Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-03_7 I APPROVED - 6/17/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986 - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir Commissioner Rowe left the meeting at 10:15 PM. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of 6/3/86 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Erskine indicated he would abstain from voting on subject minutes since he was not present at the 5/20/86 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners indicated areas to be changed in the minutes. Commissioners were concerned about additional recommendations regarding the Holly Property referred to in the minutes. Commissioners were concerned that the minutes reflected their approval of something they had not seen or voted on. Commissioners asked Attorney Sangster to review the video tape of the 5/20/86 Planning Commission meeting for content and report back to the Planning Commission. Staff indicated that the additional recommendation regarding Holly Property in the minutes was only a typographical word processing error in that the wrong section of a report was incorporated into the minutes. The minutes would be corrected to delete the erroneous paragraphs and substitute the proper section. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE APPROVAL OF MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TO THE JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH A REPORT TO COMMISSIONERS BY JUNE 13, 1986 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Holly Property - Commissioners mentioned that City Council had continued discussion on the Holly Property to their Study Session at 6:00 PM on June 16, 1986. Commissioners Livengood and Schumacher had prepared a recommendation and would like the Commissioners to review, make comments, and recommend action. Commissioners indicated that they had not seen Alternative #8 as referenced in the 5/20/86 Planning Commission minutes and would like to have staff distribute a copy to them. MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO SEND RECOMMENDATIONS BY LIVENGOOD/SCHUMACHER DATED JUNE 3, 1986 TO CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR MANDIC BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine MOTION PASSED C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) The Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit 86-7 in conjunction with Conditional Exception 86-10 and Negative Declaration 86-22 from the May 20, 1986 meeting based on a request by the applicant. Due to pending negotiations between the applicant PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -2- (5346d) and adjacent northerly property owner, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission table Conditional Use Permit 86-7 in conjunction with Conditional Exception 86-10 and Negative Declaration 86-22 indefinitely. At such time as all negotiations are completed the application will be reactivated. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10, PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine (out of ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, room) C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-21/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-25/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-12 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) On May 20, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit 86-21 in conjunction with Conditional Exception 86-25 and Coastal Development Project 86-12 and directed staff to obtain a ,detailed site plan of the adjacent southeasterly oil operation. Land use compatibility of the proposed five -unit apartment and existing oil operation can be better analyzed with such information; and the tank and/or oil well setbacks from the common property line can be reviewed. In order to facilitate additional time for negotiations with adjacent property owners for possible lot consolidation purposes, the applicant is requesting a continuance to the June 17 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, the applicant has indicated a layout of the adjacent oil operation will be presented at that time. MOTION MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-21/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-25, PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO THE JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:- Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -3- (5346d) C-3 CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 20 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING On May 20, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Circulation Element Amendment No. 86-1 addressing the deletion of Hamilton Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street from the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. The City Engineer and the Fire Chief were present to express their concerns that Hamilton Avenue should be retained. Due to a split vote on the item, Circulation Element Amendment No. 86-1 was automatically continued to June 3, 1986. Staff informed Commissioners of the City Council's wish to continue a Hamilton extension from Newland to Beach Boulevard and to insure that appropriate mitigating measures are included in the extension which would protect any identified wetlands within the area of the right -away. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ON THIS ITEM Commissioners asked about the cost of alternatives, how funding would be provided, and project completion dates. Staff responded that approximately $4 million would be needed for one mile of construction not including land acquisition costs. Public Works had indicated previously that most of the funding would be provided from the gas tax fund and the federal road fund. Completion dates were unknown. Commissioners felt that a feasibility study was necessary. Some Commissioners felt that -the Hamilton extension should be left in the Circulation Element and then removed if proven necessary. Commissioners felt that the right-of-way designation through the wetlands had to meet Coastal Act requirements or the road couldn't be built anyway. Commissioners discussed the Coastal Conservancy letter of 12/17/85 to the City. Some Commissioners expressed their belief that the Hamilton extension is needed and a road necessary in view of the 0200 million downtown construction already approved. Commissioners felt that maximum conservation is important but after reviewing Public Works and Chief Picard's comments from the May 20, 1986 meeting, that response time for emergencies was also very important. Commissioners felt that a road might not be feasible in the wetlands and possible alternative routes could be explored. PC Minutes - 6/3/.86 -4- (5346d) 1 MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY CIRCULATION LEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-1, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: YES: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir OES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher BSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Deletion of the Hamilton extension will result in a substantial future adverse impact on the surrounding arterials and the ability of the Circulation system to serve the downtown area. 2. Deletion of the Hamilton extension will be inconsistent with Coastal Element policies for provision of adequate services to proposed Coastal Zone developments. 3. Deletion of the Hamilton extension will negatively impact the future provision of emergency vehicle response to the southern Beach Boulevard and downtown areas. 4. Deletion of the Hamilton extension will be inconsistent with Seismic -Safety Element policies for upgrading public facilities to meet risk requirements. Deletion of the Hamilton extension will be inconsistent with Circulation Element policies for the development of a system of arterial streets and highways that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. 6. The California State Coastal Conservancy has stated in a December 17, 1985 letter to the City of Huntington Beach, that the Hamilton extension can be designed to meet the Council's wetland restoration and circulation objectives by minimizing the use of fill. 7. The Hamilton extension will be precisely planned at a later date at which time there will be detailed analyses of: a) costs of construction and land acquisition, b) impacts to wetlands and mitigations, and c) traffic impacts to surrounding properties. C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15. 1986 AND This item was continued at the meeting of May 6,-1986, in order to ive the stable owners more time for review. On May 28, 1986, onnie Wakeham of E.T.I. Corral 100 met with staff to discuss their oncerns. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -5- (5346d) lu Code Amendment No. 86-16 proposes to consolidate provisions for horse stables, update the language, and reorganize the article. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. .. Commissioners wanted this item continued to the June 17, 1986 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide interested persons an opportunity to speak. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-16 IN THAT EQUESTRIAN REPRESENTATIVES WERE NOT AT THE MEETING, 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-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-18 (CONTINUED FROM'MAY 6, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) This item was continued from the meeting of May 6, 1986. The'code amendment reorganizes the provisions for unclassified uses','those uses permitted in most districts subject to Planning Commission approval. The article number has been changed from 933 to 963. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak,for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -6- (5346d) MOTION MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-18 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT86-17 On March 24, 1986, William Wilson applied for Use Permit No. 86-17/ Negative Declaration 86-18 which requested to construct an eleven unit apartment project at the northeast intersection of Orion Street and Marina View Place. On May 7, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) approved Use Permit No. 86-17/Negative Declaration 86-18 by the BZA by a vote of 5 to 0. The project was reviewed by the BZA because the project is more than five units and because the site is adjacent to an arterial highway (Warner Avenue). The BZA reviewed the project in terms of architectural features and conceptual layout. The BZA's action of unanimous approval reflected their confidence that the conceptual plans met the intent of the General Plan and the R2 zoning district. NVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered by Negative Declaration 86-18. Commissioners asked staff to read into the record the staff report dated June 3, 1986 which was presented at tonight's meeting as a handout. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Bame, representating the property owner, wanted the appellant to speak first and then he would respond to appellant's concerns. Bill Winn, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project. He presented slides showing the property owners' concerns regarding this proposal. He felt this project would reduce property values, cause traffic problems and negatively impact the neighborhood. Donna Clark, neighbor and property owner, spoke against the project. She felt this proposal would lower property values and also create curb/sidewalk parking problems. She said that the environmental impact survey concluded that noise level and nvironment would not be affected by this project. She disagreed nd presented a petition of 40 families against this proposal. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -7- (5346d) Michael Tebrich, spoke for himself and his family in opposition of this project. He felt that a mixture of condos/apartments/homes ,could create vandalism problems similar to ones he had encountered in Seal Beach. He passed out letters from realtors and appraisers stating their belief that this project would decrease property values and negatively impact the neighborhood. Naomi George, neighbor and property owner, opposes the project. She expressed concern about the 20' driveway in an emergency for ingress and egress of fire trucks. She also felt this project would cause traffic problems, reduce water and gas pressure for neighboring homes. Ann Conway, neighbor, expressed concern about the "fuzzy" maps presented for review and objected to the last minute staff report which she had not had advance time to review. She planned the purchase of her home carefully and chose this neighborhood over others because of the surrounding area. She felt this project -would decrease property values and make her neighborhood less desirable. She said that her neighbors and herself would be willing to buy the land from Mr. Wilson to save the neighborhood. John L. Lombardo, President, Huntington Harbour Homeowners" Association, spoke in opposition to the project. He also believes that property values would decline if this project were approved. The Homeowners Association -has scheduled a meeting for June 11, 1986 to meet with the.Sunset Group to offer their support and suggestions. Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, wanted to hear residents' concerns and then address these concerns. He felt that since this project was legal, within code and did not ask for any special exceptions, that the project should.be approved. He said the property owner, Mr. William Wilson, is retired and wants to develop his property. Mr. Wilson is expressing his rights under the current zoning on this property to develop his land. This would not be a slum project, would not diminish property values and there are, multiple units already in the area. He re -stated that the'Board of Zoning Adjustments had -approved this project unanimously and that the applicant will accept every condition of approval. Don Hartfelder, architect for the project, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the project matches code totally. The buildings comply with both the net and gross ways of figuring areas. He felt this project should be approved. William Wilson, property owner, lives one mile from the project. He has been trying to develop this property since 1980. He has been before the Board of Zoning Adjustments twice which was open'to the public. He offered to meet with the residents in the neighborhood, including Donna Clark, after the last Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting. No meeting came to pass. The soil report is adequate, drawings have been submitted for plan check and the bidding process PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -8- (5346d) has started. This will be a first class project when completed. He submitted a petition with 107 signatures in support of the project rom neighbors. He also presented a letter from John DeLeonardi, a eighbor and property owner, supporting this project. C. Hubbard, neighbor, spoke in support of the project stating that he believed Mr. Wilson would only build a quality project. Virgil Allen, resident and property owner, supports the project. Feels the project is of high quality and will benefit the neighborhood. Peter Clark, stated he agreed this was a legal project. He felt that quality of life was the real issue in Sunset Heights and that this project would definitely deteriorate the quality of life. He felt that a compromise could be possible. There was no one else present to speak for or against the project but the public hearing will remain open. Commissioners felt the needs of the neighborhood versus the property owner's rights to develop the property was the key issue here. Commissioners requested Attorney Sangster to give them written advice relative to the Planning Commission's legal standing regarding the breadth of discretionary power specifically regarding the density issue. ommissioners wanted both sides of this issue to get together and iscuss this project and perhaps arrive at a compromise. Commissioners directed staff to arrange this meeting. Commissioners also wanted to know how many dens were in the project. Commissioners wondered if a den required an additional parking space. Staff responded one den which does not require a parking space. Commissioners instructed staff to prepare findings for denial for both sides of the issue. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a matrix regarding the open space in time for the next meeting. Staff will have a colored -up site plan which will show square footage, open space and calculations of square footage of units. Commissioners asked Les Evans of Public Works the status of the narrow bank of land near Orion St. near Marina View Place. Les responded that it was City owned property. Les felt that the property owners would probably maintain this strip of land. He also responded in answer to the water pressure problem that he hadn't eard this comment before but would investigate it and report back o the Planning Commission. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -9- (5346d) J Commissioners felt they needed more information concerning width of driveway, length of driveway, turnaround concerns, and courtyard explanation. MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE THE APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 86-17, TO THE JUNE 171 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO ARRIVE AT A MORE ACCEPTABLE PROJECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' DENIAL OF USE PERMIT 86-18 Use Permit No. 86-18 is a request to enlarge an existing,restaurant (Ruby Palace) by converting an adjacent retail suite into a dining area. On April 30, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments reviewed and denied this request because of inadequate on -site parking for the expanded use. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the decision. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Domingo Hsu, manager, Ruby Palace restaurant, spoke in support of this project. He explained that his dinner trade has increased and he needed to enlarge the kitchen, increase the storage space and put in a waiting area. He agreed with all of staff's recommendations and conditions. Scott Fawcett spoke in support of the project. He said that Mr. Hsu had spoke so thoroughly on the project that he had nothing to add. There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. 1 PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -10- (5346d) MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' AND APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 86-18, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Mirjahangir (out of room) ABSTAIN: Erskine MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the restaurant expansion 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 restaurant expansion is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 3. Although the restaurant area is being expanded, the existing seating capacity will be reduced resulting in a decreased parking demand. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised floor plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Drawn to scale; b. Show all seats, booths and tables to scale. 2. The maximum seating capacity for the entire restaurant shall be 85. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. a. Occupant load must comply with Uniform Building Code. 4. No additional signage shall be permitted for the restaurant. 5. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the date of this approval;to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable sections of the Huntington Beach PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -11 (5346d) r' r Ordinance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions or code sections, or if a parking problem occurs, Use Permit No. 86-18 shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and possible revocation. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this use permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-8 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-35 PC Conditional Exception No. 86-35 is a request to reduce the required landscape planter width of ten feet to 4.5 feet and 0 feet for approximately 700 linear feet in areas encumbered by storm drain culverts. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 4, Section 15304 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff informed the Planning Commission that applicant had requested this item be withdrawn. MOTION MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO WITHDRAW CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 86-35, PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 86-1 On April 2, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 86-12 allowing the construction of a 114 unit senior citizen apartment complex located on Springdale Street, south of Edinger Avenue. General Plan Amendment 85-3 and Zone Change No. 85-15 (R5 Office/Professional to Q-R3-SR), adopted by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1986, also granted the developer a 50 percent density bonus for the project. The zone change ordinance 2821-B states that E PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -12- (5346d) "Prior to any development on the property, the property owner and the City shall enter into a development agreement, approved by the City Attorney as to form pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, et. seq. which shall include provisions for the total number of units and continued affordability of units allowed by density bonuses." Resolution No. 5390. adopted by the City Council in June of 1984 sets forth the procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements pursuant to Government Code Section 65865. The adoption of a development agreement requires a public Faring before the Planning Commission and City Council. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Bame, counsel for applicant, discussed an agreement which he had prepared. He felt this proposed agreement addressed all the requirements of the project. He believes this project would be very beneficial to the City. He agrees with the staff report except the Consumer Price Index provision and the duration of the affordability requirements. Dick Harlow, represented the applicant, agreed with the staff report except for the Consumer Price Index provision. He felt affordability should be based on County Median Family Income. He felt that 30 yr. duration of affordability was not necessary. He felt the 50% bonus was an incentive for the project to move forward. ichard Short, neighbor, gave the Commissioners a letter from Mayor s andic regarding this issue. Mr. Short questioned the smaller number of units for affordability and the 30 year bond duration. There was no one else present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed the 38 units vs the 28 units as originally planned. Some Commissioners felt if 38 affordable units are required, the affordable rates are higher than what seniors are paying. Commissioners felt that the developer qualified for a 25% bonus and we gave him 50%. Some Commissioners felt that if a 50% bonus was given, then 50% of the units should be affordable. Dan Neveau, developer, said that 38 units would not be a problem if the County median family income guidelines were used and the 15 yr. bond affordability were approved. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -13- (5346d) MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 86-1, WITH MODIFICATIONS, AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS MOTION MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 86-1 TO 38 UNITS, AND FURTHER MODIFICATIONS, AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Porter NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE AND MODIFY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 86-1 TO ESTABLISH 38 UNITS AFFORDABLE, AFFORDABILITY RENT RATE TO BE BASED ON THE COUNTY MEDIAN .FAMILY IMCOME RATE AS ESTABLISHED BY CHAPMAN COLLEGE, 15 YEAR AFFORDABILITY DURATION, AGE REQUIREMENT OF SIXTY-TWO (62) YEARS, AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine, Porter ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Thirty-eight (38) units of the senior apartment project shall be affordable based upon the granting of an additional 25 percent density bonus over and above the requirement of Section 65915 of the Government Code and the granting of a special permit allowing a reduced side yard setback along the southern edge of the property. 2. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -14- (5346d) 3. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the senior residential land use district in which the property is located. 4. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. 5. The execution of the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. 6. The execution of the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property values. 7. If Federal Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing is provided for the project, the affordable units required by the bond program shall meet the affordable housing requirements for said Federal Financing program. Affordable units not covered by the bond financing shall be rented at an affordable rate based on the Orange County Median Income prepared by Chapman College. 8. All affordable units shall continue to be so provided and rented for the duration of the bond period, if applicable, or fifteen years, whichever is longer. 9. The Agreement shall be legally binding for all future property owners for a period of 15 years. The Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder in order to put any potential buyer on constructive notice. 10. Each unit shall be occupied by at least one (1) person who is sixty-two (62) years of age, or older. No person or persons under the age of forty-five (45) shall be permitted as full-time residents of the project, excepting the resident manager(s). C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-26 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 is a request to permit the construction of two shade houses measuring approximately 140 feet x 216 feet and 72 feet x 216 feet on property presently being used as a wholesale nursery. If approved by the Commission, the shade houses,will provide filtered light for ornamental plants. The proposed shade houses will be a maximum of ten feet in height and will be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all properties developed residential. The two shade houses will be constructed with shade cloth spread over steel posts anchored with concrete and connected by wire. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: he proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15302 from the rovisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -15- (5346d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Fire, resident, felt that the City of Huntington Beach was a poor landowner and neighbor. He said the property had been used as a dump and he had felt that a nursery would be an improvement. However, he felt the applicant should live up to the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit issued in 1985 before he is granted a new one. He feels the shade houses are unsightly. Steve Hall, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He said he is trying to bring this project under the Conditional Use Permit conditions. He does not feel the shade houses are unsightly. He said that now it is dusty with tractors being in the area but he has offered to wash neighbors' windows. Richard Kushnir, neighbor, spoke in rebuttal to the staff report saying there was a limited number of complaints. He submitted a petition of 17 signatures objecting to this project. He feels this project will bring in small machinery in the neighborhood making it a more commercial neighborhood, which will create more truck traffic, decrease property values and decrease neighbors' privacy. Ann Kushnir, spoke in opposition to the project. She distributed pictures of the nursery in question. She feels the shade houses are unsightly and are practically in her back yard. She feels this project would increase machinery activity and reduce property values. There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked what is on the other side of the flood control channel. Staff responded that the area was residential. Commissioners feel that all the conditions of previously approved Conditional Use Permits should be lived up to before a new Conditional Use Permit could be issued. Commissioners do not -want to create an adverse affect due to prior non-conformance of past Conditional Use Permit requirements. Commissioners would like to see what was approved on Conditional Use Permit 86-5 before acting on the present request. Commissioners wanted staff to recommend conditions of approval that would alleviate many of the neighbors' concerns expressed tonight. Perhaps there should be tall shade trees and gravel roads. Staff informed Commissioners that the area under discussion is accessible for inspection. A report will be prepared for the July 1, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -16- (5346d) MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-26 TO THE JULY 11 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO REVIEW CONFORMANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE OPERATOR AND REVIEW COMPLAINTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Rowe (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-30 PC The Planning Commission originally approved Conditional Use Permit 85-6 which was a request by the applicant (see Attachment #5: letter requesting Conditional Exception No. 85-6) to temporarily locate a coach on an existing piece of open space, for 6 months, for use by the new park manager. The original manager retired and decided to remain in his existing coach, which required the property owner to find a new manager and a coach in which to house the manager. The six month interim use of the open space area was granted in order to allow the property owner, time to wait for a coach to be removed from the park, and allow the property owner to satisfy the State requirement for an on -site park manager. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 3, Section 15103 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Vickey Tallay, spoke for the owner of the park, in support of this proposed exception. She told the Commissioners that a new manager had to be moved into the park into the open space when the previous manager retired. No coaches have left the park within the past year thus the manager could not take their vacated space. She brought in a letter from homeowners stating no objection to the use of this open space. Alice Boggs, spoke in support of this extension on a temporary basis and is willing to put up a bond. Monty Clark, manager of another park, said it is difficult to hire managers and even harder to move homes out of a park and urged the Commissioners to approve this time extension request. dward Halstead, coach anager's location. He ut there. owner, wanted the open space used as the was relieved when the manager's coach was PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -17- (5346d) There was no one else present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked if there were any flood problems where this coach is located. Staff responded that it is the lowest grade in the park. Staff indicated that parking is not adequate and there is no covered parking. Previous minutes did not require covered parking. MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-30 PC WITH A 2 YEAR EXTENSION, BASED ON FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. There are exceptional circumstances that do not apply generally to other property or uses in this district due to the need for an on -site manager. 2. A conditional exception for the temporary location of a new mobile home is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The granting of this conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood. 4. The applicant is willing and able to carry out this request and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. 5. The granting of this conditional exception will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the City's Ordinance Code. 6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A $5,000 cash bond shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City Attorney for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the temporary PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -18- (5346d) 1 mobile home and necessary accessory structure(s). If the site is not restored to its prior use within two (2) years of this approval, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter onto the property where said temporary mobile home is located and remove said mobile home, and the cost of removal and restoration of the site for open space purposes shall be deducted from the bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach, and the remainder, if any, returned to the person depositing the bond. 2. The new mobile home shall be relocated to the first vacant space within the park within the two (2) year period. Conditional Exception No. 86-30 shall expire on June 3, 1988. 3. The mobile home shall remain on wheels. 4. The full park and recreation fee for a mobile home shall be collected. C-12 ZONE CHANGE NOS. 86-10 THROUGH 86-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-26 Code Amendment No. 86-8 streamlined the commercial district regulations and eliminated the C3 District, applied only to seven sites within the City. As listed above, four of the sites are proposed to be changed to Cl, Neighborhood Commercial District; the remaining three sites contain existing residential uses and are proposed to be Oldtown Specific Plan -District 1 in accord with surrounding properties. (District Maps 10 and 12 are attached.) To meet public notice requirements, a one -quarter page ad describing the proposed zone changes was published in the newspaper and all owners of the affected properties were mailed a public notice and cover letter explaining the need for the zone changes. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-26 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the zone changes, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-26. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Joseph DeSues, spoke on Zone Change 86-13, property owner for 16 ears. He felt the area is growing and many businesses are moving 'n, including his own. He does not want the area rezoned. He feels his would reduce the area which can be developed. Wants Zone hange 86-13 left as C3. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -19- (5346d) Norma DeSues, wife of Joseph, also wants this block affected by Zone Change 86-13 to remain multiple zoning, leave as C3 zoning. Paul Columbus, spoke in opposition to changing Zone Change 86-16 from C3 to Cl. He had no problem with streamlining the code, but would prefer C2 instead of Cl. He has a electronics distribution business which employs quite a large number of people. There was no one else present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked staff what happens when C3 changed to Cl. Staff responded there were no standards for C3 zoning any longer. Staff read into the record uses for Cl zoning. Joseph DeSues responded regarding what he thought happens when zone is changed from C3 to Cl. Cl establishes one business per lot. C3 permits multiple businesses. Staff clarified that Cl allows neighborhood type multiple businesses. Commissioners were in favor of the more restrictive Cl in thse neighborhoods, but with some type of notation protecting businesses already in the affected zone change area should be considered. Staff explained that the business could remain as a legal non -conforming use. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-26 AND ZONE CHANGE NOS. 86-10 THROUGH 86-15 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-16 TO C1 ZONING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -20- (5346d) I. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone changes are consistent with the Planning Commission and City Council action on Code Amendment No. 86-8. 2. The proposed zone changes are consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. D-1 REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION #1327 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 61 1986 AND MAY 20, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING For a Mixed Use Development at the Northwest Corner of Warner and Gothard. At the request of the applicant, this item was continued from the May 20, 1986 Planning Commission meeting to the June 3, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE RESOLUTION #1327, PER APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REQUEST, 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 D-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-18 On May 17, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 85-18, a request to construct an 81-unit senior apartment project located on the east side of Florida Street approximately 530 feet south of Main Street. Section 9843.4 of the Ordinance Code allows for extensions of time limits upon written request by the applicant or property owner for up to one year. Approval of the extension of time for one year will provide the applicant with a May 17, 1987 expiration date. It should also be noted that Conditional Exception No. 85-20, which was filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 85-18 is not part of this request. The applicant has indicated to staff that they are seeking a site plan amendment (86-9) to modify the design that originally required approval of a variance for a side yard setback. THIS REQUEST WAS WITHDRAWN. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -21- (5346d) D-3 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT 86-9 Site Plan Amendment No. 86-9 is a request to modify Conditional Use Permit No. 85-18 which permitted the development of 81 senior apartment units on the east side of Florida Street approximately 530 feet south of Main Street. THIS REQUEST WAS WITHDRAWN D-4 MAIN/TENTH STREET PROPOZED ZONE CHANGE THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 16, 1986 STUDY SESSION E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Holly Property - Commissioners wanted a letter with recommendations to the City Council by Friday, June 6, 1986.Commissioners Livengood and Schumacher had prepared a recommendation and would like the Commissioners to review, make comments, and recommend appropriate action to City Council. Building Heights - City Council at its June 2, 1986 meeting deferred the matter of Code Amendment 85-24, Building Heights, back to the Planning Commission for a report. The ad hoc committee met on Friday, May 30, 1986 to discuss the definition of building heights and heights of buildings issues. Commissioners reviewed staff report which was sent to the ad hoc committee which compared heights in the various zoning districts. Staff presented the ad hoc committee's recommendations. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS DATED JUNE 3, 1986 AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Erskine ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED F. PENDING ITEMS: There will be a joint Study Session with City Council and the Planning Commission on June 16, 1986 from 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM. PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -22- (5346d) After the joint study session is over the Planning Commission will convene a Planning Commission study session at 7:30 PM to discuss a possible zone change for the Main/Tenth Street area, Second Unit Additions and Affordable Housing Policies. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: None H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Commissioners indicated that the tapes of the Planning Commission meetings were of inferior quality and perhaps cleaning or repair of the tape recorders was necessary. I. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 AM to the Study Session on June 16, 1986 at 6:00 PM and to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 17, 1986. APPROVED: J es W. Palin, ecretary Tom Live good, ghairman :)b (_5346d) PC Minutes - 6/3/86 -23- (5346d)