Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-15APPROVED - 5/20/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY. APRIL 15, 1986 - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P A P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, P P Mirjahangir, Erskine (Arrived at 7:10 PM) A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes March 18, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A-2 Minutes April 1, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 18, 1916 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITH CORRECTIONS, AND THE APRIL 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine (arrived late) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-3 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 86-3 To construct a retarding basin and associated improvements on a portion of the Bartlett Park Site MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 86-3 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 Joint Study Session with City Council on May 12, 1986, to discuss the proposed sign code amendment (Code Amendment No. 84-11) Commissioner Livengood requested that notification be sent to the Commissioners regarding the Study Session on May 12, 1986. B-2 The Commissioners discussed that an additional meeting be scheduled to cover continued items from agendas that cannot be completed during a regular scheduled meeting and also suggested that an 11:00 time limit be set for future meetings. 1 PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -2- (4761d) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 THROUGH C-15 AND ITEMS D-1 THROUGH D-4 WERE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: C-3 (Continued), C-5 (Withdrawn), C-6 (Continued), C-15 (Continued), C-1, C2 and C-4 (Continued), C-7, C-8, C-9, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13, and C-14. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21 Conditional Use Permit No. 85-21, a request to permit the chipping and storage 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. At the April 1, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to continue this item for two weeks to allow the applicant an opportunity to comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 85-21. As of April 11, 1986, the applicant has made a good faith effort in complying with the majority of the conditions. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 85-21. Staff also recommended that this item be reviewed again by the Planning Commission within 90 days to determine if any additional violations of the conditions of approval have occurred. 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. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Mike Strange, staff, also informed the Commission that Mr. Cotter had scheduled water tanks to be brought in on Saturday, the mulching material had already been removed, and that the screening on the chain link fence would also be complete by then. The Commissioners were concerned with the possible liabilities that might occur if any more time was allowed. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -3- (4761d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE THE REVOCATION HEARING UNTIL THE MAY 6, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND IF THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOT CLEARED UP AT THAT TIME THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE REVOKED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-11 On April 1, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 86-11 to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed second unit addition. As an alternative to the original design, the applicant initially thought that the second unit could be accommodated in the rear yard of the lot. However, after discussing the matter with her contractor, Mrs. MacHale discovered that adding the second unit in the rear yard would be cost prohibitive. As a second alternative, the applicant has proposed to enclose the stairway in the 8 foot sideyard setback and extend the garage by 3 feet in order to visually block the stairway from street view. Staff believes that the second unit should be constructed in the rear half of the lot (above the existing home) in order to be compatible with other two story homes in the neighborhood and to limit the visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Judy MacHale, applicant, was present to speak in support of the project. She explained that the addition was to house her retired mother. She felt that her wide lot would accomodate the stairway and that her budget would prohibit her from making any extensive changes to her plans, however she was willing to make modifications. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROWE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-11, TO THE MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO SUBMIT A NEW PLAN, WHICH WILL MORE CLEARLY DEPICT THE LOCATION OF THE STAIRWAY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None I MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -4- (4761d) C-3 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, 8'6" wide and located within a landscaped planter. The applicant is also appealing the decision of the Director of Development Services to only permit a maximum of four business identification panels and one center identification panel. 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 A request for continuance was received April 14, 1986, from the applicant to allow the tenants affected by the sign time to review the alternatives suggested by the City. There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-2 TO THE MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of March 18, 1986. The Planning Commission and City Council have in recent weeks discussed the issue of reconstructing nonconforming residential structures after fire damage or other destruction. Development Services has studied the problems involved, surveyed other cities' approaches (Attachment #1), identified alternatives (Attachment #2), and is recommending that a provision be added addressing such circumstances. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -5- (4761d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kirk Kirkland, Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, presented a letter to the Commissioners expressing concerns on behalf of the property owners in Huntington Beach. The property owners of nonconforming structures are having difficulty obtaining competitive financing upon resale. If reconstruction is allowed with density based on lot area as determined at the time of the original permit, absolute protection would be provided to those who complied with City Codes which were current at the time the property was constructed. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. It was suggested that staff contact the cities of Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and Seal Beach to see what they are doing about the reconstruction of non -conforming residential units. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 TO THE MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-9/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-9/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-21 A request to operate a -retail frozen yogurt shop in an existing building with conditional exception to parking requirements and special permit request for setbacks and landscaping. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission withdraw the application since the applicant has submitted more detailed plans showing that the minimum parking requirements can be met. Since there is no change in the amount of parking required as compared to the previous real estate office use, the provisions for setbacks and open space do not apply; therefore, the special permit is not necessary. Inasmuch as a conditional exception is not required, the conditional use permit and the coastal development permit would not be required. A letter was presented from the applicant requesting that his application be withdrawn. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -6- (4761d) MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL TO WITHDRAW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-9/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-9/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-21 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-13 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-13 is a request to establish Beatrice Accupressure at 21070 Beach Boulevard pursuant to the requirements of Article 975 (Adult Entertainment Businesses). The applicant has already leased the space and was informed of the need for a conditional use permit when she applied for a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff's research of the building she has leased indicates that it falls approximately 20 feet short of the required 200 foot distance from residentially zoned property. Staff has, therefore, requested that the applicant file a request for Conditional Exception to the locational criteria of Article 975, such conditional exception to be processed concurrently with the conditional use permit. Staff recommends that the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 86-13 be opened and continued to May 6, 1986, so that the conditional exception can be advertised. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-13 TO THE MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SO THAT A CONCURRENT CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION CAN BE ADVERTISED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES:. None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-69 Conditional Use Permit No. 85-69 is a request to construct a bus transportation center on a 2.7 acre site within the Huntington Center Redevelopment project area. The site will primarily be used as a transfer station for Orange County Bus routes and a "kiss and ride" terminal for Greyhound/Airport service commuters. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -7- (4761d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In November, 1984, the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report No. 84-4 assessing the environmental effects of proposed improvements within the Huntington Center Redevelopment project area. To supplement this report, a traffic analysis was prepared addressing the specific circulation issues in and around the transportation center. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Michael Mack, Orange County Transportation District, spoke in support of the project and was available to answer any questions. He expressed concern regarding a left -turn pocket being installed. He felt that it would be very difficult for motorists. He also stated that the District does feel that the transportation center design does have a design theme similar to One Pacific Plaza and suggested a change to Condition No. 2. Rewording of Condition No. was also submitted by the applicant. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Parking problems were discussed by the Commissioners. They could foresee students using the transportation center parking lot as a free place to park. They felt a parking structure should be constructed. An added finding was suggested regarding the provided parking. A condition of approval was added regarding signs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-69 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-69: 1. The proposed Orange County Transit District Transportation Center will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area. 2. The proposed transportation center is in conformance with the land use element of the general plan designating the site Public -Quasi Public -Institutional. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -8- (4761d) 3. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly adapt the proposed structure to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. The parking provided is 119 spaces which exceeds the estimated 75 spaces needed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-69: 1. The site plan dated April 2, 1986, shall be modified to reflect the following revisions: a. The landscape planters along the perimeter of the site shall have a minimum width of 10 feet. b. A minimum of 8% of the total site shall be in landscaping which is approved by the Department of Development Services and Public Works. 2. Revised elevations depicting a landscape and design theme similar to Goldenwest College and surrounding properties shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and comment. 3. All building spoils, such as unuseable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable, materials, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 4. If lighting is installed in the parking lot energy efficient lamps shall be used, such as high pressure sodium vapor or metal hallides. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 5. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed and approved by the building division. 6. The Transportation Center shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code. 7. If parking or circulation problems arise as a result of the Transportation Center, a traffic study shall be prepared (at the expense of OCTD) to determine possible solutions. The Planning Commission reserves the right to require the construction of the appropriate traffic study solution to the parking or circulation problem. Said improvements to be determined at a regular public hearing of the Planning Commission. 8. Orange County Transit District shall reserve the "Air Rights" above the subject site for possible future use (office structure or parking compound). 9. All freestanding signs shall be low profile monument signs. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -9- (4761d) C-8 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-10 Zone Change No. 86-7 is a request to rezone two one -acre parcels on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 800 feet north of Warner Avenue from (Q)C4, Qualified Highway Commercial and C4, Highway Commercial to R2, Medium Density Residential. The southerly parcel was rezoned to C4 from R2 in 1972; the northerly parcel was rezoned to (Q)C4 from R2 in 1980. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-10 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. 86-7, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-10. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Robert Skinner spoke in support of the project and stated that he and his client felt they were in compliance with the master plan of the City. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-10 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-7 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject properties as Medium Density Residential, therefore the requested zone change is consistent with the General Plan. 2. Residential development of the subject property will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The Qualified Classification will assure a development more compatible with the surrounding properties. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -10- (4761d) CONDITION OF APPPOVAL: 1. The two subject properties shall be developed as an integrated development, either in the form of a large project or subdivided into smaller lots with a cul-de-sac street. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-14 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-14 is a request to construct a custom three-story, three bedroom single family residence on a 25 foot wide lot within the Downtown Specific Plan. Typically, a site plan review is required for single family residences within the Downtown Specific Plan; however, in this particular case, a special permit is requested which can only be approved as part of a conditional use permit. The two special permit requests are for 54.3% lot coverage in lieu of 50% and a 24.8 foot "averaged" third floor front setback in lieu of a straight 25 foot setback; the third floor setback ranges from 21 feet to approximately 32 feet. Single family residences are subject to the development requirements of the Townlot Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class 3, Section 15303 of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Letters were presented from homeowners in the area supporting the project and the request for increased coverage (Mrs. Walter VanOeffelen, George and Caryl Kipper, Mimi Thompson, Violet Warren Cowden, Cathy and Anthony Babiak). Gerald Caterina, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He requested extra coverage for his four car garage. He expressed his concern for the parking problems in the area. John King, architect for the project, emphasized his support of the project. He showed a photo album and explained how the applicants researched their project before designing it. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell asked whether the houses on each side of this project would be cut off from view. She was concerned that they would be and the project would be an impediment to the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -11- (4761d) 0 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-14 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-14: 1. The conditional use permit with special permit for average third floor setbacks only is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use and Downtown Specific Plan. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the single family residence 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. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AVERAGE THIRD FLOOR SETBACK AND MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 1. Third floor setback average and 53.1% site coverage are consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan. 2. Third floor setback average and 53.1% site coverage provide aesthetically pleasing architecture. 3. The special permit is consistent with the policies of the coastal permit of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Reduce site coverage to 53.1% or less. b. Provide a minimum front setback of 12 feet. c. Comply with all other aspects of the Townlot Specific Plan except for the averaged third floor setback. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -12- (4761d) d. Provide direct stairway access -from the second floor entryway to the first floor. 2. Elevations shall be revised to reflect the following as' recommended by Design Review Board: a. Mission the mansard roof on back side of the first and second floors to soften the step transitions. b. Extend decorative relief band midway along sides of building. c. Provide small pane glass windows on all sliding windows and glass doors. d. Provide hip roof at northeast corner of buildings. 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 979.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department except as noted herein. 6. A 2'6" alley right of way and 2' public utility easement along 15th. Street shall be dedicated per Public Works standards. 7. All necessary street and alley -improvements shall be installed per Public Works requirements. 8. Curb shall be constructed 29.5' from centerline of 15th. Street. 9. Street furniture shall be relocated to within 2 feet of the public utility easement behind sidewalk. 10. A st.reet improvement plan shall be designed and coordinated with the new improvements on the block. 11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -13- (4761d) 12. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 13. 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. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. C-10 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-11 Code Amendment No. 86-11 involves the clean-up and relocation of four separate articles in Division 9. Provisions have been streamlined and redundant language has been eliminated. For planned residential developments, three articles have been consolidated into one. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A discussion ensued regarding building bulk. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-11, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-12 Code Amendment No. 86-12 cleans up and relocates provisions for the Visitor.Serving Commercial district to Chapter 92, Commercial Districts. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -14- (4761d) There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission suggested several changes to the code. It was suggested that under Permitted Uses the following listings be moved so that they could be found more easily: Curio Gift shop moved to "G. Gift Shop, Curio Shop"; and Drive-thru restaurants moved under "R. Restaurants, Drive-thru." Also, in the wording under General Provisions, change "year-round residents" to "permanent residents". In the section regarding Setbacks the following wording was suggested: "Setbacks are as listed below or as depicted on the District Map." A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-12, WITH REVISIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-13 Specific plans within the City have been adopted by both resolution and ordinance. Staff, as part of the streamlining of Division 9, is requesting that the Commission remove the Pacifica Community Plan and the North Huntington Center Specific Plan from Division 9 and readopt them by resolution. No wording would be changed in the process. Current specific plans adopted by resolution include the Seabridge Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan, which are available to the public as separate documents. In addition, this code amendment adds a list of these separate specific plans at the beginning of the code (Section 9060) along side the list of the traditional zoning districts. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -15- (4761d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-13, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO ADOPT BY RESOLUTION THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY PLAN AND NORTH HUNTINGTON CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-13 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-14 The proposed amendment to Article 913 cleans up provisions related to setbacks by merely re -writing them in chart form. The content change involves the application of the article to larger apartment complex developments. This subject has never been addressed in the Oldtown/Townlot areas, but in anticipation of future development requests, staff is requesting modification at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. It was suggested that a provision be made for yards and fencing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CHANGE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT UNDER S.9130.4 TO 25 FEET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -16- (4761d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-14, WITH AMENDMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Rowe, Livengood, Winchell Schumacher None C-14 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-15 Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir Code Amendment No. 86-15 cleans up and consolidates four existing articles into one. The only substantive change has been the deletion of archaic language. The Qualified classification (Q) is the one designation in which changes have been incorporated. The "Q" classification has been modified to more clearly reflect the manner in which it is utilized. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. It was suggested that wherever a suffix or overlay zone is designated that the underlying zone be shown in parenthesis. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-15, WITH MODIFICATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-15 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16 Code Amendment No. 86-16 proposes to repeal existing Articles 938, 939 and 963 in order to consolidate provisions for horse stables, update the language, and reorganize the article. The current operators of horse stables have been provided a copy of the ordinance for review, as has a local horse club. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -17- (4761d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16 TO THE MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -18- (4761d) 1 D. ITEMS (NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING) D-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-3 Applicant: Ursino Development Corp. Request: Construction of a single family dwelling in Downtown Specific Plan area (121 15th. Street) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-3 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSSENT: Schumacher, Rowe (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-3: 1. The proposal for a single family residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed single family residence will not adversely affect the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residence is compatible with other uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orient the proposed structure to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed single family dwelling .will not create any undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-3: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein. a. A sloped roof on the left (exterior) side of the building, omitting the clerestory windows and using skylights to provide additional sunlight to the bedrooms. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -19- (4761d) b. Extend the decorative trim piece between the first and second level of the building on the front facade around the front and 10 feet down the right (interior) side of the building. c. Small paned windows shall be used on the front and exterior side elevation. d. A mansard roof shall be placed above the garage on the rear and exterior side yard elevation. e. The average height of the front roof peak shall not exceed 22 feet in height. 2. A materials pallet shall Abe submitted for approval by the Director of Development Services. 3. Any changes to the exterior elevations or materials specification shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 4. The project shall comply with all other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Huntington Beach: a. Two and one-half feet on the rear alley; b. A twenty (20) foot corner radius at Walnut and 15th Streets; c. A two (2) foot Public Utilities Easement on 15th Street. 6. The applicant shall construct all street improvements as required by the Public Works Department including moving the curb and gutter on 15th Street to a distance of twenty-nine and one-half (29 1/2) feet from the center line of 15th Street. 7. The applicant shall relocate utilities and street furniture to the two foot Public Utilities Easement along 15th-Street. 8. The applicant shall coordinate all plans and improvements with the project to the south -on 15th Street. 9. Landscaping shall comply with 5.9130.12 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 10. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 11. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 12. 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. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -20- (4761d) 1 13. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. D-2 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-4 Applicant: Joyce Zuck Request: To construct a chain link fence around a field in order to use it as an athletic field for the First Christian Church (1207 Main Street) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-4 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Mirjahangir (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 86-4: 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 site plan amendment 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 86-4: 1. The site plan dated March 14, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved site plan. 2. The fence shall be setback five feet from the property line along 17th Street. Low shrubs shall be planted in the five foot setback area. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -21- (4761d) 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the fence, a Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. 4. Installation of required landscaping shall be completed within twelve (12) months. 5. Access to the driveway entrance off 17th. Street shall be blocked while the field is in use through the use of a vehicular security gate as per specification number 403, Huntington Beach Fire Code Section 10.207(a). The vehicular security gate must be reviewed and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. D-3 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-28 Applicant: One Pacific Plaza II Request: To increase the area of an approved office building from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. - A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-28 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Mirjahangir (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The revision of the parking layout and increase of 51000 square feet of floor area will not constitute a substantial change in the approved project because an increase in the percentage of parking has been provided. 2. The use of the subject property will .remain as an office use. 3. The project density will remain the same. 4. The revision to the parking layout and addition of 5,000 square feet of floor area will result in an improved development by providing a greater percentage of surface parking and a more efficient use of the land. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-28: 1. The site plan dated February 24, 19861 shall be the approved layout. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -22- (4761d) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a south building elevation for the proposed building on Pad G. Said plan shall also include a cross section depicting height of perimeter walls, and type of landscaping fronting on Center Drive. D-4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12760 Applicant:: The Stellr.echt Co. Request: A 10 lot subdivision for single family homes (east of Sims, 80 feet south of Orion) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12760 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe; Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Mirjahangir (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of the development. Therefore, the project, as proposed, complies with the City's General Plan. 2. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design and implementation features of the subdivision, are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and City Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The proposed subdivision of this 2.35 acre site zoned R1 (Single Family Residential) is proposed to be developed as 10 single family homes which will comply with applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Tentative Tract Map 12760 dated April 9, 1986, shall be the approved layout subject to the folloing: a. "A" Street shall be constructed with 36 feet curb -to -curb width, 4 foot wide sidewalks and a 2 foot wide public utility easement where street furniture shall be located. 2. Drainage, sewer and water improvements shall be constructed per Public Works standards. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -23- (4761d) 3. All utilities shall be installed under ground at the time that said parcels are developed. 4. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district at the time said parcels are developed. 5. A copy of final recorded map shall be filed with the Department of Development Services and Department of Public Works. 6. A copy of final recorded map shall be filed with the Department of Public Works. 7. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a geological report in order to comply with the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. Said report shall be prepared in accordance with State requirements. 8. A Soils Report shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of grading permits. 9. Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies shall also be submitted per City of Huntington Beach requirements. 10. Parking shall be permitted on both sides of the street including the cul-de-sac. 11. Cul-de-sac shall be constructed pursuant to Tentative Tract No. 12760 dated April 9, 1986 (with a 72 foot diameter). 12. The applicant shall redesign the proposed block wall along the south east portion of the cul-de-sac so that the remnant piece created by the cul-de-sac design is eliminated. Such redesign shall require the applicant to quit claim/sell the "remnant" property to the adjacent property owner. 13. Development of the proposed 10 single family homes shall comply with all applicable revisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 -24- (4761d) L 1 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ELLIS/GOLDENWEST MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT REPORT The Commission requested that a calendar of meetings on the Ellis/Goldenwest Master Plan be prepared. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR JUNE 10, 1986 AND TO TENTATIVELY SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ELLIS/GOLDENWEST MASTER PLAN FOR JULY 11 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED (DINNER TO BE SERVED AT 5:30, STUDY SESSION 6:00, REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00). F. PENDING ITEMS: 1. Illegal banner at Graham Chiropractic Office 2. l0th./Main Street Study and Report 3. Height of Parapets Modification 4. Service Station Signs (76 signs) should be on monument bases 5. Ruins of the Holly Sugar Plant need to be cleaned up G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. Policy Directive to Incorporate Grading into the Plans 2. Compact parking ordinance review 3. commissioners requested a copy of the new Sign Code 4. When new ordinances and specific plans are complete would like new binders containing same. 5. Agendas are too lengthy - would prefer no more than 10 to 12 public hearing items at any one meeting. PC Minutes - 4/15/86 W4.1m (4761d) H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None I. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 PM to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 6, 1986. Approved: Tom Liv ng o , Ch irm 1 [J PC Minutes - 4/15/86' -26- (4761d)