Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-06APPROVED - 5/20/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MAY 6, 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: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: None. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #11955/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 48 senior residential condominiums on property zoned R4-SR and 48 senior residential condominiums on that property being rezoned to R2-SR. The property owners desire that development of each lot be identical. The conditional use permit analysis is based on the total project of 96 units. Tentative Tract No. 11955 was a 10 lot subdivision that was approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1983. All lots of this map have not completed recordation requirements; only 3 lots have been recorded, therefore it has expired. A revised tentative map consisting of 7 lots has been filed to reinstate the subdivision. The conditional use permit project is proposed on lots 2 and 3 of the revised tentative map. 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. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED The applicant requested that this item be continued until a June meeting date. The applicant's agent, John Cowles, was present at the meeting and waived the mandatory processing date. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2 TO THE JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15, 1986) 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. 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. On April 15, 1986, the -Commission continued this item once again to permit the applicant additional time to comply with the conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration Commission on August archeological site. No. 85-50 was adopted by the Planning 20, 1985. The site has been identified as an PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -2- (5103d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners inquired if the installation of the water tanks had been completed on the site. Staff responded that the tanks were on site but had not been properly installed nor filled with water, therefore, there was still a fire hazard. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY PORTER TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR REVOCATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21: 1. Since the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-21, on August 20, 1985 (8 months ago), the applicant has not shown good faith in complying with the conditions of approval within a reasonable amount of time. Non-compliance with the conditions of approval has created an unsafe situation which could result in property damage due to fire. 2. The applicant has failed to comply with two conditions of approval, listed below, within a reasonable amount of time, thus failing to fulfill his obligations under the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-21. a. The fence screening has been installed, however, a number of gaps in the screening still exist. b. The water tanks have been installed but without the availability of water, the danger of fire still exists. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-11 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15, 1986 On April 15, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 86-11 until May 6, 1986 to allow the applicant time to prepare revised plans. The attached site plan depicts the stairs leading to the second unit above the garage as fully enclosed and the garage has been widened 3 feet in width. Staff feels this revised plan conforms to the intent of the code and is recommending approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED The applicant was present and available for questions. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -3- (5103d) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-11 BASED ON THE REVISED PLANS DATED APRIL 24, 1986 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Erskine (out of ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir room) 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-11 for the addition of a second unit attached to 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. 86-11 will substantially comply with the requirements of Article 910 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-11 for the second unit attached to a single family dwelling is consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated April 24, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. The second unit shall not exceed 650 square feet in size. 3. A minimum setback of 5 feet shall be provided etween the enclosed stairway and the side property line. 4. The applicant shall pay the applicable park and recreation fees as spelled out in Section 9101 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. The unit shall comply with all applicable provisions of S.9101.3(c) of of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and the building code. 6. Prior to final occupancy, an agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, and recorded with the County Recorder assuring that at least one of the two units will be occupied by the property owner and that no separate utility meter will be permitted to the second unit. (This will make any future property owners aware of these requirements for a second unit dwelling.) PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -4- (5103d) C-4 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-2 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15, 1986) 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 would 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 only permit 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. high and 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 PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Greg Call, applicant, was present to answer questions and to speak in support of the project. Mr. Call said he was unaware that the base was included in the square footage for the sign dimensions. Mr. Call informed the Commission that he would adjust the sign size to comply with Section 9760.13 if this project was approved. He did take exception to item #2 under "Findings for Denial" stating that he did not believe the proposed sign would create a hazardous traffic condition caused by motorists slowing down to read the small tenant identification panels. He further stated that the 14 tenants need the identification panels for advertising purposes on Gothard and would present economic hardship to them if this were not allowed. He also mentioned that these panels were no different than many others scattered throughout the area. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, (IN THE EVENT THE APPLICATION IS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SIGN DESIGN AND SIZE), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -5- (5103d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Strict compliance with Article 976 will not result in substantial economic hardship. The present code allows for sufficient signage adjacent to Gothard Street to identify the industrial complex. 2. The proposed sign may create a hazardous traffic situation caused by motorists slowing down to read the small tenant identification panels. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-13/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-27 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 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, 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. The public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 86-13 was opened on April 15, 1986, and continued to May , 6, 1986, so that the conditional exception could be advertised. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED The applicant was present and available for questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-13/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-27 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -6- (5103d) MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-27 1. Because of the impassible separation of the DO1 flood control channel and the wrap around of the Pic-N-Save building, the granting of a 20 foot reduction in the distance from residentially zoned property will not reduce the effectiveness of separation of uses as required by Article 975. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-27 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classification. 3. The granting of the Conditional Exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-13: 1. The proposed project is in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan. 2. With the findings for approval of Conditional Exception No. 86-27, it can be found that the proposed location of business meets the intent of the locational criteria for Adult Businesses contained in Article 975 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code; therefore, it will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; or be detrimental or injurious to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on surrounding businesses or land uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-13: 1. This conditional use permit is personal and not transferrable. It is granted to Marie Pelletier. Any change of ownership shall require a new conditional use permit. 2. All applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 5.24 (Massage Establishments) shall be adhered to. 3. The Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed business shall not be issued until the proper police permit is obtained pursuant to Chapter 5.24. C-6 APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-12 Conditional Exception No. 86-12 is a request to permit a seven foot setback in lieu of a 20 foot setback for a direct entry garage for a PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -7- (5103d) proposed single family dwelling. On April 2, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied the applicant's original request of a ten foot setback in lieu of a 20 foot setback for the proposed direct entry garage. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental ua ityAct. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gary Pazornik, owner, was present to answer questions and to speak in support of the project. He said it would be an economic hardship to remove the pool and build according to the 20 ft. garage setback requirement. He also presented additional letters from neighbors supporting his garage plan. Thomas Drummond, architect, also spoke in favor of the project. He said he was given incorrect setback information by staff. He further stated that the garage cannot be placed any other place. He also said that the fish ponds will be removed. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO OVERTURN THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' DENIAL AND TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-12 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS 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 establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 15 foot driveway 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 Conditional Exception No. 86-12 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -8- (5103d) 1 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-12 is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights which include an existing swimming pool in the rear of the lot. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-12 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications, because automatic roll up doors will be provided which will mitigate possible encroachment into the ultimate right-of-way. 5. The proposed 15 foot driveway is compatible with existing residential uses in the neighborhood as exemplified by the letters of support signed by abutting residents in the neighborhood, and public testimony in support of the application at the meeting. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 31, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed single family dwelling shall: a. Utilize automatic, roll -up garage doors; b. Be limited to two stories. 3. The existing swimming pool located in the rear of the lot shall be utilized or Conditional Exception No. 86-12 shall be rendered null and void. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed within twelve (12) months. 6. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 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 off -site facility equipped to handle them. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Exception if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -9- (5103d) C-7 COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1 On April 1, 1986, the Planning Commission held a study session on the White Hole Report, which constitutes the background information for Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1. The item was then scheduled for a public hearing on May 6, 1986. A number of specific issues were discussed at the April 1 study session, including flooding, biology, geology and soils, oil production, the extension of Hamilton Avenue and the alternatives analyzed by staff. Additional information has since been prepared by staff on costs for the fiscal analysis, geology and faults. These sections of the report have been revised . One suggestion for providing property owners with a return on their property was the suggestion for a transfer of development credits (TDC) program. A TDC program requires a receiver site, where the development credits can be used, as well as a plan for assigning development credits to the properties involved. Staff has worked out an illustrative TDC program to show how the concept operates. Removal of Flood Control Levees A number of comments were received on the concept of removing the flood control levees for restoration purposes. Staff believes that restoration will be needed, and that this concept remains a viable one. More definitive measurement of the levees that would be removed indicates that approximately 14.5 acres of new wetland could be created. In addition, the productivity of the existing wetland would be greatly increased. Staff is recommending that, in conjunction with the restoration, 9.5 acres of development be placed along Beach Boulevard and 2.0 acres at Magnolia and Pacific Coast Highway. Hamilton Avenue Extension At the Planning Commission's request, staff has analyzed a more northerly routing of Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Beach Boulevard. This alternative would require acquisition of a large part of the oil tank farm. It would also necessitate a more curvilinear alignment of Hamilton, and would not align the Hamilton extension to meet the extension of Walnut Avenue at Beach Boulevard. This intersection would be an important linkage for traffic flow and emergency access in the southern part of the City. Accordingly, the staff recommends approval of Resolution #1357. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -10- (5103d) Ruth Galanter of the State Coastal Conservancy spoke in opposition to Resolution #1357 as written and in favor of Alternative #1. Wayne Woodroff, California Coastal Commission, spoke in favor of Alternative #1. He expressed concern regarding the TEC plan recommendations by staff. Robert Radovich, Department of Fish and Game, spoke in support of Alternative #1. He felt that Alternatives #2 and #3 were not in agreement with Fish and Game regulations. He felt Alternative #1 was in agreement. Mr. Radovich indicated 13 acres in the white hole area which he believed to be better suited to development than the current proposal. Phyllis Carruthers, who lives near the area under discussion, presented photos showing the area before fencing and what it could look like with restoration. She feels that preserving the natural look could be an asset to the community. She urged the Commission to follow the Coastal Commission's recommendations. Terry Harmon is a resident of the area and wants the subject area returned to a wildlife and natural setting area. Ronald J. DeFelice, Bitter Water Lake Properties, said he had serious concerns about the staff's proposal. He said he had made preliminary arrangements with a developer in the hope of finding a compromise solution to this proposal. He felt that landowners in the White Hole area should have rights. He felt that Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1 should be postponed and possibly an alternative or compromise worked out for the 65 acres between the Edison plant on the west and Brookhurst on the east. Mrs. Robert Belanger, a resident of Huntington Strand, said that she is one of 13 homeowners who paid a premium price for their land because of their view. Her view would be gone if development occurred. She said in 1979 a decision was made that the land was not suitable for development -- what has changed since then? She wants the land left as is. Dean Albright, Environmental Board, stated their support of Alternative #1 -- preserve the wetlands. Herbert Ahn, spoke against the amendment and in support of Alternative #1. Mr. Ahn felt that the area was not safe to build on due to the earthquake fault. He was also opposed to the removal of the flood berms feeling this would be very unwise and unsafe. Martin S. Schwartz, Bitter Water Properties, felt the land is not attractive as it is now and should be developed, but keeping in mind a deep concern for conservation. He feels there can be a balance between property rights and conservation. He would like this agenda item carried over for 30-60 days to give developers an opportunity to see what they can come up with. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -11- (5103d) Gordon Smith spoke in support of Friends of the Wetlands and their attempt to preserve the wetlands as they are. Mr. Smith also is opposed to the removal of the flood control berms feeling this would also be unsafe for local residents. Sally Alexander, Flood Prevention Group, Huntington Beach South, spoke in support of the wetlands as they are and to make the area as free from commercialization as possible. Corinne Welch, Environmental Board, felt that just because land was empty doesn't mean it has to be developed. Let the land alone, it's nice to see vacant land --let's preserve it. Bill Wiseman, local resident, President of Friends of the Huntington Beach Wetlands. Mr. Wiseman feels we should beautify the coast line not detract from it. He also was strongly against the gas station in the middle of the wetlands indicating he felt this would create dangerous traffic patterns. He also felt that the proposed mini -mart would attract teenagers, transients, etc., not the type of people the residents would want to have there. He wants the wetlands preserved. Dr. Victor Leipzig, Vice President, Amigos de Bolsa Chica was supportive of the restoration of the wetlands and is opposed to any development in the wetlands. Ron Yocom, was against staff's recommendations; he wants to preserve the wetlands. He felt residents didn't want another New York City here. Zita Kozata, spoke in favor of preserving the wetlands and in opposition to any development in the wetlands area. Glenn Richmond, a student at Ocean View High School, was opposed to staff's recommendations. He enjoys being able to drive in the area and see wide open spaces. He wants to preserve the natural setting -- we don't need more buildings. Bill Curtis, Zonal Holdings Corp., and an owner of the mineral rights of 112 acres on Pacific Coast Highway, wants to develop the area -- feels this is not a true wetlands. He would like to see a nice hotel to keep the area nice. He was not in agreement with Alternative 1, 2 or 3. Felt this agenda item should be continued. Daisy Piccirelli, a property owner since 1946, and the largest private landowner, expressed her feelings that selling her land for development was her only alternative. She needs money to pay her property taxes and has run out of options. She asked all present what else can she do. Gary Gorman, Vice President, Friends of the Huntington Beach Wetlands, was in favor of Alternative #1. He felt it would be irresponsible to drill for oil in the wetlands. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -12- (5103d) 11 1 Robert London Moore, Jr., Mills Land & Water Company, grandson of the person purchasing the property in 1901. He is an 80 year taxpayer who wants the land developed. Mr. Moore was opposed to breaching the flood levees -- felt this could lead to disaster. Dr. Christine Padesky, property owner, in favor of the staff's presentation. She wondered where the landowners opposed to the proposal were last year when she helped pick up trash in the area. Tony Lopez, resident, wants to preserve the wetlands. Expressed concern of losing the natural habitat of the area. Georgina Usui, spoke in support of preserving the wetlands. She hoped the City would do something to help Daisy Piccirelli. She hoped that if the wetlands could be preserved that more birds would return to the area. She wants the City, the residents, the developers, to work together. Ron Parone, local resident, spoke in favor of preserving the wetlands. He mentioned seeing a flamingo in the area and hoped this was a good sign of other species of birds returning to the wetlands. Dr. Donald Shipley, wanted to preserve the wetlands. Felt there should be a balance between conservation and development. Chuck Gant, was supportive of Alternative #1. Mr. Gant doesn't feel that the Magnolia area could support any more traffic -- it's already too congested. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners also expressed concern about the oil drilling site in this proposal. They were concerned if there were legal reasons why drilling had to be in this spot. Some of the Commissioners felt that this was an issue of either/or -- must decide for development or for conservation. The Commissioners expressed their thanks to the many residents who came to the meeting and spoke. The Commissioners also want to thank the following groups or agencies for their representation at the meeting: State Coastal Conservancy; the California Coastal Commission; the Department of Fish and Game; Bitter Water Lake Properties; the Environmental Board; the Friends of the Wetlands; Flood Prevention Group (Huntington Beach South); Friends of the Huntington Beach Wetlands; Amigos de Bolsa Chica; zonal Holdings Corp.; Mills Land & Water Co. The Commissioners had some of the same concerns -- loss of the wetlands when most of the wetlands in California have already disappeared. Staff informed the Commission that Dr. Vogel feels the area would benefit from restoration, contrary to the opinions expressed in his letter. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION #1357 - ALTERNATIVE 1 AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -13- (5103d) AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE #3 OF THE HAMILTON EXTENSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Adopt Resolution No. 1357, Alternative #1, as amended, recommending land uses for the White Hole area to the City Council for adoption. C-8 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-26 Conditional Exception No. 86-26 is a request to permit the creation of two parcels which will have less than the required minimum lot area and lot width. The existing parcel has 61 feet of street frontage, measured from a 20' setback line from Main Street, and is 7,301 square feet in size. Proposed Parcel "A" will be 3,350 square feet in size with 3419" street frontage along Main Street. Proposed Parcel "B" will be 3,951 square feet in size and 26'4" in width fronting Main Street. Current code requires newly created interior lots to be a minimum of 6,000 square feet in size and 60 feet in width; and exterior lots to be a minimum of 6,500 square feet and 65 feet in width. Garage access for Parcel "A" is proposed from Tenth Street, Parcel B from the alley. Reduction in lot size and lot width can only be approved with a conditional exception before the Planning Commission. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-25 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 Conditional Exception No. 86-26, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-25. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ernest T. Oddo, co-owner, was present and voiced his support for the staff's recommendation. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -14- (5103d) 1 Arline Howard spoke in opposition to this lot split because of design. She feels this plan would not fit into the neighborhood, it should be a one-story building, and that the two proposed lots would be one-third less required footage than the required if this approval was granted. Dr. Donald Shipley felt no action should be taken until the 45 day building moratorium was resolved. He felt that if this agenda item was approved that it would create a parking problem. He is opposed to granting this request. Alfred J. Cusolito, a resident 50 feet from property, opposes the project and feels the neighborhood should remain as it is. Harold I. Ewell, feels this permit should not be granted. Felt there would be parking problems. Also asked if we wanted R1 or R2 zoning down there. Gae Brummett spoke for her mother who lives across the street. She spoke against the lot split and feels one house could be built so that property owner could still realize a profit which she believes is his intention. Parking problems would be increased. Carolyn Beaton spoke against approval of this item. If approved, she felt the lots would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Jerry Galich is against the project. Does not want an exception to this property. Feels more than one building would not help the esthetics and would not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood and would be contrary to the neighborhood desires. Leonard Rosow was opposed to this item and felt it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Ernest Oddo, felt this item is not in violation of the 45 day moratorium. Feels there are many lots in Huntington Beach that are smaller than this lot in question. He feels this would not be in violation of past amendments and that this item should be approved. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -15- (5103d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners discussed the intent of the 45 day moratorium. Commissioners expressed concern about the zoning in this area and felt it should be looked at. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-26 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-25 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None 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 that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. The exceptions request for lot area and lot width was excessive. Lot area: Lot A 48% Lot B 40% Lot frontage: Lot A 47% Lot B 57% 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. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. Most single family developments in the vicinity are on 50 foot wide lots. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -16- (5103d) C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 86-11 The applicant is requesting to construct a 994 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,599 sq. ft. activity room on existing church property. The proposed addition and activity building itself are to be used by the same people after attending church services for such things as teen meetings, movies, crafts and bingo. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15101 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-10 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS 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 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The submitted site plan dated February 28, 1986, shall be revised and resubmitted for review and approval by the Director of Development Services as per the items listed below: PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -17- (5103d) (a) Restripe handicapped parking stalls located to the west of the main assembly building per City standards and thereby provide three handicapped and one standard stall. (b) Restripe parking lot and provide curbing for the remainder of parking lot as per submitted plans dated February 28, 1986. (c) Label compact parking stalls on plan. 2. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 3. Prior to the operation of bingo at the subject property, the applicant/owner shall comply with Chapter 5.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 4. The proposed addition shall comply with requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 5. Install required street light(s) per Public Works Department requirement. 6. Developer shall remove shed and fencing at southwest corner of subject site, prior to issuance of building permits. 7. All previous conditions for Conditional Use Permit No. 73-10, imposed by the Planning Commission, shall remain applicable. 8. The developer shall submit complete elevations fot review and approval by the Director of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Compliance with all applicable City of Huntington Beach Fire Code Ordinance regarding occupancy, sprinkling, hydrants. 10. 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. 11. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 12. The applicant/owner shall apply for a use permit for any temporary outdoor special events and obtain approval from the Board of Zoning'Adjustments. C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-16 Use Permit No. 85-80 for the establishment of a restaurant use was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on December 18, 1985. Condition #3 of the use permit read, "There shall be no live entertainment or dancing in the restaurant." In order to receive PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -18- (5103d) approval for any type of live entertainment, Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Sections 9472.2 and 9730.83 require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Board of Zoning Adjustments could not grant a request for live entertainment at the time of original use permit approval. The applicant is requesting live entertainment only, which would consist of a piano player, harpist, guitarist, chamber group, etc. The mood of the music is to be quiet and consistent with the dinner -house atmosphere. No concerts will be held and no dancing is being requested. The applicant indicated that the music will be played during and after the dinner hour. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1, Section 15101 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Charles E. Fitzgerald, applicant, spoke in support of staff's recommendations and was available for questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed this item and amended the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-16 WITH AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS 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 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 - 5/6/86 -19- (5103d) 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This approval is for unamplified live entertainment and does not constitute approval of a disc jockey, jukebox, "concerts" or dance floor. Entertainment will not go beyond midnight. 2. Occupancy shall not exceed Uniform Building Code requirements. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval from Use Permit No. 85-80, not specifically changed as a result of this Conditional Use Permit. 4. 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. The Planning Commission reserves the right to add additional conditions to Conditional Use Permit No. 86-16, if future problems occur as a result of the live entertainment facility. This shall be preceded by a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 5. If the facility is found to be in violation of Section 8.40, Noises of the Municipal Code, corrective measures shall immediately be taken by the owner/management to correct the noise violation. 6. A revised floor plan shall be submitted which complies with all Building and Fire Department requirements. C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16 This item was continued at the meeting of April 15, 1986, in order to give the stable owners more time for review. As of this date, no comments have been received. Code Amendment No. 86-16 proposes 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. Content changes are discussed below. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -20- (5103d) Bonnie Wakeham, ETI Corral, asked for this item to be continued. She is currently interviewing stable owners to compile information in order to make an intelligent report. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners would like the staff to work with the equestrian group on this item. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16 TO THE JUNE 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-18 The attached code amendment reorganizes the provisions for unclassified uses, those uses permitted in most districts subject to Planning Commission approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 3, 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 - 5/6/86 -21- (5103d) C-13 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-17 The attached code amendment streamlines provisions in the subject areas listed above. In addition, the articles have been modified to be consistent in format and numbering with the rest of Division 9. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-17 TO THE JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSON BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ` ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-14 AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES On August 20, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1347 approving draft housing policies and recommending them to the City Council for adoption. The Council considered the recommended policies on September 23, 1985, and requested that the staff do further research and meet again with the Housing Committee to make any necessary adjustments to the policies. Staff subsequently compiled a survey of affordable housing within the City, which was distributed to the Planning Commission in December 1985. Staff met twice with the Housing Committee in January, 1986, to develop the revised draft affordable housing policies. The revised policies were distributed to the Huntington Beach/ Fountain Valley Board of Realtors and the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce for their comments. No response has been received from them as yet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -22- (5103d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 17, 1986 STUDY SESSION AT 6:00 PM BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-7 Site Plan Amendment No. 86-7 is a request to permit a 6' high wrought iron fence, with pedestrian gates and to also request a permit to construct a pedestrian gate on Atlanta Ave between the existing condominium buildings located on the west side of Admiralty Lane and on the north side of Main Mast Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1, K, Section 15101 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A MOTION WAS MADE TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-7 BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ASSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The construction of the 6' high wrought iron fence and pedestrian gates 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 proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -23- (5103d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated March 21, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. All previous conditions of Conditional Use Permit 83-34, Tentative Tract 12115 and Conditional Use Permit 83-6 shall remain in effect. 3. The pedestrian gates shall not be equipped with any type of locking device which shall prohibit entry or exit by residents of the apartments or condominiums. 4. The wrought iron fence shall be architecturally compatible with existing wrought iron fences in the development. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. 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. D-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-16 The applicant's request is for the construction of a single family dwelling on a twenty-five foot wide lot. The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. The specific plan permits residential uses subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff recommended that this item be continued in order to provide sufficient time to determine if the project is being proposed on a legal building site. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-3 REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION #1327 Attached for the Planning Commission's review is a list of uses that the applicant desires to add to Resolution No. 1327 which was PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -24- (5103d) approved on September 18, 1984 (in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 84-20). The applicant has indicated that the current list of permitted uses allowed in buildings one and two which front Warner Avenue are too restrictive. The intent of Resolution No. 1327 is to reduce the number of commercial uses which may cause traffic and parking impacts. The parking provided for buildings one and two is one space per 200 square feet of gross building area which is the City's current parking requirement for general retail activities. Buildings 3 through 7 are parked at a one space per 500 square feet of gross building area which represents the code requirement for manufacturing and assembly. The mini -storage buildings (Buildings 8 and 9) are parked at the code requirement of one space per 5,000 square feet of gross building area. The project currently has 28 excess parking spaces. The additional permitted uses that the applicant has proposed for buildings one and two have been reviewed by staff and staff feels that the home improvement type uses are compatible with the Planning Commission's intent to only allow industrial/warehouse uses at this site and keep commercial activities in the commercially zoned areas. The applicant has submitted a list of uses of which staff feels that only four will be compatible with the concept of the mixed use industrial/commercial project which was approved in 1984. The following is a list of additional uses which staff feels are appropriate for buildings one and two: Blueprinting and photostat service (including mail and print service Warehouse shoe sales Home improvement stores Electrical supply store, wholesale and retail Staff feels that the balance of the proposed uses (see letter dated April 22, 1986) are not closely associated with industrial/warehouse uses and are better suited for commercial districts. The applicant submitted a written request to continue this item. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION #1327 TO THE MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -25- (5103d) F. G. H. I. W. PENDING ITEMS: Compact Parking Standards - Chairman Livengood expressed a desire to have an appropriate number of parking stalls at Charter Centre designated as handicapped as soon as possible and compact car stalls designated as such. He also wanted this item left as a pending item on the agenda. Illegal banner at Graham Chiropracter Office - Attorney Sangster informed the Planning Commission that this matter was before the City Prosecutor's office for prosecution. Ruins of the Holly Sugar Plant - Clean Up - It was indicated that this item is being cleaned up but the work is not yet fully completed. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The code amendment regarding the definition of height and the amendment regarding provision to exceed height limits in R2, R3 and R4 Districts were discussed by the Commission. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Granny Units ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. to the scheduled joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on May 12, 1986 at 6:00 p.m. and to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 20, 1986. es W. Palin, Secretary Tom L e I good, a' man PC Minutes - 5/6/86 -26- (5103d) 0