Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-19APPROVED 3/4/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1986 - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes February 4, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO 11 APPROVE MINUTES, WITH CORRECTIONS, OF FEBRUARY 4, 1986 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine, Porter MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Planning Commission Workshop - The chairman distributed the Agenda and other back up materials for the workshop to be held March 15. Draft Policy for Affordable Housing - Requested that staff distribute the Draft Policy for Affordable Housing to the Real Estate Board, Chamber of Commerce and other interested parties after comments are received by the Housing Committee, in advance of the public hearing. Golden Bear Letter from Tory Gunn - Chairman Livengood requested that staff prepare a response to Tory Gunn reflecting the Planning Commission's position on the Golden Bear facade. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 4, 1986 MEETING On February 4, 1986, the Planning Commission at the applicant's request, continued Conditional Use Permit No. 85-64, 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. The applicant needed the additional time to prepare revised plans in accordance with staff's alternative action. Even though the revised plans substantially comply with staff's recommended alternative action we still believe that the roof lines of the existing home and proposed second unit are not architecturally compatible. The elevation provided does not illustrate a "unified whole" between the two units. Further, the surrounding neighborhood is primarily developed as single story homes. The staff provided the Planning Commission with a map which illustrated this fact. Staff could not support a second unit within the subject tract with the design proposed by the applicant. 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 Jerry Zeno, applicant, was present to speak in support of the proposal and to answer any questions. He explained to the Commission that his plans have been changed three times and he feels that he has complied with all of staff's requirements. His addition totals 646 square feet and it could not be contained within his existing single story home without going to two stories. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal so the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that the architecture needed changing because the addition appeared to be two units. They suggested that a condition of approval regarding the roofline be made so that this proposal could be approved. Commissioner Schumacher stated that, even with a condition, she felt the unit was too separated from the existing house and that it appeared to be a duplex. She could not vote for approval. 11 PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -2- (4290d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 WITH FINDINGS AND ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-64 for the addition of a second unit (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. 85-64 will substantially comply with the requirements of Article 9103 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-64 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: 1. The site plan and floor plan dated January 31, 1986 shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall submit revised elevations (specifically roof line) which illustrates a unified whole between the existing single family home and proposed second unit. Said elevation shall be approved by the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The additional unit shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire and Building Code. C-2 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 85-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-72 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On February 4, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Precise Plan of Street Alignment 85-2 until February 19, 1986 in order for staff to solicit written responses from the Edison Company, Westminister School District, and Pacific Railroad as to their position on the City's proposal for realignment. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -3- (4290d) The Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area Manager sent out letters to the agencies identified by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the Department of Public Works revised the legal description for the Precise Plan of Street Alignment so that Gothard Street does not cross the railroad right-of-way but is aligned adjacent to a line five (5) feet westerly to the line of the right-of-way. The staff's position is to maintain 40 feet clearance adjacent to the railroad right of way in order to accommodate future light rail. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Letter from Southern Pacific Transportation Company, owner and operator of the railroad line located south of the San Diego Freeway known as the Stanton Branch, was read into the records, confirming that they had no intention of abandoning rail operations over the said right-of-way. Ron Pattinson spoke in opposition to the realignment. He feels that it is not economically feasible or responsible to the citizens of Huntington Beach. He feels the citizens of Westminister would be impacted tremendously by this project. Stephen Chase, attorney for Southern Pacific Transportation Company, spoke in opposition to the realignment. He feels that his client has been delayed enough already by this proposal. If the City is interested in acquiring the property they should do it now. Bill Compton, Area Manager from the Southern California Edison Company, was not sure what the impact might be in terms of the realignment. There are two towers involved with the realignment on the northern side of McFadden that would be entailed. The transmission corridor is there to maintain their transmission lines. It is a vital link to their total electrical transmission system and they are concerned about losing any more property in that area. Would like to see a more precise plan than what has been offered to date to insure that it doesn't have the kind of impact that it appears to have to the operation. Commissioner Erskine asked Mr. Compton if he had to make a decision today regarding the realignment, what would it be. Mr. Compton replied that there would be major costs that would have to be borne by the relocation agency (millions of dollars to relocate towers). He would not say absolutely no, but it would take a considerable amount of planning to accommodate the realignment. Orin G. Berge, spoke in opposition to the realignment. The project is decades late in being proposed and it would be too costly to the City to align a street that will eventually dead-end at Garden Grove Boulevard. It will also be a costly, expensive impact on the surrounding environment. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -4- (4290d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the Public Hearing was closed. Les Evans responded to some of the questions of the Commissioners. He stated that the width of the alignment right-of-way was 80 feet. The main problems would be getting under the freeway bridge. Even though there is a 115 foot span, the railroad is in the middle of the span. If the span needs to be widened or the underpass reworked, the City would be faced with spending millions of dollars. The only place that they would consider narrowing would be the underpass. It would be cheaper to acquire the property bare, today, then to wait until something else is built. Relocation of the transmission towers would not be necessary. The right-of-way would be crossed but would not take up that much room. There would be no adverse impact to our circulation by realigning Gothard, it would not make it any better or any worse, according to Mr. Evans. The road can be built from Center to McFadden for about one half million dollars. There would be about $100,000 in signal modifications. A total of approximately $700,000 (not including acquisition of the Edison right-of-way) would be the cost, he added. Cal Trans has been contacted and they have indicated that it is feasible that on/off ramps on Gothard would help with traffic problems. This area of Gothard handles about 16,000 vehicles per day and it could handle 40,000 vehicles per day. The on/off ramps are very possible. Commissioner Porter asked how the City proposed to spend money outside of the City limits or redevelopment area since the majority of the expense is not in the construction in the street but to the modification to the overpass and rail alignment. He felt that two actions were in order. First to approve the negative declaration and then to table the alignment proposal until such time that the City of Westminister and the City of Huntington Beach can reach some decision of what they plan to do. Staff recommended that an action of denial be considered, since they would like to get this proposal up to the City Council so that acquisition of property for the right-of-way could be started. Commissioner Rowe stated that if we were going to Gothard as a means of alleviating traffic problems, it is far more desirable to do it now while it is vacant land instead of increasing the cost when we might have to remove buildings or structures. An investment now can turn out to be wise in terms of preparing the ways for the future when it might be well more costly. He felt that serious consideration should be given to the precise alignment of Gothard as recommended. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -5- (4290d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-72 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-2 AND RECOMMEND ITS ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS Commissioner Mirjahangir voted against the motion because he did not feel he was ready to vote on the issue, he is not convinced that this realignment will save the City headaches down the line. Commissioner Erskine voted against the motion because he is convinced that it will cause the City problems down the line and a whole lot of dollars expended in litigation. Commissioner Porter voted against the motion because he thinks that the City Councils of both Huntington Beach and Westminister have to resolve this issue first, before the Commission or City Council decides on a precise plan of alignment. He would like to have the issue tabled. Commissoner Livengood stated he could not vote on the motion because the applicant has gone through an involved process for a long period of time, and based on the testimony given and the fact that the presentation was not clear. Commissioner Schumacher wanted Gothard moved over to the central area of the open space so that fewer houses would have to be removed. She felt it was much easier to look to the future and plan to not allow development that the City may have to end up having to pay for. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO DENY PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-2 WITH FINDINGS (UNCERTAINTY OF THE COST OF PROVIDING THE RIGHT OF WAY, ETC.) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -6- (4290d) AYES: Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir, Livengood NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Winchell: Requested a Minority Report be attached reflecting the concerns of the Commissioners voting against the denial. C-3 PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF THE BOLSA CHICA LINEAR PARK Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park have been on -going between the City and County since June 1977. Previously, the Planning Commissioners received a copy of a report entitled, "The Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park Boundary Study" prepared by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. This document set forth the goals and objectives of the linear park and inventoried each of the twelve parcels of land which will eventually become the linear park. The County did not have a precise boundary for parcels 2, 4 and 5, owned by the Huntington Beach Company. The County requested that the City aid them in establishing the park boundary for these areas. After meeting with representatives of the Huntington Beach Company, touring the site and analyzing topographic maps, staff developed a "Conceptual Boundary" for the linear park. Factors which influenced the location of the proposed conceptual boundary included o Adequate width of the park on top of the bluff to accommodate a minimum of two recreational trails (4% grade for trails desired) o Buffer areas surrounding each oil operation o Inclusion of areas which offer scenic vista points which overlooking the Bolsa Chica o Inclusion of large, relatively flat areas which may be suitable for parking or staging facilities o Adequate setbacks from the bluff faces The linear park, as proposed by staff, encompasses approximately 120 acres of land. The Huntington Beach Company owns approximately 35 acres within the park, Signal Oil owns approximately 60 acres, the City of Huntington Beach owns approximately 35 acres, and the Southern California Edison Company owns approximately 1 acre. Staff's boundary was approved by the Community Services Commission on January 8, 1986. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -7- (4290d) The linear park boundary was scheduled as a discussion item on the Commission's January 22, 1986 agenda. At this time, the Commission requested that a joint study session and field tour be held with members of the Commission, City Council and other interested parties. These meetings were held on February 4 and 5, 1986. The County of Orange has recently hired a consulting firm to prepare a General Development Plan for the linear park. An advisory group will be formed to assist the consultant in the preparation of this plan. During this phase the precise location, type and width of trails will be established as well as the location of additional facilities such as parking areas, staging areas, view overlooks and grade -separated trail crossings. The consultant must have a conceptual boundary for the entire linear park in order to accomplish this task. The boundary is considered "conceptual" at this time, recognizing that in-depth study by the consultant during the preparation of the General Development Plan may require the boundary to be slightly modified. The California Government Code, Section 65402, provides in part that no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for park or other public purposes until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with the General Plan. In adopting the attached resolution the Planning Commission finds the adoption of the conceptual linear park boundary to be in conformance with the City's General Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Loretta Vandervill spoke against the staff's proposal. She is concerned that the proposed boundary will not include parking access, staging areas, handicap provisions, services for emergency vehicles, and not enough trails. Rhoda Martyn spoke in opposition to the proposal. She feels that as a park it is inadequate. Victor Leipzig spoke in opposition to the proposed linear park boundary. He feels there are too many sensitive habitat areas proposed in the park and that portions are too steep for public use. The acreage is inadequate. Lorraine Faber spoke in opposition to the linear park because there is no recreational space. Mary L. Bell, member of Equestrian Trails, supports the linear park but feels that the trails are not wide enough for equestrian use. Would like to see wider corridors to support the equestrian needs. Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, spoke in support of the concept of a low intensity recreational open -space corridor, along the bluff line which preserves both the bluffs and sufficient area along the top of the bluffs for view -oriented trails which would link our central park to the state beach. He also feels the value PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -8- (4290d) of his property on the bluff top for private residential development with ocean views must be recognized and must be protected and not damaged by excessive setbacks or the the construction of excessive parking lots or concession stands within the linar park. He is also concerned with the Wetlands Restoration Concept being currently prepared by the County and the State Department of Fish and Game in which a considerable portion of the ESHA's that Signal is required to create as mitigation for their Bolsa development have been proposed to be located on lands owned by his company and the City of Huntington Beach. If it is accepted it will encroach upon useable recreational area in the linear park and restrict recreational uses in the park and is unacceptable to the Huntington Beach Company. Because of the intense oil production on the bluff top at the base of the bluff it is unlikely that any of this property will be developed in the next 15-20 years. Normally under park dedication standards parkland is not dedicated until a final map is filed. We want to come to a mutual acceptable plan addressing the park boundary, uses, circulation, design criteria, density setbacks, etc. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioner's general feeling was that there is not enough acreage allowed for the park, that the park is not for recreational use, they don't want to lose the money allocated for the park but they would like a more in-depth report on what they need in order to spend the monies allocated for the park. They would also like to have the records researched to see what happened to acreage originally proposed for the park. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF THE BOLSA CHICA LINEAR PARK TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TO EXPAND THE RESOLUTION AND MEET WITH COMMITTEE OF AMIGOS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES RELATIVE TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE PARK BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 APPEAL OF THE BZA'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-93 Applicant: Ken Reynolds The applicant is appealing the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of Conditional Exception No. 85-93, a request to permit a single story, 428 square foot office and den addition which encroaches 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard building setback (Section 9103.3). PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -9- (4290d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act, this project is categorically exempt. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED A letter was submitted to the Commission from Lorelei Turner opposing the proposal because she felt it was not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Ken Reynolds, the applicant, was present to speak in support of the proposal, and to be available to answer any questions. He presented his site plans, showed slides of the surrounding neighborhood to support his proposal. John Hansen, neighbor to the rear of the property, spoke in opposition to the project because he was concerned that the proposed addition would cause too much shading in his yard. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal so the public hearing was closed. The Commission asked what was being proposed for screening between the back of the addition and the wall separating the property from the neighboring property. Mr. Reynolds explained that since there was only five feet from the back of his addition and the block wall, that presently existed, no screening was being proposed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-93 BASED ON THE FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine NOES: Porter, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved which do not apply generally to property of class of uses in the same district. The parcel is similar in size and shape with other parcels in the subdivision and is relatively flat. 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification because it is a typical 60 by 100 foot R1 zoned lot. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -10- (4290d) 3. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 4. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-93 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 5. Conditional Exception No. 81-49 was approved by the Planning Commission in 1982 and is still effective which permits an addition to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot setback. C-5 USE PERMIT NO. 86-1/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-4 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 86-1 Applicant: Kaiser Development The proposed entitlements are all related to the GTE office building on Bolsa Avenue. A three level parking structure is proposed (AR 86-4) over an existing parking area behind the existing GTE building. While the parking structure is being constructed, some parking will be unuseable. Therefore, the applicant is also proposing a temporary parking lot (UP 86-1) for a period of 8 months to compensate for the loss of spaces. The LLA is a minor property line adjustment between two parcels in order to accommodate the proposed parking structure on one parcel. On January 29, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments continued these items to their next meeting of February 12, 1986 as requested by the applicant because the temporary parking lot had been relocated and new public notification was necessary. As requested by the Planning Commission, the Board on February 12, 1986 referred these items to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental concerns of the proposed project (AR 86-4) have been addressed and are covered by Negative Declaration No. 80-54. Use Permit No. 86-1 and Lot Line Adjustment 86-1 are exempt under Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom C. Waller, Manager of Engineering and Construction for Kaiser Development Company, was present in support of the proposal, and made himself available for any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -11- (4290d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 86-1/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 86-4/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 86-1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL USE PERMIT 86-1: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the for a temporary parking lot 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 for a temporary parking lot 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. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 86-1: 1. The Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the criteria outlined in S. 9811.3.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -USE PERMIT 86-1: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February 3, 1986 shall be the approved layout. 2. The lot shall be improved per Public Works standards and striped to conform to Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. Any easements for on -site water facilities must be dedicated to the City. 4. Approval of the lot shall be valid for one year. After one year from the date of approval, a new use permit must be obtained or the temporary parking lot must be removed. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -12- (4290d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 86-1: 1. The applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded Lot Line Adjustment to the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the parking structure. 2. All previous conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 80-566 shall remain in effect. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 86-4: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modification described herein: a. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north side of the parking structure by either deleting four parking spaces (one approximately every four spaces) or making four spaces compact and provide a 4' x 9' planter adjacent to the parking structure. b. Horizontal scoring lines shall be provided along the north elevation. 3. 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. 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. 4. Landscaping shall comply with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. The parking structure shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. Dedicate easement for on -site water facilities to the City. 7. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 8. 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. 9. 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. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -13- (4290d) r 10. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 11. A fire extinguisher must be located within 75' of travel distance from all/any parking spaces. 12. A wet hose cabinet system must be installed within 130' of travel distance from any location with the parking structure, 13. A dry standpipe system, 2 1/2", must be installed within 130' of travel distance from any location within the parking structure. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-58/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-31/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-67 Applicant: Dana Blanchard The proposed project consists of construction of a three-story 29-unit motel with manager's quarters. The zoning is Visitor -Serving Commercial (Article 949) which lists hotels and motels as permitted uses subject to approval of a conditional use permit and pursuant to the standards for such uses contained in the C4 District (Article 947). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-67 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. 85-67. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Two letters were submitted (one from the Huntington Marina Association, one from J. N. Pagones, resident in Huntington Marina) expressing opposition to the proposal. Their concerns included overcrowding of the area, reduction of privacy, blockage of ocean air essential for comfort level during hot weather, and traffic problems. Dana Blanchard, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that he has complied with all of the requirements of the Design Review Board and that his landscape architect has not completed the landscape designs but does agree with all conditions. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -14- (4290d) William Bennett spoke in support of the project. He addressed the concerns expressed by Huntington Marina Association and J. N. Pagones. He stated that the only thing facing the project are the neighboring garages. There are no windows or open rooftop spaces. He feels that they have complied with all objections from neighbors. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-58/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-31/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-67 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Winchell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-58: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-31: 1. The proposed 29 unit motel project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; and conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed project conforms with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -15- (4290d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans, received and dated February 7, 1986, and elevations received February 14, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved layout subject to the modifications described herein. a. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting location of exterior stairs. b. Small pane glass windows shall be provided throughout. C. Siding on rear building wall shall be minimum 4 inch x 12 inch. d. Mature trees shall be planted along rear property line to provide buffer to adjacent residential development. 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. 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. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 5. Applicant shall pursue CalTrans approval of radius type driveways on Pacific Coast Highway. 6. Driveway on Pacific Coast Highway shall have a minimum width of thirty feet (301). 7. Occupancy of the motel units shall be restricted to a daily rate for a maximum period of 30 days. 8. An automatic fire sprinkler system and a fire alarm system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 9. Fire extinquishers shall be installed to comply with Fire Department regulations. 10. All signs shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Any freestanding sign shall be a low -profile, monument type. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -16- (4290d) C 11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 12. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots, water faucets and showers. 13. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 14. 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). 15. 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. 16. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 17. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 18. 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-factors 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 the issuance of building permits. 19. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project shall be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board staff for their review prior to the issuance of grading permits. 20. Left turns onto Pacific Coast Highway shall be prohibited. 21. 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. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -17- (4290d) C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-3 Applicant: John Ballantyne Conditional Use Permit No. 86-3 is a request to legalize an existing second unit within a single family home generally located on the west side of Bushard Avenue north of Hamilton Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the subject request is categorically exempt from the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Janet Hague, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She was concerned that the proposal did not comply with R1 standards, and that it would become a rental after the home was sold. She stated that she would feel better if she could meet the new owner and be assured by him what the intended use would be. Kimberly First, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project. Her concerns were the impact of traffic and the conversion of her neighborhood to possibly an R2 district. Mike Duncan, buyer of the residence, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he had no intention of using the addition for a rental. His children (two 20-year old boys) would be sharing the upstairs unit and that there was not an outside entrance to the unit. His plans for the future would include the unit being used by his in-laws. John Ballantyne, applicant and seller of the residence, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he had no intention of upsetting his neighbors. He did not foresee any problems with the unit. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that a condition regarding access to the added unit being limited "through the main dwelling only" should be added to prevent it from becoming a "granny unit." A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-3 BASED ON FINDINGS AND ADDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -18- (4290d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-3 for the addition of a second unit within an existing single family home will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-3 will substantially comply with the requirements of Article 910 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-3 for the legalization of a second unit within a single family dwelling is consistent with the Master Plan of Land Use and development standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated January 17, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised floor plan illustrating the second unit is occupying no greater than 650 square feet. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable park and recreation fees as spelled out in Section 9101 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The applicant shall obtain all required building permits (at double fee) for alterations within the existing single family residence. Said alteration for the second unit shall not exceed a total of 650 square feet. 5. Access to the second unit shall only be taken through the main dwelling. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-4 Applicant: George Pearson and Robert Long Conditional Use Permit No. 86-4 is a request by the applicants to permit a game arcade and amusement center at 16922 Beach Boulevard. The proposed game arcade will include approximately 30 coin operated video games, pin ball machines, and a snack counter. The arcade and amusement center will occupy approximately 1,400 square feet within an existing shopping center. There are presently five other tenants located in this center. The existing businesses include two take-out restaurants, vacuum sales, auto parts store and a massage parlor. The massage parlor will be vacating the premises as of February 28, 1986, according to the property owner. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -19- (4290d) The applicant has indicated that the proposed hours of operation will be as follows: Weekdays: 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM Weekends: 8:00 AM to 12:00 AM Summer Months: 8:00 AM to 12:00 AM ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED George Pearson, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He was concerned with Condition No. 1, regarding the hours of operation. He said that he was in support of all conditions except No. 1 regarding hours of operation and he requested that he be allowed to operate until 12:00 midnight. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners had questions regarding compliance with the Noise Ordinance, parking, and whether the back door would be closed during operating hours. They felt that the hours of operation should be extended and were very pleased to see something developed on this particular site. They suggested a change to Condition No. 2 regarding the rear door and a change to Condition No. 5 regarding noise. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-4 WITH FINDINGS AND ADDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter (Out of Room) 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; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -20- (4290d) 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 4. The proposed game arcade substantially complies with the provisions set forth in Section 9332(Q) of the Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The hours of operation will be as follows: Weekdays: 11:00 AM to 12:00 midnight Weekends: 9:00 AM to 12:00 midnight Summer Months: Weekdays: 9:00 AM to 12:00 midnight Weekends: 9:00 AM to 12:00 midnight 2. The rear door shall be equipped with panic hardware and shall remain closed during operating hours and to be used as an emergency exit only. 3. 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 within six months from date of approval. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. A review of the use shall be conducted within six (6) months of the date of this approval to verify compliance with all conditions of approval, specifically any noise -related complaints that may arise from the hours of operation. 6. The game arcade shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8.40, NOISES CONTROL of the Municipal Code. 7. The game arcade shall not open for business until all conditions of approval have been complied with as required by the Planning Commission under Use Permit No. 86-4. 8. Bicycle racks shall be provided by the applicant and located at the north end of the existing sidewalk adjacent to the arcade. 9. The proposed game arcade shall be open to the general public and shall not contain adult -oriented games, literature or merchandise. 10. 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. 11. The game arcade shall not be permitted to open for business should the massage parlor remain at this location. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -21- (4290d) 12. There shall be at least one supervisory employee in attendance, eighteen (18) years or older during operating hours. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-5 Applicant: North Huntington Beach Community Nursery School Conditional Use Permit No. 86-5 is a request by North Huntington Beach Community Nursery School to permit a pre-school within Room No. 5 of the Meadow View School located at 5702 Clark Drive. The pre-school, which has been in operation at Meadow View School for approximately five years provides three child care programs as follows: 1. 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Tuesday and Thursday, maximum number of students permitted is 25 per class; 2. 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, maximum number of students permitted is 25 per class; 3. 12:30 AM to 3:00 PM, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, enrollment for the 4-day program is also limited to 25 per class. The three child care programs have been designed without overlapping classes, thereby eliminating traffic congestion in the school's parking lot. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Betty Carmody, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-5 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Winchell, None Erskine, None Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir Porter, Rowe (Out of Room) PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -22- (4290d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated August 30, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Room 5 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of 25 children per program. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. 6. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 7. The school shall operate between the hours of 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM only. 8. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -23- (4290d) 9. 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. 10. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. C-10 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-3 Applicant: Chandulal Patel Zone Change No. 86-3 is a request to rezone 0.43 acres of property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, south of Yorktown Avenue from C2 (Community Business) to C4 (Highway Commercial) for the purpose of constructing a motel. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 86-3 evaluates the environmental effects of Zone Change No. 86-3. Prior to any action on the request for a change of zone, the Planning Commission must take action on the negative declaration and make its recommendation to the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Chandulal Patel, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal and made himself available for any questions. Robert Corona, spoke in support of the proposal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. It was requested that since the area contains such a hodge-podge of zoning that staff analyze the area and report back to the Commission their findings and recommendation for uniform zoning that would be consistent throughout the site. The super street with regards to its access points will also have to be considered in order facilitate the flow of traffic along Beach Boulevard. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-3 TO THE MARCH 18, 1986 MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TO REVIEW THE OVERALL PLAN FOR THAT AREA BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: Erskine MOTION PASSED 1 PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -24- (4290d) I- I C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-2 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 86-2 proposes to make all code sections pertaining to site coverage consistent. Maximum site coverage as defined by Article 970 will be utilized in all zones and maximum amount allowed based on net site area. Presently the method of determining site coverage varies. It may be based on roofed structures, ground floor area, all buildings, or based on gross acreage minus streets and drives. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically excluded from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-2 TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-3 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On July 16, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Code Amendment No. 85-1. This code amendment established regulations for installation of satellite dish antennas; however, due to the restrictive nature of the ordinance and opposition from the industry, no City Council action occurred. The definition of satellite dish antenna has been changed to reflect that used by the Satellite Television Association, Inc. (SPACE). Other changes include additional installation and screening requirements and a provision for multiple antennas on commercial or industrial sites with adequate screening and setback. The proposed code amendment contains regulations recommended by SPACE. The Planning Commission may choose to include a provision for use permit for those sites incapable of receiving signals from an antenna installed pursuant to criteria. Such permit then may be issued upon a showing by the applicant that installation at a height greater than 15 feet or in another yard area is necessary for the reception of usable satellite signals. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -25- (4290d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed code amendment is covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-13, adopted by the Planning Commission on July 16, 1985. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-3 TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-13 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-4 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 86-4 proposes no changes in the overall content as compared to the existing code. It does, however, revise and streamline some of the oldest and outdated text of Division 9. The provisions relate to the interpretation, application, and enforcement of both the district maps and all zoning regulations contained in Division 9. In particular, new Article 906 has been revised to include a listing of all current zone districts, overlays, and suffixes as well as their abbreviations. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Code Amendment No. 86-4 is categorically excluded from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-4 TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-14 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-6 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 86-6 proposes little change to the substantive content of the RA district standards. The proposed ordinance is part of the general clean-up of Division 9. The provisions have been reworded and reorganized to be in a format that will be consistent with all of the other district regulations. The only 1 PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -26- (4290d) change made in provision relates to the maximum height of structures. The height has been reduced from thirty feet to twenty-five feet to be in accord with the proposed definition of building height. Existing code already limits structures to a maximum of two stories and this provision was not changed. After Planning Commission approval, staff will schedule this ordinance before the City Council at the same time as Code Amendment No. 85-24 revising the building height definition. The move in location from Article 960 to Article 910 places the provisions at the beginning of the chapter of Residential Districts as the lowest in density. The existing Al (Agriculture) District is being repealed because there is no longer any such property within the City zoned with this designation. Attached is the draft Table of Contents for the Division 9 rewrite. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-6 TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-15 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-5 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 86-5 revises existing parking provisions based on staff analysis of problems with the current code, based on decisions made by the Planning Commission over the course of the last year, while at the same time reorganizing and streamlining the provisions. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-5 TO THE MARCH 41 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -27- (4290d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-253 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 41 1986 MEETING) Applicant: Pacific Coast Corp. A request to create a one lot subdivision to create a buildable site for mini -warehouse. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-253 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The size and shape of the proposed one -lot subdivision for purposes of industrial use is in compliance with the zoning code for that type of development. 2. The proposed one -lot subdivision is consistent with the General Plan which sets forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed 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 supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Development Services on Janmuary 28, 1986, shall be revised to reflect the following: a. A 5 foot wide open space reservation easement shall be indicated on the plan abutting the east side of the parcel extending from Center Drive to McFadden Avenue. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by' -the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. McFadden Avenue shall be dedicated and improved to City standards. PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -28- (4290d) 4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcel is developed (if such system exists within 200 feet of said parcel). 5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system at the time said parcel is developed (if such system exists within 200 feet of said parcel). 6. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcel is developed. 7. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances. 8. If applicable, the property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district at the time said parcel is developed. (Contact the Department of Public Works for additional information.) 9. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS: An update of the status of the rail corridor south of Yorktown. Motel on 8th. and PCH - What is the status, have permits been issued? Foreign Car Repair on Bolsa Chica and Warner - is it legal? Lincoln Properties Parking Structure on Warner - what is the status of the structure? Pet Store on Beach/Warner - there are signs plastered all over the building. The monument sign and wall signs are too close to the car wash. Union 76 Spheres - Status report on efforts to bring these spheres into conformance with the code. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: None PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -29- (4290d) H. I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:35 to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 4,m 1986, at 7:00 pm. e� Tom Live d, Chairman, I 1 PC Minutes - 2/19/86 -30- (4290d)