HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-20APPROVED - 6/17/86
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY. MAY 20. 1986 - 7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
P P P P A P
ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter,
P
Mirjahangir
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A-1 Minutes of 4/15/86 Planning Commission Meeting
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITH
CORRECTIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: Schumacher
MOTION PASSED
A-2 Minutes of 5/6/86 Planning Commission Meeting
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES OF THE MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITH
CORRECTIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS:
Spencer Sheldon, Angus Petroleum, spoke on item D-3, Tentative Tract
Map #12746 and D-4, Tentative Tract Map #12747. He wanted condition
#11 deleted from the tract maps. He felt it would be more
appropriate to deal with the setback issue at the site plan stage of
the process.
Commissioners expressed concern about property owners in the loth
and Main Street neighborhood. Commissioners recommended that
perhaps that area should be R2 "Q" with the "Q" to address specific
problems.
Approval of Resolution and Map for Coastal Element Amendment No. 86-1
Gordon Smith, Friends of Huntington Wetlands, spoke in support of
either the 5 or 7 acres of Visitor Serving Commercial version of
Resolution 1357. He also spoke in favor of deleting the Hamilton
Avenue extension.
Robert Mills, Mills Land & Water Co., felt that approval of Coastal
Element Amendment No. 86-1 should be delayed until the Circulation
Element issue has been resolved. He supported the extension of
Hamilton Avenue and said that Public Works and the Fire Department
had expressed to him their support also.
After a brief discussion by the Commissioners, A MOTION WAS MADE BY
PORTER, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1357 (WITH
THE 5 ACRE VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL VERSION) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MOTION PASSED
Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
None
Erskine
None
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
C-1 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10
The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of
April 15, 1986. Staff has continued to study the issues and has
surveyed the cities of Seal Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach
as directed by the Planning Commission.
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff recommended continuance of this item in order to have
sufficient time to modify the code amendment to address concerns
that have been expressed. Staff asked to have the public hearing
opened.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -2- (5241d)
Jim Wilson, a downtown property owner, spoke in opposition to Code
Amendment 86-10. His home was built in 1976 and according to
parking requirements of this Amendment, he would be unable to
rebuild his home if destroyed by fire. He also said this Amendment
would prevent property owners from obtaining fixed rate mortgages.
Jim Morrisey, property owner and real estate broker, spoke against
approval of this Amendment. He felt it would be unfair to both
property owners and renters in the downtown area. He also felt it
would be injurious to many people trying to obtain loans.
Kirk Kirkland, President, Fountain Valley Board of Realtors,
referred to his April 15, 1986 letter to the Planning Commission in
which he recommended that non -conforming residential structures
which were constructed within the past 40 years could be rebuilt
with the density based on lot size at the time of their original
permit, and property more than 40 years old could be rebuilt in
accordance with this Amendment. He wanted the people's interests
and problems with this Amendment considered.
Dennis Foster, manager of 12 four-plexes on 12th and 13th Street,
spoke against this Amendment. He said that many people depend on
the income of relatively high density units who would no longer be
able to do so if this Amendment were approved. He felt this would
be very unfair to property owners of income units.
,There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
project but the public hearing will remain open.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 TO THE JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-19
Conditional Use Permit 86-19 is a request to add a second -story,
second unit to an existing single family residence generally located
northwest of Slater and Springdale.
Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the
proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Section
5301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -3- (5241d)
E. Rezvan, son of the owner of the property, spoke in favor of this
proposal. He said his sister wanted to live with the family because
of financial and security reasons. He said his family wanted to
make a home for her with them since she could not afford to live,in
an apartment alone.
Mr. Horace Roberts, property owner and neighbor, spoke against
approval of this proposal. He was not opposed to Mr. Rezvan having
a family member live with him but he felt that the passage of time
and with the possibility of the home changing hands at a later date,
this unit could easily become a rental unit. He felt this could
result in a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Mrs. Horace Roberts spoke in support of her husband's views. She
also felt that if the application was approved it would set a
precedent which would affect the quality of the neighborhood.
Rosemary Holifield, property owner and neighbor, spoke against
approval of this request. She felt it would change the zoning from
R1 to R2. She also felt this house could become a rental unit in
time.
Richard Vasquez, property owner in the area, felt that the area
should be left as a single family area, not a multiple family
neighborhood. He felt that the house could be enlarged to make room
for a new family member to live as one family instead of adding a
second unit which could easily become a rental unit because of
design.
Olivia Vasquez spoke in opposition to the request for the same
reasons as her husband.
Richard Hunt, property owner, felt that even though a family member
would reside in the second unit now, this could change if the family
moves. He felt this unit could easily then become a rental unit.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and
the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners felt it would be appropriate for these additions
to an existing residence to have a condition that the entryway would
be enclosed and not an outside entryway. The Commissioners also
felt that perhaps there should be a size limitation for such
requested additions.
MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO DENY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-19 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MOTION PASSED
Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
None
Erskine
None
Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
I
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -4- (5241d)
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. The addition of a second unit to a single family dwelling will
not be compatible with the single family residential character
of the neighborhood.
2. The second unit addition to a single family residence will be
detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community
because of increased traffic generated in the neighborhood.
C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-21/CONDITIONAL EXCE
TAL DEVE
Conditional Use Permit 86-21 and Coastal Development Permit 86-12 is
a request to construct a three-story, 5-unit apartment project (4
units plus one unit density bonus for low and moderate income
households) within the Coastal Zone. Conditional Exception 86-25 is
a request to allow a guest parking space to encroach three feet into
the required three foot rear yard setback. There are also two
special permit requests as part of the Conditional Use Permit which
are:
1. To allow a five foot high decorative block wall to encroach
into the required 2318" front yard setback; and
2. To permit a 118" encroachment of a stairway into the required
5' side yard setback.
NVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the proposed project is exempt under Class 31 Section 15303 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Richard Kelter, applicant, was present and spoke in favor of his
project. He feels the real issue is lot consolidation. He felt the
revised parking plan would counter most of staff's objections to his
proposal. He would like this item continued for two weeks to allow
him additional time to try to consolidate other lots on the block.
Flossie Higan, neighbor, presented a petition expressing concern
about the 3' setback, the parking density and the wall going up
around the units. She felt as'a neighbor that she needed more
information and supported the continuance of this item.
Kaz Begovich, architect for the project, had presented to staff a
design for a parking garage which would eliminate the parking
problem. Also he had increased the front yard setback to 23' and
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -5- (5241d)
had dedicated 5' out of the rear alley. He felt a lot of work had
gone into this project to comply with staff's requirements and felt
the project deserved approval.
Staff acknowledged receipt of a letter from Termo Company requesting
to go on record as objecting to this development.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal but
the public hearing will remain open.
After a discussion, Commissioners requested that the oil wells near
building sites be plotted. Commissioners would like this done for
this item and subsequent proposals of this nature.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROWE, SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 86-21/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-25/COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-12 TO THE JUNE 31 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-17
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-17 is a request by the Department of
Public Works to establish a boat dock/35 stall parking facility in
the Huntington Harbour Channel. The subject site is generally
located on the north side of Warner Avenue, west of Weatherly
Avenue. The property is zoned WR-CZ (Water Recreational -Coastal
Zone) which permits boat docks subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
On January 27, 1985, City Council adopted Negative Declaration 84-32
which assessed the environmental effects of a boat launching dock
and parking facility with 35 parking stalls. The Department of
Public Works has reduced the intensity of the project by eliminating
the boat launching aspect of the project. The Department of
Development Services has determined that additional environmental
analysis is not warranted.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the
public hearing was closed.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -6- (5241d)
Commissioners asked if there were any measures taken to prevent
individuals from using the parking lot as beach parking. Les Evans
responded that the lot would be metered and he believed that would
be sufficient.
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-17 BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-17:
1. The proposed parking facility with 35 parking spaces for the
City boat dock will not have a detrimental effect upon the
general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood, or is detrimental to
the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood.
2. The location, site layout and design of the proposed parking
facility does properly adapt to adjacent streets and driveways
in a harmonious manner.
3. The proposed boat dock/parking facility is consistent with the
City's land use element of the General Plan which designates
the property as Recreation.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-17:
1. The site plan dated April 16, 1986, shall be the approved
layout.
2. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, shall
be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them.
3. Energy efficient lighting shall be used in the parking lot to
prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy
conservation.
4. All parking stalls and drive aisles shall be striped in
compliance with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code.
5. Exiting from the parking compound shall be limited to right
turns only.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -7- (5241d)
C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10
Conditional Use Permit 86-7 is a request to construct an
approximately 50,000 square foot, three-story addition to an
existing single -story hospital. The addition will result in a
change in the number of private patient rooms but not in the overall
bed count. Conditional Exception 86-10 is a request to permit an
exit stairway and a 2nd and 3rd floor overhang to encroach into the
required 15' front yard setback.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Development Services'posted draft Negative
Declaration No. 86-22 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 Use Permit No. 86-7/Conditional
Exception No. 86-10, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to
review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-22.
Per applicant's request, staff informed the Commissioners that a
continuance was requested.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal but the
public hearing will remain open.
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10 TO
THE JUNE 31 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-6 CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1
On May 6, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Coastal Element Amendment 86-1. As part of its action on that item,
the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council delete
Hamilton Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street from the
City's Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Staff has
prepared Circulation Element Amendment 86-1 to address that deletion. i
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -8- (5241d)
The deletion of Hamilton Avenue between Newland Street and Beach
Boulevard was recommended by the Huntington Beach Planning
ommission in conjunction with recommended land use designations in
oastal Element Amendment 86-11 the Coastal Land Use Plan for the
hite Hole area.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act Section 15265(a), CEQA does not apply to activities and
approvals by any local document necessary for the preparation and
adoption of a local coastal plan program.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Fire Chief Picard spoke in support of keeping the Hamilton Avenue
extension. He felt that keeping the extension was essential from
the public safety standpoint, and the paramedic response
standpoint. He said that a distance of 1/2 mile saves one minute in
response time for fire trucks, paramedics, etc. He felt that this
extension was necessary because the downtown area needed more than
the Lake Street station for speedy response. There are no present
plans for additional fire stations although the Lake Street station
could add one more fire truck if necessary at a substantial cost to
the City.
Les Evans, City Engineer, Public Works, spoke in favor of the
Hamilton Avenue extension. Mr. Evans would prefer Alternative #1 or
Alternative #2A. Mr. Evans indicated that Redevelopment also was in
avor of the Hamilton Avenue extension, and the Coastal Conservancy
taff had consulted with him about the extension.
. Moore, Mills Land & Water Co., spoke in agreement with the Fire
Department in support of the Hamilton Avenue extension. He feels
this extension is critical and essential to the downtown
Redevelopment Plan now in place. He also mentioned that the City
would have to purchase the land which would be at a very high price.
Gordon Smith, Friends of Huntington Wetlands, preferred no alignment
at all in this area. He feels that Hamilton Avenue will eliminate
about 3 acres of wetlands. He spoke against the extension of
Hamilton Avenue.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and
the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners asked about the cost for Alternative #1 and VA.
Staff responded that Alternative #1 would cost about $4.7 million
and #2A would cost about $2.2 million plus land costs.
Commissioners asked if they should be looking at 86-1 now. Should
this item have waited. Staff responded that this must go through
the Planning Commission, then to City Council, then to the proper
ounty agencies.
ommissioners expressed concern about reviewing this data now after
rather lengthy public hearing on this last meeting.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -9- (5241d)
Some Commissioners felt that the Planning Commission should support
the action they took on May 6 to delete the Hamilton extension.
t,
Other Commissioners felt that this proposal should be left open for
further review to allow time to request and review all the State and
County recommendations and comments.
MOTION MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher
NOES: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS
MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1 AND MAINTAIN EXTENSION OF HAMILTON AVENUE
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS
ITEM AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 8, 1986 AS PER THE PLANNING
COMMISSION BYLAWS
C-7 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-17
Code Amendment No. 86-8 consolidated all commercial standards into
new Article 922 and incorporated all service station standards
originally contained in Article 948. Where previously a service
station had to obtain a change of zone to reconstruct/remodel, the
new ordinance calls only for a Conditional Use Permit to be approved
by the Planning Commission. All the same standards still apply with
the exception of deleting this requirement for a zone change. Zone
Change No. 86-17 is being processed in order to remove the obsolete
-SS suffix from the eight sites within the City on which it has been
placed. It should be noted that there is no proposal to alter the
base district of these sites in any way.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -10- (5241d)
The following sites are affected:
District Map
No. Location
1
2
6
11
13
17
Northwest corner
Magnolia/Adams
Northeast corner
Goldenwest/Yorktown
Northeast corner
Magnolia/Adams
Northeast corner
Springdale/Bolsa
Southeast corner
Beach/Adams
Southwest corner
Bolsa/Goldenwest
23 Southwest corner
Edinger/Bolsa Chica
40 Northeast corner
Beach/Garfield
District
C2
C2-CZ
C4
C2
C4
C2
C2
C4
The proposed zone change would delete the -SS suffix on all eight
sites.
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 LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-17 WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE
CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood,,Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -11- (5241d)
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the Planning
Commission and City Council action on Code Amendment No. 86-8.
2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the City's General
Plan of Land Use.
3. The proposed zone change will not result in any change of
permitted uses on the sites.
C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-23
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-23 is a request to permit live
entertainment (piano bar only) within Tony Roma's Restaurant located
at 7862 Warner Avenue (Charter Centre). The applicant has indicated
that the entertainment will be limited to easy listening piano bar.
Dancing will be prohibited within the restaurant. Valet parking
will be provided for the convenience of the customers.
The proposed project is exempt Class 1, Section 15301 from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Maggie DiMinons, representing the applicant, was present and
indicated all the findings and conditions of approval were
acceptable to applicant.
There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and
the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners felt there should be some time limit imposed on
the live entertainment.
The Commissioners also wanted a revised condition of approval
regarding noise disturbance.
Staff indicated that the 80% occupancy level has been reached at
Charter Centre and staff will request the property owner to
institute a parking study which will address the circulation element.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-23 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED
CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES,: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -12- (524ld)
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a piano bar
will not be detrimental to:
a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity; the proposed piano bar substantially complies
with the criteria in Section 9730.83 of the Ordinance Code.
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 floor plans received and dated May 7, 1986, shall be the
approved layout.
2. The piano bar shall not include the use of amplified music.
3. An entertainment permit shall be submitted and approved prior
to the establishment of the piano bar within the restaurant.
4. 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.
5. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable Fire and
Building codes, including Chapter 33 of the UBC relating to
exists and aisle widths.
6. This approval shall be for a piano bar only. Dancing or the
installation of a dance floor shall be prohibited.
7. The proposed piano bar shall comply with Chapter 8.40 "Noises"
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Should noise generated
by the live entertainment cause a nuisance or disturbance to
the neighborhood, the Planning Commission reserves the right to
require the applicant to mitigate the noise level.
8. The piano bar shall be limited to only a piano. Other types of
musical instruments shall be prohibited.
9. Occupancy levels shall be in accordance with Building and Fire
Ordinances.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -13- (5241d)
10. Live entertainment within the restaurant shall not commence
before 9:00 PM and shall conclude at 1:30 AM in order to
prevent possible parking congestion.
11. The applicant shall provide valet parking for a minimum of five
hours per day, and security service from 9:30 PM to 2:30 AM to
patrol the parking areas at Charter Center in order to mitigate
any parking problems or disturbances caused by customers from
the restaurant. The quality and number of security guards
shall be determined by the Police Department. The Security
Service shall be provided at the expense of the applicant. The
plan for valet parking is subject to review and approval by the
Director of Development Services.
D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING
D-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-16
This application was continued at the meeting of May 6, 1986, at the
request of the applicant. The 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.
The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Thomas Jacobs, applicant, was present and available for questions.
Mr. Barot, property owner, was present and available for questions.
The Commissioners expressed concern about the number of parking
spaces intended for this project.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO DENY SITE
PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-16 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, (out of room)
ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. The subject site is used as the parking lot to satisfy required
parking for an adjacent motel use based on Resolution 1293.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -14- (5241d)
2. The most recent Planning Department records indicate that the
parking spaces were a requirement for the approval of the
hotel expansion, and that they had already existed on the site
at that time.
The proposed site is also used for ingress and egress to the
motel property and is an integral part of the motel
circulation.
4. The approval of a single family home on the property would
violate the non -conforming use provisions of the zoning code
in that it would make an already non -conforming use further
deviate from code requirements by eliminating required parking
spaces.
D-2 REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION #1327
At the request of the applicant, this item was continued to the May
20, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.
Attached for the Planning Commission's review is a list of uses that
the applicant desires to add to Resolution No. 1327 which was
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.
he intent of Resolution No. 1327 is to reduce the number of
ommercial uses which may cause traffic/parking impacts and allow
ses which are industrial/wholesale in nature. The parking provided
or 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. 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 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 appropriate for buildings one and two:
Blueprinting and photostat service (including mail -and
print service
Warehouse shoe store with retail sales
Home improvement stores
Electrical supply store, wholesale and retail
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -15- (5241d)
The balance of the proposed uses in the letter dated April 22, 1986,
are not closely associated with industrial/warehouse uses and are
better suited for commercial districts.
Applicant requested continuance of this item.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE
REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION #1327 TO THE JUNE 3, 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
D-3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #12746
Tentative Tract 12746 is a request to consolidate 20 parcels into
one (1) lot. Included within this request is the vacation of the
alley - which is mostly unimproved - and vacation of 3 ft. of the
street frontage surrounding the subject property. The purpose of
this lot consolidation is to facilitate an oil unitization project
to be developed by Angus Petroleum Corp. The proposed site plan,
zone change and associated Environmental Impact Report will be
brought before the Planning Commission for consideration at a future
date.
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative
Declaration No. 86-19 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 Tentative Tract 12746, it is necessary for
the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration
No. 86-19.
Spencer Sheldon, Angus Petroleum, spoke on item D-31 Tentative Tract
Map #12746 and D-4, Tentative Tract Map #12747. He wanted condition
#11 deleted from the trust maps. He felt it would be more
appropriate to deal with the setback issue at the site plan stage of
the process.
Staff indicated that condition of approval #11 should be deleted and
replaced with an amended finding.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -16- (5241d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE
TENTATIVE TRACT #12746 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, 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 tract map 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 1.75 acre site zoned Old Town
Specific Plan District 2-0 will comply with applicable
provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to recordation of the final map, developer shall receive
approval for plans for the disposition and/or treatment of any
existing or proposed oil wells or oil operations located or to
be located thereon (Huntington Beach Code Section 9680.3).-
2. Prior to issuance of any permits, the developer 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.
3. Access to the existing on -site structure shall be designed to
the satisfaction of the City Development Services and Public
Works Department through the site plan review process prior to
the issuance of building permits.
4. All streets surrounding the tract shall be 27' half streets.
This requires the vacation of 3 ft. of right-of-way on the
tract maps. Sidewalks shall be 7 ft. wide and the distance
from centerline to curb face shall be 20 ft.
5. All corner right-of-way radii shall be 23 ft.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -17- (5241d)
6. All street improvements and utilities shall be constructed per
Public Works Standards.
7. The existing sidewalks on Huntington Street and Toronto Avenue
shall be removed and be constructed adjacent to the curb (7
ft. wide).
8. A copy of final recorded map shall be filed with the
Department of Development Services and Department of Public
Works.
9. A Soils Report shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Works in conjunction with the grading plan.
10. Hydrology and hydraulics studies shall also be submitted per
City of Huntington Beach requirements.
11. Provide a 15 ft. average setback, with a 10 ft. minimum and 20
ft. maximum setback. Setback shall be for landscape purposes
and have a 15 ft. average, calculated per street frontage.
12. Permits shall be obtained for any removal of existing
structures.
13. Prior to recordation of the final map, all parcels within this
tentative tract shall be held under common ownership.
D-4 TENTATIVE TRACT #12747
Tentative Tract 12747 is a request to,consolidate 20 parcels into
one (1) lot. Included within this request is the vacation of the
alley - which is mostly unimproved - and vacation of 3 ft. of the
street frontage surrounding the subject property except for
Delaware. The purpose of this lot consolidation is to facilitate an
oil unitization project to be developed by Angus Petroleum Corp.
The proposed site plan, zone change and associated Environmental
Impact Report will be brought before the Planning Commission for
consideration at a future date.
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative
Declaration No. 86-20 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 Tentative Tract 12747, it is necessary for
the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration
No. 86-20.
Staff indicated that condition of approval #11 should be deleted and
replaced with an amended condition.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -18- (5241d)
Spencer Sheldon, Angus Petroleum, spoke on item D-3, Tentative Tract
Map #12746 and D-41 Tentative Tract Map #12747. He wanted condition
#11 deleted from the tract maps. He felt it would be more
appropriate to deal with the setback issue at the site plan stage of
the process.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #12747 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, 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 tract map 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 1.67 acre site zoned Old Town
Specific Plan District 2-0 will comply with applicable
provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to recordation of the final map, developer shall receive
approval for plans for the disposition and/or treatment of any
existing or proposed oil wells or oil operations located or to
be located thereon (Huntington Beach Code Section 9680.3).
2. Prior to issuance of any permits, the developer 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.
3. Access to the site shall be designed to the satisfaction'of
the City Development Services and Public Works Department
through the site plan review process prior to the issuance of
building permits.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -19- (5241d)
4. All streets surrounding the tract except Delaware shall be 27'
half streets. This requires the vacation of 3 ft. of
right-of-way on the tract maps. Sidewalks shall be 7 ft. wide
and the distance from centerline to curb face shall be 20 ft.
Delaware shall have a half street per Public Works Department
requirements.
5. All corner right-of-way radii shall be designed per Public
Works Department standards.
6. All street improvements and utilities shall be constructed per
Public Works Standards.
7. The existing sidewalk on Rochester Avenue shall be removed and
be constructed adjacent to the curb (7 ft. wide), per Public
Works standards.
8. A copy of final recorded map shall be filed with the
Department of Development Services and Department of Public
Works.
9. A Soils Report shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Works in conjunction with the grading plan.
10. Hydrology and hydraulics studies shall also be submitted per
City of Huntington Beach requirements.
11. Provide a 15 ft. average setback, with a 10 ft. minimum and 20
ft. maximum setback. Setback shall be for landscape purposes
and have a 15 ft. average, calculated per street frontage.
12. Permits shall be obtained for any removal of the existing
structures.
13. Prior to recordation of the final map, all parcels within this
tentative tract shall be held under common ownership.
D-5 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 86-8
Site Plan Amendment 86-8 is a request to permit a 1,000 square foot
expansion to a previously approved structure on the west side of
Crystal approximately 300 feet north of Clay Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time the
subject request is categorically exempt Section 15303 Class 3 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Applicant was present and available for questions.
Staff commented that the last Plan Check reflected adequate parking
for this proposal.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -20- (5241d)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE SITE
PLAN AMENDMENT 86-8 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, Mirjahangir (out of room)
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The location, site layout and design of the automotive repair
business does properly adapt to the existing and proposed
structure to the streets, driveways and other adjacent
structures and uses in a harmonious manner.
2. Approval of Site Plan Amendment No. 86-8 for the addition of
11000 square feet to an approved 2,450 square foot auto body
shop will not have a detrimental effect on the general health,
welfare, safety, of persons working in the neighborhood, or be
detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the
neighborhood.
3. The continued use of the automotive repair shop is compatible
with the surrounding land uses which are basically oil -related
in nature.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Site Plan dated May 16, 1986 shall be the approved layout.
2. All conditions of approval imposed on Conditional Use Permit
No. 85-65 shall be applicable to this site plan amendment.
D-6 GROSS VS NET ACREAGE (DENSITY CALCULATION FOR MULTI -FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
On March 3, 1986, the City Council requested that staff conduct a
study regarding the use of gross acreage versus net site area when
calculating density, and present the information to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation to City Council.
For those projects developed under R2, R3, R4 base zone regulations,
density is based on lot area. Staff has determined this to be net
lot area because any dedication must occur prior to building permit
issuance with the project in total compliance to the Ordinance
Code. For those projects that develop under apartment standards or
planned residential development, density is based on gross acreage
(property boundaries extended to centerline of adjacent streets and
lleys).
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -21- (5241d)
Density Ratios
Planned Residential
Base Zone Apartment Development
R2 1/2000 net sq.ft.
R3 1/1250 net sq.ft.
R4 1/1000 net sq.ft.
14.52/gr.ac.
15/gr.ac.
24.89/gr.ac.
25/gr.ac.
34.89/gr.ac.
35/gr.ac.
A telephone survey was conducted with planners from various cities
and resulted in the attached information.
According to the survey, most cities calculate density using net
area. Two cities calculate density using gross site area.
To use a net site area ratio may necessitate additional survey to
determine a more appropriate density factor to assure that the unit
count allowed will not exceed the unit count allowed by the General
Plan.
The Commissioners felt that the use of "net" should be consistent in
all regulations including the Specific Plan.
The Commissioners also expressed the opinion that perhaps this
proposal should be a public hearing item.
MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO DIRECT STAFF TO
SURVEY OTHER CITIES AND TO CALCULATE TYPICAL "NET" SITE AREAS IN THE
CITY BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
D-7 CODE AMENDMENT 84-11 - SIGN CODE
Report back on several possible modifications discussed by City
Council, Planning Commission, staff and the Chamber of Commerce at
the Study Session on May 12, 1986.
The Planning Commission should consider each change and take a straw
vote to reach a consensus on the individual issues.
L_J
I ,
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -22- (5241d)
1. Increasing the height of permitted monument signs..
Ayes: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
Noes: None
Absent: Erskine
Abstain: None
Passed.
2. Provision to allow a site with over 400 feet of frontage to
g uali y for secondary monument signs.
Ayes: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
Noes: None
Absent: Erskine
Abstain: None
Passed.
3. Pole si
monumen
height
Passed.
4.
on each;
Ayes: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
Noes: None
Absent: Erskine
Abstain: None
es for the
maximum
Ayes: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir
Noes: Livengood
Absent: Erskine
Abstain: None
Passed.
5. No internal illumination of parking lot directory signs.
Ayes: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
Noes: None
Absent: Erskine
Abstain: None
Passed.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -23- (5241d)
6. Planned sign program provisions to include a phrase that all
centers be equivalent to minimum standards.
Ayes: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
Mirjahangir
Noes: None
Absent: Erskine
Abstain: None
Passed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO RECOMMEND THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL INCORPORATE SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED
SIGN CODE AS APPROVED BY STRAW VOTE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
E. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
HOLLY PROPERTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1
Commissioners expressed concern about the lack of a Master Plan for
this entire area.
Concern was also expressed about the lack of equestrian interests
representation in this area.
Commissioners were very concerned that approval of the Holly Property
General Plan Amendment 85-1 would create another industrial pocket
where Ferro Corp. is presently located. Ferro has a lease on this
property until 2021 and could expand within this time if desired.
Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, applicant, was present and
expressed his willingness to work with staff to participate in
planning approaches.
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO REAFFIRM DENIAL OF
HOLLY PROPERTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1 BASED ON THE INFORMATION
CURRENTLY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND MAKE THE FOLLOWING
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER PLANNING EFFORTS:
1. The Planning Commission is further concerned that a separate
action on the Holly Property may create a conflict of land use
between residential and industrial east of the railroad,
similar to the Cambro situation on Clay Street.
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -24- (5241d)
L,
2. Based upon the Donald C. Cameron Ellis-Goldenwest Master Plan
Evaluation, dated March 24, 1986, and the action taken by the
Planning Commission on May 22, 1985, the sequence recommended
by the Planning Commission for plan resolution is as follows:
a. Develop programs and site plans for each scenario for the
Holly Block, Bluff -top Block, Estate Block and
Ellis-Goldenwest Block.
b. Retain an Economic Consultant to evaluate the short and
long term economic impact and each scenario for the Holly
Block, Bluff -top Block, Estate Block and Ellis-Goldenwest
Block.
c. Prepare an overall project area site evaluation for the
Holly Block, Bluff -top Block, Estate Block and
Ellis-Goldenwest Block.
d. Complete the conceptual street alignments, especially the
westerly road network which impacts the linear park
boundary.
e. With all previous data in hand, City staff shall develop a
comprehensive plan which includes land use, circulation,
and open space elements, in preparation for the filing of
the General Plan Amendment.
f. Following the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plans
should be initiated for the Holly Block, Bluff -top Block,
Estate Block and Ellis-Goldenwest Block to insure that
natural features are protected, projects are coordinated,
and the City's design goals,are met and the City's goals
and objectives are met.
g. Develop a Capital Improvement Plan to support the
implementation.
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Schumacher, Livengood, Porter,
F. PENDING ITEMS:
The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare possible
odifications to the second unit article of the Code (9101.3(c)) in
rder to make it more restrictive
PC Minutes - 5/20/86 -25- (5241d)
Affordable Housing item should be on.the June 17, 1986 study session
and the June 17, 1986 Planning Commission agenda as a public hearing
item.
G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:,
Clarification of notification process for Planning Commission public
hearings.
Staff to research difficulties involved in obtaining "Fanny Mae" and
"Freddie Mac" loans for non -conforming homes and report back to the
Planning Commission.
Ad Hoc Committee formed on heights. Council members who will be on
this Committee are: Bailey, Finley and Kelly. Three Planning
Commissioners were also needed on this Committee. They will be:
Mirjahangir, Porter and Winchell with Livengood as an Alternate.
The first meeting will be Friday, May 23, 1986, 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners wanted a letter expressing thanks to Kirk Kirkland for
forwarding to Commissioners a letter from a student expressing her
views on Huntington Beach and the Planning Commission. Also, wanted
a thank you letter sent to this student.
H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS:
Commissioners wanted to know the length of the video available from
the Orange County Transportation Authority,
A
I. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM to the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting on June 3, 1986.
071
Tom Live ood, Khaitman
PC Minutes - 5/20/86
(5241d)
7
I i