Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-01APPROVED 4/I 5/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1986 - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Civic Center California P P P P Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, A-1 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 86-5 Review of funded and unfunded projects contained in the proposed City Capital Improvement Program for consideration as to conformance with the General Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO FIND IN CONFORMANCE NO. 86-5, WITH BY THE THE GENERAL PLAN, GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Since there was such a lengthy agenda Chairman Livengood wanted Item E (Sample Planning Commission Agenda) to be discussed and voted on. Some suggestions were made as how to improve the sample agenda. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE THE SAMPLE AGENDA AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF AND TO MAKE CHANGES AS NEEDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 THROUGH C-12 WERE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: C-5 (Continued), C-9 (Continued) C-12 (Continued), C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-10 and C-11. C-1 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - BUILDING HEIGHTS On March 18, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-24 in order to allow staff time to revise the definition of building height to address concerns the Commission had raised over the past few months. Staff still supports the adoption of the Uniform Building Code definition, however, the revised draft which slices the building is more clear, less complicated, and provides for a building terracing effect on sloped building sites and can be supported by staff as a second choice. The review of site plans and grading and elevation plans during the review process can further fix the reference datum and the maximum building height. The Planning Commission previously took action on March 18, 1986, on related issues when they voted to reduce the maximum building height in residential zones by five (5) feet. The newly revised definition has been streamlined so that the current definition of building height still pertains to most sites within the City. A change that does impact building height on flat parcels in the definition of "top of roof", which incorporates the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, i.e. using the mid -point of sloped roofs. The new definition further explains that the maximum height, for example 25 feet in most residential districts, is measured at any given point along the structure. No portion of the building shall be greater than 25 feet above the ground level immediately adjacent to that portion of the building. This new definition actually only clarifies the interpretation currently in use. It will ensure a terraced effect, that is, the -building -bulk bulk will conform to the original terrain of the site. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Raymond E. Ponce, new resident of Huntington Harbor, was concerned over the passing of the building height code amendment. He has recently purchased his property and is planning some costly renovation. He would like to see a grace period of at least 60 days granted to allow plans to be accomplished. Richard Short spoke in support of the most recent proposal. He feels that the City Code and the Uniform Building Code is acceptable. 1 PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -2- (4599d) Dr. Charles Reince spoke in support of the ordinance and the 25 foot height limit. He feels it is a fair ordinance and the definition of grade would be easier to clarify if the measurement was taken from the natural ground surface to the top of the roof. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the reference point for computing the building height. Restricting the amount of grading could be a possible solution to measuring building height. The Commissioners would like to see the site before it gets graded. It was suggested that Mr. Palin, as Administrator of the Planning Department, initiate a policy directive, having the grading incorporated into the plans and bringing it to the Planning Commission for review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: Building Height. The vertical distance from the lowest elevation of e groun sur ace at any given point or slice immediately adjacent to the building to the top of roof. Top of roof shall be defined as the highest point of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER TO AMEND THE MOTION AND APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 AS FOLLOWS: Building Height. The vertical distance from the lowest elevation of the ground surface immediately adjacent to the building to the top of roof at any given point or slice. Top of roof shall be defined as the highest point of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof. Artificial grades established by the construction of planters and/or grading around parking structures shall not be used for purposes of measuring height. CODE AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -3- (4599d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO INITIATE A POLICY DIRECTIVE TO INCORPORATE GRADING INTO THE PLANS AND BRINGING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-8 Code Amendment No. 86-8 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on March 4, 1986. While considering an application for a convenience market at the meeting of March 18, 1986, the Planning Commission took note of a provision that requires exterior pass -through cashier windows for such uses. Discussion ensued regarding the need for this provision as well as the problem of enforcement. The Planning Commission requested that this code amendment, which addresses the cashier window issue be brought back to them in order to reconsider this requirement prior to action on Code Amendment No. 86-8 by the City Council. Most of the convenience markets in the City (which have been developed pursuant to the code) do not utilize this required window. In most cases the window is installed; however, the floor plan of the market is such that the cashier counter is not located adjacent to the window. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The project is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-8 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir None None None Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -4- (4599d) C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21 Conditonal Use Permit No. 85-21, a request to permit the storage and grinding of wood products (mulching operation) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1985. Since approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85--21, the applicant has failed to comply with nine conditions of approval. The Planning staff and Fire Department have been unsuccessful in persuading the applicant to comply with the conditions, therefore, the matter has been referred to the Commission for review and possible revocation of the applicant's conditional use permit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 85-50 was adopted by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1985. The site has been identified as an archeological site. Due to the operation of trucks on the site during inclement weather, numerous ruts have been created. Should the Planning Commission permit the applicant to continue operating at the site, staff recommends that an all-weather road, acceptable to the Fire Department, be installed by the applicant to prevent deterioration of the archaeological site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Sonny Cotter, applicant, was present. He feels that he is complying with all conditions of approval except Number 4. He has applied for a hydrant and is waiting now for a decision by the water department to tell him where to locate his water hydrant. He addressed each condition with the Commission. Larry Rothman, Attorney for Cotter's Tree Service, spoke in support of his client. He explained that Cotter's Tree Service had been granted an exemption from the AQMD. He summarized his client's intentions and requested that the Commission grant his client a continuance so that the matter could be cleared up. He feels that this recycling operation is very unique and should be reconsidered. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rowe stated that he had personally driven by the site and it did not appear to him that the conditions of approval were being complied with. Piles of compost/mulch were present and he was concerned that if there was a fire the fire department couldn't get onto the site due to the lack of fire lanes. Commissioner Erskine felt that a continuance of this item for two weeks, to allow the applicant to comply with all conditions, would be fair. He also requested that a copy of the letter stating that this property is exempt, granted by AQMD, be presented to the Commission for review. PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -5- (4599d) Commissioner Livengood felt that a continuance was not in order. He felt that enough time had been spent on this item. The alternative action suggested by staff to grant the applicant a two Month extension of time to comply with applicable conditions and if not complied with to revoke the permit, would be the best decision. Commissioner Schumacher feels that this is an archaeological site and since no road has been put in that the site is being degraded and is deteriorating, and that if all conditions could not be complied with that the permit should be revoked. She felt that two weeks would be sufficient time to comply with all conditions. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21 TO THE APRIL 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO RECONSIDER REVOCATION AT THAT TIME, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12 In February 1986 the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for this property. Both the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a conceptual site plan, floor plans and building elevations for this senior citizens apartment project. The applicant has slightly modified the unit mix of the project. Ten of the one bedroom plus den units have been converted into two bedroom units. The applicant notes that market research has shown a demand for two bedroom senior units for husband/wife or senior/relative. The parking provided reflects this change in the plan. The applicant originally submitted the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request in September of 1985. The Conceptual Plans were reviewed by staff according to the requirements of the Senior Residential Development Standards (Article 932.5). The SR suffix is added to the base zoning designation. Developments must comply with the SR standards for all requirements listed in that section of the code, and, where silent, the underlying base district. For this particular project the underlying zoning is R3. Preliminary plan check of the conceptual plans was based on the standards of the SR, and, where silent, the R3 zone. PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -6- (4599d) The conditional use permit requires a much more in-depth plan check. Under close scrutiny, staff determined that this project needed to comply with the SR standards, the R3 standards when the SR was silent, and the Apartment Standards (Article 932). The R3 district states that when nine or more units are proposed for construction a use permit from the Board of Zoning Adjustments be obtained and the developer must comply with the criteria contained in the current standards for apartment development. It is staff's interpretation that although this project does not require a use permit from the Board of Zoning Adjustments, the apartment standard criteria should still be used instead of the R3 standards when the SR code is silent on a particular development requirement. Staff feels that the intent of using the apartment standards for nine or more units is strongly related to the size of the proposed development, not to the requirement of obtaining a use permit. In-depth plan check using the SR, R3 revealed a deficiency in the southern addressed this issue in regard to the special permit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: and Apartment Standards side yard setback. Staff has applicant's request for a An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the environmental impact of the proposed project. This environmental impact report has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dan Neveau, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project and all of staff's findings. He announced that the special bond fund has been approved for the project. Dean Albright addressed his concerns with the project. He is concerned about the gasoline that might have leaked upgrade from the project and also the problem of asbestos removal from the existing buildings on site. He suggested that more stringent rules, e.g. the wet fibers glove operation set by the Federal government, be used when removing any asbestos. Elizabeth Short, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She feels that the project is too intense and that there should be no variances or special permits issued. Jim Radler resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that the developer is not complying with all of the rules and that there should be at least a 90 foot setback on the west side of the site. He also feels that large trees should be planted for privacy. PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -7- (4599d) Charles Tittle, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that the rents are too high for seniors and that in order to satisfy the occupancy rate that non -seniors would move into the development. Lance Berry, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that the density bonus granted is too high and that parking would be a major problem. He handed out a list of resident's concerns to the Commission. Richard Short, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He went over Articles and Regulations with staff on parking, setbacks, density, and intensity. He feels that the project needs more guest parking spaces. Dan Neveau was allowed to address the concerns of the residents. He stated that the AQMD had determined that the site was safe in regards to the asbestos, and that upon their inspection, no asbestos was seen. State approved removal would be used. He explained that the project originally started with 151 units and it was now a 114 unit project and that he felt that he was complying with all of the concerns and issues. He stated that the price of the rentals would range from the mid $400's to $780. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Staff stated that the project is in full compliance with all of the codes except those for which the special permit was requested. Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt the density of the project was compatible with others in the County. Some of the concerns discussed by the Commissioners were guest parking, trash enclosures and their impact on the surrounding neighborhood, pest control during destruction, setbacks at south end of project, a more detailed landscape plan, and the density bonus and affordable income units. The conditions were addressed and modified to satisfy most of the concerns. Commissioner Porter felt the project should be continued to make major revisions to the plans in order to comply with setbacks at the south end of the property. Commissioner Winchell felt that with a density bonus there should be more than 20% affordable income units (10% being low income). She wanted at least 50% (38 units - 49% low, 1% medium income). 1 PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -8- (4599d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 4. The project will consist of 113 senior units and 1 manager's unit, for a total of 114 units. 5. Buildings on the site shall not exceed 30 feet in height as measured from the curb. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. The proposed development will promote better living conditions and environments by having single story units adjacent to the single family homes to the south to increase privacy for the adjacent residents. 2. The proposed development utilizes land -planning techniques which include tasteful types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design. 3. The proposed development will benefit the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood and the City in general, and will not be a detriment to or degrade property values in such neighborhoods and the City. 4. A special permit shall be granted for the use of hammer -head turnarounds within the project. PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -9- (4599d) 5. A special permit shall be granted to allow for a 20 foot interior side yard setback on the southern property line in lieu of the 50 foot setback required in the Apartment Standards so that a stepping down of the building form can occur. 6. A special permit shall be granted to allow for the construction of an 8 foot high wall along the western and southern property lines. FINDINGS - DENSITY BONUS: 1. 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 area. 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recreational resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed. 4. A 50 percent density bonus (38 additional units) shall be granted to allow for the development of a total of 114 units. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated March 24, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved layout subject to a revised site plan being submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Eleven handicapped parking spaces shall be provided within the security gate. b. The project shall include a total of 114 units (113 senior units and 1 manager's unit). The Design Review Board shall recommend which unit shall be removed. C. The setback along the southern interior property line shall be increased to 20 feet to provide greater privacy to the residents of single family homes to the south. d. Parking spaces along the western boundary of the property shall be 17 feet in length. An additional 2 feet of landscaping shall be added along the western property line. e. The floor plan for Unit A shall be revised so that the minimum dimension of the balcony/patio shall be 6 feet. PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -10- (4599d) 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. The Landscape Plan shall come back to the Planning Commission 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. C. Development Agreement shall be prepared pursuant to the Government Code and those procedures adopted by the City Council for such agreements (Resolution No. 5390). The development agreement shall include a program to insure that adequate provision has been made to insure that each unit shall be occupied by at least one person sixty years of age or older. No persons under the age of forty-five shall be permitted as full time residents of the project. d. Rodent eradication plan, approved by the Orange County Vector Control District. e. Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval (grade not to exceed one-half percent). 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 5. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed throughout the complex. 6. A wet combination stand pipe system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed in all stairways. 7. An automatic alarm system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed throughout. The system shall include the following features: a. Water flow and valve tamper detection b. Trouble signal c. Voice communication d. Graphic annunciation e. Manual pulls PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -11- (4599d) 8. Elevators must be sized 6' 8" wide by 4' 3" deep to accommodate the use of an ambulance gurney. 9. Trash chute locations and systems must be approved by the Fire Department. 10. Fire hydrants (3) approved by the Fire Department shall be installed pursuant to Public Works standards. Each fire hydrant shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 1,500 gallons per minute and together must provide an over all fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute. 11. Fire lanes are to posted and signed to comply with Fire Department standards. 12. All roads are to be installed prior to the commencement of the combustible construction with all weather driving surfaces constructed to the standards and specifications of the Public Works Department. 13. Fire extinguishers shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards. 14. The curb on the west side of Springdale, north and south of the entrance to the project (to Meadowlark), shall be painted red to restrict any vehicular parking to insure adequate intersection visibility as per Public Works recommendations. 15. Fire hydrants installed on site shall be dedicated to the City. 16. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed within twelve (12) months from issuance of building permit. 17. All signs shall comply with Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs shall be low -profile, monument -type signs. 18. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 19. Prior to and during the demolition of the existing metal sheds on the site the applicant shall meet all Rule lOM requirements and other State and Health standards for asbestos removal as set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Federal Regulations. 20. An eight foot high masonry wall shall be constructed of uniform design and material along the western and southern edge of the property. The applicant shall work with adjacent homeowners to replace or repair any dilapidated rear yard walls. 21. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -12- (4599d) E 22. 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. 23. 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). 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 27. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 28. The security gate system must open a minimum of 24 feet. The gates installation must comply with Fire Department Standard 403. 29. The turning radius from the central parking area to the parking area leading to the north and south areas must be a 17 foot by 45 foot turning radius. 30. Should any underground tanks be discovered on site, the tanks shall be removed to comply with the Orange County Environmental Health Standards. C-5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2 Zone Change No. 86-2 is a request to change the zone from (Q)R2-PD, Qualified Medium Density Residential -Planned Development, to R2-SR on a portion of the development (Medium Density Residential - Senior).. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-2 is a request to build 96 senior residential condominiums on property zoned R4-SR and that portion being rezoned to (Q)R2-SR. PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -13- (4599d) Tentative Tract No. 11955 was a 10 lot subdivision that was approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1983. This map has not completed recordation requirements; only 3 lots have been recorded, therefore it has expired. A revised map consisting of 7 lots has been filed to reinstate the subdivision. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-2 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 Zone Change No. 86-2 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-2, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-2. Staff recommends continuance of this item to allow the applicant time to redesign the site layout. The applicant also requested a continuance to the May 6, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom McKnight, homeowner from adjacent neighborhood, was present to speak on the project but stated that he would return on May 5, 1986, to address the Commission. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project, however the public hearing was left open. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2 TO THE MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-6 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-5/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-7 Zone Change No. 86-5 is a request to rezone 0.16 net acres (7113.6 sq. ft.) of property located on the north side of Newman approximately 219 ft. east of Cameron Avenue, from R5 (Office Professional) to R3 (Medium High Density Residential). 1 PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -14- (4599d) This site was originally zoned R2 (Medium Density Residential). In 1967 a zone change to R5 (Office Professional) was requested. The zone change was denied by the Planning Commission because it was considered to be "spot" zoning and was appealed to the City Council. On March 18, 1968, the City Council approved Zone Change No. 67-31. Within the next year zone changes for R2 to R5 had been individually filed and approved for the properties between Cameron and the subject site. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services will have posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-4 for ten days. No comments, either verbal or written has been received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 86-5, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-7. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Roger Slates, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal and stated that he was available for any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-5 WITH FINDINGS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-7 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. A general plan amendment is not required for this project as State Law permits parcels less than one (1) acre to have zoning that is inconsistant with the general plan. 2. Medium high density residential development of the subject site, with a maximum density of 25 units/acre will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. Approval of Zone Change No. 86-5 will not be detrimental to the Health, Safety and Welefare of the surrounding community. PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -15- (4599d) C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-6 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-6 is a request to permit an expansion of an existing day care operation from six to twelve children in a single family dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Shawn LaPointe, applicant, was present to speak in support of the project and answer any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Attorney Sangster suggested a change to wording of Condition No. 8. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-6, WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed day care operation for twelve children will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood as is supported by the petition submitted by the applicant. 2. The access to the day care operation for twelve children will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is compatible with existing residential uses in the neighborhood as exemplified by the petition signed by 28 neighbors, letters of support signed by residents in the neighborhood, and public testimony in support of the application at the meeting. 4. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 1 PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -16- (4599d) 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated February 14, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of only twelve children including the applicant's own four children until they reach the age of twelve. 3. Prior to operation of the day care operation, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. 4. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development Services a copy of the Orange County license which permits care of six to twelve children. 5. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. 6. The applicant shall obtain a business license for the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The garage shall not be used for the day care operation. 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon evidence that the occupancy is detrimental to the neighborhood; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-8 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-8 is a request to permit an expansion of an existing day care operation from six to twelve children in a single family dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Linda Lee Dunham, applicant, was present to speak in support of the project and answer any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Attorney Sangster suggested a change to wording of Condition No. 8. PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -17- (4599d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-8, WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir, Rowe (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed day care operation for twelve children will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood as is supported by the petition submitted by the applicant. 2. The access to the day care operation for twelve children will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is compatible with existing residential uses in the neighborhood as exemplified by the petition signed by 32 neighbors, letters of support signed by residents in the neighborhood, and public testimony in support of the application at the meeting. 4. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated February 24, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of only twelve children including the applicant's two children until they reach the age of twelve. 3. Prior to operation of the day care operation, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. 4. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development Services a copy of the Orange County license which permits care of six to twelve children. 5. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM daily. PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -18- (4599d) 1 1 �I 6. The applicant shall obtain a business license for the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The garage shall not be used for the day care operation. 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon evidence that the occupancy is detrimental to the neighborhood; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-11 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-11 is a request to add a second unit to an existing single family home generally located south of Garfield Avenue west of Ward Street. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time the subject request is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff recommended continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-11 to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed addition. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Judy MacHale, applicant, was present and in support of staff's suggestion for continuance. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-11 TO THE APRIL 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -19- (4599d) C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-392 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.85-36 Conditional Use Permit No. 85-60, in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 85-392 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-36, is a request to construct a four -unit condominium on a 0.15 acre parcel. The site currently supports two single family dwellings with one garage while bounded on two sides by public alleys. District II of the Downtown Specific Plan allows residential development subject to the approval of a conditional use permit when a special permit is requested. The tentative parcel map filed by the applicant is for the consolidation of two lots and will provide a mechanism for obtaining the required dedication. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a 4 unit condominium project is exempt from environmental review. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kenneth R. Gerber, architect on the project, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that he feels the requirements of the City are unfair and that his plans should be approved. Carmen Ferra, applicant, was available to answer any questions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-392/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-36, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The site layout and design of the proposed development does not properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, and other adjacent structures in a harmonious manner. 2. Access to the proposed guest parking for the four unit condominium creates an undue traffic burden. PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -20- (4599d) 3. The project and site will not be enhanced through the use of a special permit. The reduction in open space and encroachment into rear yard for a trash enclosure and parking will diminish the design and quality of a four unit condominium. C-11 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-1 Special Sign Permit No. 86-1 is a request to permit a ten foot high, 42.5 square foot, internal illuminated, freestanding sign at an existing Arco gasoline station located at the southwest corner of Adams Street and Magnolia Avenue. The freestanding sign will advertise the establishment in conjunction with price signage. The applicant has initiated a Special Sign Permit because the proposed sign does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Article 943, Community Business District, in the following area: Section 9430.8.2 (Convenience markets combined with gasoline stations) specifies: (d) Signing. (1) Major Identification Sins. There shall be one (1) major identification sign located in a landscaped area which shall not be more than ten (10) feet high and eight (8) feet wide, with not more than a total of forty (40) square feet per face. Such sign shall bear the name or symbol of the convenience market and gasoline station only, and shall not contain change panels. The proposed sign exceeds the code by 2.5 square feet and also includes changeable price panels which are not permitted. Also, the proposed plans indicate that three existing freestanding signs will be removed and replaced with the proposed freestanding sign. The proposed sign will be placed within a landscape planter. In addition, the applicant is not proposing banner post signs, spandrels, or top -of -pump signs. The only wall signage permitted for the site will be approximately 25 square feet of wall sign to advertise the convenience market (Swift Stop). 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 Scott Barkas, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that he could not go any smaller on the sign and that he required 42.5 square feet. G. P. Dailey, spoke in opposition to the project. He resides in the neighborhood of the ARCO station and he opposes not only the sign but the service station. There are noise problems and lighting problems already. PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -21- (4599d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that the request for 42.5 square feet was reasonable. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND )BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-1 WITH AMENDED 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: 1. The proposed six foot high, 42.5 square foot freestanding sign would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed six foot high, 42.5 square foot freestanding sign would not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed six foot high, 42.5 square foot freestanding sign would not not be in keeping with the character of the shopping center/development and neighborhood. 4. The proposed six foot high, 42.5 square foot freestanding sign will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevation received and dated February 24, 1986, shall be revised to indicate a six foot high, 42.5 sq. ft. sign with 180 panels for price information. 2. Signage shall be restricted to Arco corporation trade logos and copy. 3. All illegal and nonconforming signs shall be removed. 4. Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No. 86-1 if any conditions of approval or violations of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code occurs. 5. The building materials used to construct the base shall be architecturally compatible with the tract walls located to the south and west of the site. PC Minutes - 4/1/86 -22- (4599d) C-12 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-2 Special Sign Permit No. 86-2 is a request by the applicant to construct an 85 sq. ft., internally -illuminated freestanding sign having 14 business identification panels. The proposed sign will be 10 ft. high, 816" wide and located within a landscaped planter. The applicant is also appealing the decision of the Director of Development Services to allow only a maximum of four business identification panels and one center identification panel. A special sign permit is required for this sign based on Section 9760.13 Industrial Districts Freestanding Signs. This section permits one freestanding sign, 10 ft. ig an 60 sq. ft. in area on sites exceeding one acre. The proposed sign is 85 sq. ft. in area, including the base. Special Sign Permit No. 86-2 has also been filed by the applicant for the purpose of allowing 14 tenant panels on the proposed freestanding sign. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant requested, by letter, that Special Sign Permit No. 86-2 be continued until the April 15, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-2 TO THE APRIL 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -23- (4599d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 RESOLUTION NO. 1308 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES To adopt policies regarding affordable housing in the City of Huntington Beach. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE RESOLUTION NO. 1308 TO THE MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BOARD OF REALTORS AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY MORE TIME TO REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE A proposed ordinance to provide the City with the necessary enforcement capabilities to require property owners to maintain their properties in an appropriate manner. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: SAMPLE AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT Approved under Item B - Oral Communications and Commission Items. F. PENDING ITEMS: None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Staff was requested to prepare a report regarding the parking of compact cars (what does our ordinance say, what is the required length of a compact space, can the code be changed). Staff was requested to have the Board of Zoning Adjustments refer Use Permit No. 86-4/Conditional Exception No. 86-18 (an item scheduled for the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting of April 2, 1986) to the Planning Commission for review and approval. PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -24- (4599d) P� H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None I. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 to the next regular meeting of April 15, 1986. Tom Liven oo , air n PC Minutes - 4/l/86 -25- (4599d)