Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-01APPROVED 7/15/86_ MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1986 - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P (arrived 7:10) ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, P P (arrived 7:10) Mirjahangir, Porter A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of 6/17/86 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioners indicated an area to be changed in the minutes. Commissioners were concerned that a finding for denial was inserted in the minutes when the Planning Commission did not make or approve such a finding. Staff responded that this change was made per Attorney Sangster's direction. MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO AMEND THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 171 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION TO REFLECT CORRECTIONS AND FORWARD CORRECTIONS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE JULY 7, 1986 COUNCIL MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Request to Amend Conditional Use Permit No. 84-20 and Resolution #1327 (Continued from May 6, 1986, May 20, 1986, June 3, 1986 and June 17, 1986 Planning Commission Meetings) Applicant: Carlton Browne & Co., Inc. (For a Mixed Use Development at the Northeast Corner of Warner and Gothard) Staff recommended modifications to the requested amended resolution. Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of Resolution 1327-A as submitted by the applicant and did not agree with staff's last minute changes in the Resolution. Mike Thompson, developer, expressed concern about changes in resolution affecting buildings 3 and 4 as recommended by staff. Paul Burger, Chairman, Western Regional Council, United Way of Orange County, spoke. He wants his office to be in Huntington Beach. He feels Gothard is a good location for his office and this location will help keep expenses low. There were no other persons to speak on this item. Commissioners expressed their concerns about last minute revisions to the resolution. Commissioners discussed mixed use terminology. MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1327-A AS WRITTEN PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Porter MOTION FAILED MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO CLARIFY USES TO INCLUDE UNITED WAY, COUNCIL ON AGING, AND RED CROSS FOR USAGE IN BUILDINGS 3 AND 4 AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Julietta Lewis, resident of Old World, expressed her concerns about the buildings shaking due to heavy traffic on Center Drive. George Corry, resident, spoke on the oil unitization project (item D-1). He is opposed to this project. He has concerns for safety, noise, maintenance of project. Rachel Laloian, resident, spoke in opposition to the oil unitization project (item D-1). PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -2- (5583d) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION N -2 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 1, 1986, MAY 6, 1986 AND JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS) Zone Change No. 86-2 is a request to change the zone from (Q)R2-PD, Qualified Medium Density Residential -Planned Development, to R2-SR on a portion of the development (Medium Density Residential - Senior). Conditional Use Permit No. 86-2 is a request to build 48 senior residential condominiums on property zoned R4-SR and 48 senior residential condominiums on that property being rezoned to R2-SR. The property owners desire that development of each lot be identical. The conditional use permit analysis is based on the total project of 96 units. Tentative Tract No. 11955 was a 10 lot subdivision that was approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1983. All lots of this map have not completed recordation requirements; only 3 lots have been recorded, therefore it has expired. A revised tentative map consisting of 7 lots has been filed to reinstate the subdivision. The conditional use permit project is proposed on lots 2 and 3 of the revised tentative map. These applications have been continued from April 1, 1986, May 6, 1986, and June 17, 1986, Planning Commission meetings. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-2 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 86-2 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-2, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-2. Commissioners discussed Fire Department regulations which require additional turning radius adjacent to parking spaces 40 and 95 and may necessitate a revision in the unit or bedroom count to satisfy on -site parking. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson spoke on behalf of the applicant in favor of this project. He feels that Huntington Beach needs more affordable housing for seniors and that this proposal is a quality project and has been in the planning stage for years. John Cowles, architectural consultant for the project, spoke in favor of the project. He said that a lot of time had been spent PC Minutes - 7/1/86 - working on this project. He concurred with staff's recommendation to cover an additional 17 parking spaces, and the handicap access unit reduction and building bulk reduction. He also indicated his willingness to move two parking spaces east and west to resolve the turning radius problem as mentioned by the Fire Department. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed the 50% density bonus allowed on this project. Commissioners felt this 50% density bonus was a critical issue due to the large bedroom count on this project. Staff responded that this project is "for sale" units instead of rental. Commissioners expressed concern at the large number of 2-bedroom units for this project. Commissioners felt perhaps a better mix of 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units would have been more advisable for this project. Commissioners were concerned about this project's building height, length and bulk. Commissioners questioned staff's method of designating and identifying bedrooms. Commissioners suggested that the item be trailed to allow staff sufficient time to prepare findings for denial to incorporate Commissioners' concerns regarding bulk, bedroom count, and setback.. When the item was resumed, staff read the prepared findings for denial to the Commissioners. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO REINSTATE TENTATIVE TRACT #11955, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -4- (5583d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2 WITH FINDINGS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Erskine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11955 1. This proposed 14.7+ acre subdivision divided into 7 lots: 6 for residential purposes and 1 for industrial purposes, will be developed in accordance and in compliance with the established densities and land uses as depicted in the City's current General Plan. 2. This property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for high density residential and industrial were placed on the subject property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11955 1. The tentative tract received and dated March 27, 1986, shall be the approved tentative tract. 2. Sewer, water and fire hydrant systems shall be subject to the City's standard plans and specifications as adopted by the City Council. 3. Easements for water facilities shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach and shall be located in the private streets. 4. Water wells shall be abandoned per the City of Huntington Beach's standards. 5. A storm drain system shall be constructed from Tract 8197 (located at the south border of Lot 2) and connect to the existing storm drain at Talbert Avenue and Kovacs Lane. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -5- (5583d) 6. A 10 foot easement for the storm drain shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach on Lot 2. 7. Sewer easements in private streets shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 8. Street improvements shall be installed per Public Works standards. 9. All landscaping along Talbert Avenue shall be installed on private property. No trees will be planted in the parkway, but will be incorporated in the adjacent onsite landscape plan. 10. Except where private entrance drives intersect Talbert Avenue, vehicular access rights to said streets shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 11. Street "A" shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2: 1. The mix of units with a majority of two bedrooms creates an excess in the number of bedrooms allowed per gross acre. Allowed 117, proposed 172. 2. The exterior elevations do not provide sufficient variation in roof heights and slopes as well as building offset to reduce the building bulk. 3. More than six dwelling units attached side by side are proposed, thus creating a greater building bulk than allowed by the code. 4. The proposed encroachment into the setback from the adjacent single family residential development will be detrimental to those persons residing in the vicinity. 5. The project is not enhanced by the requests for special permit. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-2: 1. The proposed senior citizen condominium project increases the density and will not be compatible to the intensity of existing residential developments in the vicinity. 2. The proposed senior citizen condominium project will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach since the project does not comply with the regulations of the Huntington Beach Ordinance because of increased building bulk, and number of bedrooms per gross acre. 3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 96 unit condominium project will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living in the vicinity and to the property and improvements because of the intensity of the use proposed. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -6- (5583d) 4. The proposed senior citizen condominium project does not comply with provisions of Articles 932.5 and 936. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-26 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI On June 3, 1986 the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit to the July 1, 1986 meeting to allow the staff additional time to review the conditions of approval and complaints submitted by area residents. 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: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15302 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioners discussed the May 27, 1986 letter from property owners. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Commissioners discussed and read into the record the compromise between Woodhall Growers and the adjacent residences of Huntington Beach. Tim Woodson, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He addressed concerns mentioned in the compromise. Anna Kushnir, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the project. She read to the Commissioners comments from Mayor Mandic's letter. She objected to the shade houses being only 20' from her residential wall and stated that the shade houses would obstruct her view. There were no other persons to speak for or against this proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners mentioned that last year this business was considered small scale and now applicant is asking for more shade houses. Staff responded that these additional shade houses were for growing purposes only and that no wholesale or retail sales would be conducted from this property. Commissioners discussed measures taken to prevent flooding in this area. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -7- (5583d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-26 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH INCORPORATE COMPROMISE CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; a 20 foot setback has been provided to mitigate unnecessary noise and visual blight. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building; on -site parking and access to the site are adequate and will not create undue traffic problems. 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 site plan and elevations received and dated June 27, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height, except for shade house #4 which shall not exceed 8 feet. Structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from properties developed residential. 3. The Department of Development Services shall perform an annual review of the wholesale nursery to determine if any violations of the conditions of approval have occurred. Violations of the conditions of approval may be cause for revocation of this conditional use permit. 4. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 5. The applicant shall place trees 5 feet on center adjacent to the shade houses on the west and north to provide additional screening. The trees adjacent to shade house #4 shall be 8-9 PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -8- (5583d) 1 feet ficus trees. The trees adjacent to shade house #3 shall be 10 feet in height. The location of the trees and the number shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. 6. The entire floor of the shade houses shall be covered with gravel to control dust. 7. All plants will be watered by drip irrigation in shade house #4. 8. Shade house #3 shall be built so that any run off water will flow toward the east brow ditch. 9. The site and access road shall be maintained with gravel ground cover or other suitable material to control dirt and dust. a. An asphalt paved driveway transition from the driveway apron to a distance and width to the satisfaction and specifications of the Public Works Department. 10. All soil amendments or planting mix material shall be kept damp as to not blow onto adjacent properties. All such material shall not be stacked over a height of six (6) feet and shall not be stored within 20 feet of the westerly or northerly property lines. 11. The taller and larger plant materials shall not be stored within twenty (20) feet of the residential properties to the west. Lower growing trees and shrubs only shall be permitted within 20 feet of these residential properties, shall be no higher than one•(1) foot lower than the top of existing block wall. 12. Chemical spraying of plant materials is prohibited. Plant watering shall be done in such a manner to prevent water from flowing into the residential area. 13. There shall be no activity, nor deliveries, including maintenance, between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. on weekdays, excluding holidays. On weekends or holidays, there shall be no activity whatsoever other than general maintenance. 14. All vehicles operating within the nursery shall not exceed speeds of ten (10) miles per hour. 15. Outside phone alarms, intercoms, and loudspeakers are prohibited. 16. Any yard lighting proposed shall be directed away from adjacent residential properties. 17. Any proposed signing shall conform to Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -9- (5583d) 18. Proposed portable and permanent office and storage buildings (including storage bins) shall be located within fifty (50) feet from the east property line, and subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 19. All chemicals used or stored at the subject site shall be approved by the Orange County Agricultural Department, as required by law. 20. The applicant shall submit a grading/drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, prior to any grading operation or change of drainage. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-27 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-40 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12820 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-30 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) This request is to permit a 7-unit condominium project with special permits and conditional exception for reduced setback from easement. On June 17, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Tentative Tract 12820/Conditional Use Permit No. 86-27/Conditional Exception No. 86-40 as requested by the applicant and directed the applicant to increase the commercial property size in order to accommodate a parking layout that conforms to the zoning code and to delete at least one condominium unit. Revised plans have been submitted depicting a six unit condominium project on the rear lot which is 18,400 square feet; the front commercial lot is 18,713 square feet. The parking layout for the office building has been revised and is more efficient. Only one driveway is shown on Beach Boulevard. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-30 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 12820/Conditional Use Permit No. 86-27/Conditional Exception No. 86-40, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-30. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gerald Sy Golob, applicant, was present. He concurred with staff's findings and was available for questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners held a brief discussion on the lot size and the setbacks provided. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -10- (5583d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT 12810, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 86-40, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-30, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-27 WITH REVISED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12810: 1. The proposed subdivision of this .49 acre site is zoned C4 and R2-PD is proposed to have 14.2 units per acre. 2. The layout and design of the subdivision is oriented for future passive heating or cooling opportunities because of its east -west configuration. 3. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the requirements of the zoning code and the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. The site is physically suitable for residential development of this density because it is relatively flat and the building design will conform to the flood plain development standards. 5. Proper access to the site is provided from a frontage road adjacent to Beach Boulevard. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12820: 1. Tentative Tract No. 12820 dated May 29, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved map with the following modifications: a. The property line between the residential and commercial property shall be adjusted to conform with the site plan dated June 19, 1986. b. Depict lots not parcels. C. Depict vehicular access easement on Lot #1 for access to Lot #2. 2. An on -site fire hydrant shall be provided per Fire Department requirements. 3. A street side development identification sign and address signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director. 4. Prior to final recordation of the tract map, a zone change shall be filed, approved and effective to expand the C4 zoning to the boundary of the easterly parking area. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -11- (5583d) 5. The grated catch basin at the northeast corner of the tract shall be reconstructed as a curb opening type. 6. The driveways from the frontage road shall be the commercial, radius type per Public Works standards. 7. A soils report is required. 8. All required street improvements including street lights shall be installed in the frontage road. 9. A homeowners' association shall be created and CC&R's in accordance with Article 936 shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Development Services Director prior to final recordation of the tract map. 10. Prior to final recordation of the tract map, a copy of the 20 foot wide easement on the adjacent southerly property shall be submitted. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-40: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, location and surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance requiring a 5' setback from the 15' wide storm drain easement (Section 9960.2.c) is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The property is encumbered by two easements along the north and east property lines unlike other properties in the vicinity. A 0' building setback along a city storm drain easement has been permitted elsewhere in the City provided there is no building surcharge on the pipe. 2. The granting of this conditional exception for a 0' building setback along a storm drain easement is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-40 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. Proper setbacks and intensified landscaping are provided between the buildings and east property line. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -12- (5583d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL"USE PERMIT NO. 86-27 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS• 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the six unit condominiums with landscaped buffers and proper setbacks 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 proposed 6-unit condominium project is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use which is medium density residential. 3. The special permit requests for: 1) a reduced interior property line setback (17'6"-2216" in lieu of 52'8") along the north property line; 2) all three-story units in lieu of 33% two-story units; and 3) reduction in minimum open space dimensions from 10'-33' in lieu of 50' are consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and uniqueness of the lot, and compatible with the surrounding environments. 4. The design and layout of the 6-unit condo project with special permits will promote better living environments, and maximizes the use of the property. Almost twice the required amount of recreation area is provided, and several guest parking spaces are indicated on -site. 5. The 25 foot wide accessway in lieu of 48' in width to Parcel #2 is adequate for a 6-unit condominium project and 5,546 square foot office building. Typically, a 48' wide accessway (4 lanes) is necessary for large scale developments. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-40/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-27: 1. The site plan dated June 19, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications. a. A trash area shall be depicted at the southwesterly end of the residential property to serve the condominium project. b. The planter projection containing the signing at the south end of the bank of parking stalls shall be reduced in order to accommodate emergency vehicles. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -13- (5583d) 2. Additional roof movement shall be provided on the end two units subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director. 3. A 17' x 45' turning radius will be.required for all turns. 4. An 80 foot turn around will be required at the end of the development or, as an alternative, an automatic sprinkling system may be installed in all residential units per Fire Department standards. 5. Details of the building foundation adjacent to the easterly 15 foot wide easement shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 6. Each unit shall be stubbed for cable television in accordance with Public Works specifications. 7. Intensified landscaping shall be provided along the northerly and easterly property line. 8. A minimum 6 foot high decorative block wall (measured from highest adjacent grade) shall be provided along the entire northerly property line (commercial and residential property) and on the east, south and west property lines of the condominium property. 9. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 10. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 11. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 12. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). 13. A lighting plan in accordance with Section 9363.5 shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director. Lighting included in the entryway and drivway shall be high-pressure sodium vapor lamps for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -14- (5583d) I I I 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 15. Landscaping shall comply with S.9362.17 and Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 16. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department, except as noted herein,. 17. The existing school within the office building must be relocated off -site prior to the issuance of building permits. 18. A fire hydrant shall be provided at midway and shall be located in the planter area on west side of parking area adjacent to the proposed sign. 19. The proposed free standing sign shall be a low profile monument sign subject to review and approval of the Director of Development Services. C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15, 1986, MAY 20, 1986 AND JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS) This proposal is to rewrite the nonconforming provisions of the code, renumber the article as Article 965, and modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures. The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of June 17, 1986. Since that time, staff has rewritten the draft ordinance to create clearer, more precise regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kirk Kirkland, President, Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to this project. He discussed concerns mentioned in his 1/11/11 letter to the Planning Commission. He feels the current proposal does not consider property owners and he would like to participate in a study session with staff or the Planning Commission if this item is continued. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -15- (5583d) Pat Poch, Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to this project. She feels this proposal creates re -financing problems and the downzoning in income property areas will negatively impact property owners. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners would like to hear from financial institutions on financing aspects of this issue with the proposed ordinance. Commissioners expressed interest in a task force to look at this issue. Task force to be comprised of three Commissioners, appropriate lending institution representatives and realtor representatives. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT TO LENDING INSTITUTIONS AND ASK FOR INPUT REGARDING RESTRICTIVENESS IN FINANCING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioners Erskine, Livengood, Schumacher to meet with realtor representatives the 1st week in August on this issue. Commissioner Mirjahangir will serve as back-up. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 TO THE 8/19/86 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 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44/TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 Tentative Tract 12756 is a request to subdivide a two gross acre site into eight lots with access from a proposed short cul-de-sac street from the east side of Bolsa Chica Street. Conditional PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -16- (5583d) Exception No. 86-44 is to permit a reduction in lot width from 45 feet to 28 feet for two flag -shaped lots. If the subdivision is approved the applicant proposes to request appropriate entitlement for six four-plexes and two tri-plexes for a total of 30 apartment units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is covered under previously approved Negative Declaration No. 86-10. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jack Broberg, owner, was present and available for questions. Robert Skinner, representing the owner, spoke in support of this project. He was opposed to suggested condition of approval #19, which required a conditional use permit. Michael Obradovich, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels the proposal would create parking and traffic problems and create "mini -hotels". Cheryl Browning, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. Her concerns with this proposal were safety, traffic problems and environmental impact of the neighborhood. Mark Browning, resident, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He felt traffic problems and environmental impact of the neighborhood were the key issues. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners were supportive of residents' feelings and issues. Commissioners held a brief discussion about traffic problems in the vicinity of Pearce Street and land use between this parcel and the airport. Commissioners discussed the continuance of this item in order to give the applicant and staff an opportunity to prepare some alternative circulation plans for the area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 86-44 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12756, WITH APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE, TO THE JULY 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -17- (5583d) C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 This project is to convert an existing service station to a food mart and in -bay car wash in conjunction with a service station. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28, PER APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REQUEST, TO THE JULY 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MOTION PASSED Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir None Porter None Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, C-7 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 86-6 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-3 This request is to appeal the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of the construction of an approimate 2500 square foot restaurant and a request to reduce the minimum 25 foot turning radius, landscape planter width and the required number of parking spaces. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 86-6 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-3, PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO THE JULY 15, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21 Conditonal Use Permit No. 85-21, a request to permit the storage and grinding of wood products (mulching operation) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1985. Since approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-21, the applicant has failed to comply with nine conditions of approval. On May 6, 1986, the Planning Commission revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 85-21. The revocation was appealed by the applicant to the City Council. On June 16, 1986, the City Council heard the appeal filed by Larry Rothman, Attorney -at -Law, on behalf of Sonny Cotter. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -18- (5583d) After a lengthy discussion regarding a previous fire on the site and questioning of the Director of Development Services and Fire Chief, a motion was made by Councilman MacAllister, second by Kelly, to refer said appeal back to the Planning Commission for a status report from staff regarding compliance of the conditions of approval and possible reinstatement of the conditional use permit by the Commission. On June 3, 1986, at the applicant's request, the fire department re -tested the applicant's on -site water system (two 8,000 gallon tanks) to determine their effectiveness. At that time, it was determined by the Fire Department that the two 8,000 gallon tanks were operational and provided sufficient water supply for a land use of this type. Based on the applicant's recent efforts to comply with all conditions of approval, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission reinstate the applicant's conditional use permit including six-month inspections to insure continued compliance with all conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO REINSTATE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21 AND TO INCLUDE ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR REINSTATEMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21: 1. As of June 3, 1986, the applicant has substantially complied with all applicable conditions of approval including a requirement to provide water to the site, provide fire lanes between mulch piles and install screening along Edwards Street. 2. The applicant has shown a good faith effort to correct all deficiencies identified by Development Services and the Fire Department, including lowering the height of mulch piles to 12 feet, and removal of all mulch from the property located to the north. 3. Due to the installation of the two 8,000 gallon water tanks, the Fire Department has now determined that it is safe for the applicant to resume the mulching operation. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -19- (5583d) C-9 PROPOSED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE On April,l, 1986, the Planning Commission tabled the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance. Since then, staff has worked on the ordinance with the City Attorney's office in order to gain their support of incorporating a property maintenance ordinance into the municipal code. Staff referred Commissioners to a letter from the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce which was handed out at the meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kirk Kirkland, President, Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, spoke and voiced his concerns about subjectivity and interpretation of staff in making judgments. He does not oppose ordinances, just concerns about enforcement. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners felt an appeal process would be needed for this ordinance. Staff indicated provisions would incorporate an abatement process as well as an appeal process to the City Council. Commissioner Erskine wants to see the appeal process outlined and responses given to the Chamber of Commerce to questions in their letter dated June 30, 1986 to the Planning Commission. 3 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE, WITH REVISIONS, AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 REQUEST TO AMEND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 12746 AND 12747 Tentative Tract 12746 and Tentative Tract 12747, approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1986, were requests to consolidate two city blocks of 20 parcels each. The purpose of the lot consolidations was to facilitate an oil unitization project to be developed by Angus Petroleum Corp. Condition #11 of both tract maps concerned average setback requirements and stated that the applicant, "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. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -20- (5583d) I Spencer Sheldon, representing the applicant, wanted condition #11 deleted or incorporate sketches by reference into the tract map. Commissioners discussed the setback requirements, landscape buffer, sidewalks and entitlement. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE MODIFICATION OF CONDITION #11 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 12746 AND 12747, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS: The action of the Planning Commission was to modify condition #11 of Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12746 and 12747 with the following language: Condition #11, as modified, to read: "Provide a setback for any parameter wall equivalent to or greater than that which is required for structures in the Oldtown Specific Plan, District 2." D-2 POSSIBLE ZONE CHANGE IN THE VICINITY OF MAIN AND TENTH STREETS At the study session held on June 16, 1986, the Planning Commission discussed a possible zone change from R2 to R2-Q for the properties in the.vicinity of Main and Tenth Streets. The Commission felt that the Q could address building bulk, building height and lot splitting. Recent code amendments have reduced the building height in the R1 zone from 30 feet to 25 feet. The R2 height limit remains at 30 feet. The Commission discussed the R2 properties along Main Street and the possibility of limiting their height to 25 feet or 2 stories, in an effort to create greater compatibility with the adjacent R1 properties. Based on this proposed height limit, the Commission felt that it would not be necessary to limit building bulk as is done in the Townlot and Oldtown areas. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -21- (5583d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO INITIATE A ZONE CHANGE TO ADD A Q SUFFIX TO LIMIT THE BUILDINGS TO 2 STORIES TO THE R2 AREAS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Porter NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. F. PENDING ITEMS: Charter Centre handicapped spaces. January 1986 Pending List Update. Staff to investigate building shaking on Center Drive in Old Town. Notification Matrix. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Public Hearing Process for Parcel Map and Tentative Tract Maps 8-Story Height - SR Suffix on Senior Housing Standards Commissioners Rowe, Schumacher and Livengood will represent the Planning Commission on the Phase II Subcommittee for Downtown Redevelopment. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None. I. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 12:45 AM to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on July 15, 1986 at 7:00 PM. APPROVED: PC Minutes - 7/1/86 Tom v r ngoo Ch irman _22- (5583d) 1