotive repair use on the subject site will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare and safety and convenience of persons working in the neighborhood or be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -21- (4124d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated November 22, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-65 is for a length of time not to exceed five years. However, after 3 years the Planning Commission shall review the status of development in the immediate area to determine if a 2 year extension of time is appropriate or a filing for a new conditional use permit entitlement. 3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach fire code. 4. Parking, access, setbacks and landscaping and all other provisions of Division 9 shall be complied with as if such use were permitted within a specific zoning district in which it would be an allowable use. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violation at the time of this approval or violation of the applicable zoning laws. 6. The applicant shall dedicate 10 feet of street right of way along Crystal for the future widening of Gothard Street which is proposed to connect with Crystal Street on the City's Circulation Plan. In the event the street is not widened the dedicated area shall revert back to the property owner. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -22- (4124d) 1 D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 LINEAR PARK BOUNDARY Commission felt that an effort be made for public opinion regarding this proposal. This is the first chance they have had to review it and their input should be considered before submitting it to the City Council. Requested a joint study session and a field tour with the Council and the Citizen Advisory Committee so that all concerns can be addressed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE THE PROPOSAL TO THE FEBRUARY 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND TO SCHEDULE A STUDY SESSION AND A SITE TOUR BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: E-1 TENTATIVE TRACT 12206 Ken Moody, Developer, requested that the second sentence of condition of approval number la on Tentative Tract 12206 be waived by the Planning Commission as per recommendation by the Fire Department. The second sentence reads "In addition, a landscape median shall be indicated within each easement along the common property lines." MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO WAIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON TENTATIVE TRACT 12206 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED F. PENDING ITEMS: Pending Items list was presented to Commissioners for their review at the February 4, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -23- (4124d) G. H. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The Commission requested that the wording on Item C-1 be amended before sending it to the City Council. GRANNY UNIT ORDINANCE: Commissioner Winchell requested that e Ordinance be reevaluated. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None I. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 12:00 midnight to the Sign Tour scheduled for Tuesday, January 28, 1986, at 2:00 PM, and to the Linear Park Study Session scheduled for 6:00 PM before the next scheduled Commission meeting on February 4, 1986. Tom L eil'jood,/Charman 1 PC Minutes - 1/22/86 -24- (4124d)