Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-15APPROVED 8/5/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P A P P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of 7/1/86 Planning Commission Meeting MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 7/1/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-2 Correction of Approved Minutes of 5/20/86 Planning Commission Meeting MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE THE CORRECTED APPROVED MINUTES OF THE 5/20/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-3 Amendment to Minutes Approved 7/1/86 (Finding No. 4) of June 17, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE AMENDED MINUTES OF THE JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 Request to Amend Resolution No. 1327-A Applicant: Carlton Browne & Co., Inc. (For a Mixed Use Development at the Northeast Corner of Warner and Gothard) This item was continued from July 1, 1986 because of a lack of a majority vote on the motion to approve Resolution No. 1327-A as submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Porter indicated to the Planning Commission that he had read the minutes and had reviewed the site on this project and would be voting on this item. Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, distributed a handout to the Commissioners and questioned the Resolution dealing with buildings #3 and #4. He indicated that the Resolution before the Planning Commission this evening was not the Resolution proposed by the applicant. R. Harlow, representing the applicant, wanted 25% allowable use to be in the retail end of the business. He would like allowable uses to include offices to enable an accountant, an insurance broker, an engineer, a sandwich shop, architect, manufacturer's representative, and Community/Social Service services to occupy space in this development. Commissioners briefly discussed commercial and office uses along Warner Avenue. Commissioners noted that about 70% of Mr. Bame's requests in the handout for allowable uses is currently allowed. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -2- (5673d) I 1 MOTION MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ROWE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1327-A, AS MODIFIED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, NOES: Erskine, Porter ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PUBLIC COMMENTS Livengood, Mirjahangir Kirk Kirkland, President, Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to approval of Resolution 1356-A, item #D-1 on the agenda, Development Standards for Single Family Homes Within the Downtown -Specific Plan. Mr. Kirkland felt that the requirement within this Resolution to require a notarized declaration stating that a building was constructed pursuant to approved plans and shall be limited for use as a single unit building, was very restrictive and would present a hardship to property owners. Commissioners discussed the purpose of this Resolution which is to keep single family dwellings as single family dwellings. Commissioners feel this Resolution would help reduce bootlegging and preserve the integrity of the Downtown Specific Plan District Two area. Another point made by the Commission in response to Mr. Kirkland's objection is that the notarized restriction is not as restrictive as the CC&R's which goes with the deed. Attorney Sangster said that the notarized declaration should be recorded or the covenant was worthless. The Commissioners discussed the estate area of the Lindberg development in the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan area. The Commissioners asked staff if there were stable facilities on this property. Staff responded that there was a lot for horse stables at the present time. However, staff has received a request from David Dahl for a zone change to delete the Q which requires equestrian areas as he now wants to sell it. Mr. Dahl will be filling out a zone change request shortly. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44/TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 1, 1986) This request is to permit a reduction in lot width for two lots within a proposed eight -lot subdivision. On July 1, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Exception No. 86-44 and Tentative Tract 12756 and directed staff to explore alternative PC Minutes - 7/15/86 QcIM (5673d) street layouts connecting the proposed cul-de-sac street with Moody Circle to the north and/or extending the cul-de-sac street easterly for access to future development on adjacent easterly parcels. During staff's analysis, several layouts were submitted by the applicant, the Traffic Division, Planning Commissioners, and the neighborhood group. Commissioners discussed the vehicular circulation of this area. Commissioners asked Les Evans, Public Works, about the number of vehicles traveling on the streets in question. Les responded that this proposed project would generate the same number of trips as in a typical project in a quarter section with four entrances and that these streets could handle up to 2500 vehicles per day. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Robert Skinner, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He expressed the applicant's willingness to decrease the number of proposed units from 30 to 28. He felt it was inappropriate to allow personal opinion of individuals to cloud the basic issues of a project. He felt to do this was a form!of discrimination. He asked relief from item #19 in the suggested conditions of approval which would require a conditional use permit for the project. Margaret Wilson, who lives on Graham and is a 16 year resident of Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the project. She feels the project will modernize and update Huntington Beach. Tom Hep, a property owner on Pearce Street, spoke in support of the project. He felt the project would be an asset to the neighborhood. A. Torosian, a property owner employed by Douglas Aircraft, spoke in support of the project. He felt the units would be of high quality and would enhance the community. He felt Huntington Beach needs more rental units. Alex Beauroyre, a property owner, spoke in support of the project. He felt this project would provide needed housing and benefit the community. Ralph Downing, property owner, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt the community had a need for housing but that this project would create traffic and parking problems and affect the safety of the neighborhood. Mike Obradovich, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt the proposed project would create severe traffic and parking problems. He felt the traffic issue should be closely evaluated and the neighborhood concerns seriously considered. He felt there should be a maximum number of bedrooms and units established for this project. 1 PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -4- (5673d) John March, resident and property owner, spoke in support of the project. He felt the project would be good for the area and good for Huntington Beach. Nancy Walker, resident on Pearce Drive, spoke against the project stating she felt serious traffic problems would occur if this project were approved. Tammy Spaeter, a renter on Moody Circle, spoke in opposition to the project. She felt approval of this project would create traffic and parking problems. Christopher Kuljis, resident on Pearce Street, spoke against the project stating she felt approval of this project would create traffic and parking problems. Cheryl Browning, spoke in opposition to this project. She felt the project was non -conforming to both R1 and R2 residential areas. She felt the neighborhood's proposed alternatives would better serve the developer and neighborhood. Mark Browning, resident, spoke in opposition to this proposed project. He felt the traffic dangers at the corner of Bolsa Chica and Pearce Street would be much greater if this project were approved. He also felt there was not adequate parking for this project. Gene Carrothers, resident on Pearce Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt this project would create traffic and parking problems. He felt other traffic routing alternatives should be considered such as closing off Moody Circle. Michael Downey, resident on Pearce Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt that traffic problems near Moody Circle are already dangerous and approval of this project would only create more danger. Betty Gallup, resident on Stallion Circle, objects to this project. She felt projects such as this were eliminating all the open space. Kathy Meyers, resident on Grass Circle, spoke in support of what her neighbors had already said and agreed with the traffic problems created by exiting on Pearce as addressed by the other residents. Robert Skinner, again spoke in support of this project. He reiterated that this project met requirements of the zoning code, the General Plan and the tentative tract. The applicant had reduced the density from 30 units to 28 units to alleviate neighbors' concerns. He is opposed to closing off Moody Circle. He said there was sufficient on -site parking to comply with requirements. He felt this project should be approved. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -5- ( 5673d ) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Attorney Sangster read to the Planning Commission the code requirements and answered the Commissioner's questions about imminent domain. The Commissioners asked Attorney Sangster if the Commission had the authority to designate a street configuration. Attorney Sangster responded that the Commission did have such authority. Commissioners discussed the traffic and parking impacts on Pearce and future street traffic impacts if this project were approved. Commissioners discussed this project's proximity to the airport and the future access problems. Commissioners discussed the various exhibits and alternatives provided by both staff and the neighbors. The Commissioners decided to take a straw vote to eliminate the alternatives they felt would not be acceptable. The results are as follows: To eliminate Exhibit #7 AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None VOTE PASSED To eliminate Exhibit #1 AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None VOTE PASSED To eliminate Exhibit #4 AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None VOTE PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir 1 PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -6- (5673d) 1 To eliminate Exhibit #5 AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None VOTE PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, This left Exhibits #2, #3 and #6 still under consideration as acceptable alternatives. Commissioners directed staff to review condition of approval #9 and look at adding a condition requiring an easement if necessary. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE TO THE AUGUST 5, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO ANALYZE EXHIBITS #2, #3 AND #6. IN THIS ANALYSIS, STAFF IS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS, ECONOMIC CONCERNS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE POTENTIAL FOR LAND LOCK PARCELS, AND CIRCULATION PLAN FOR THE AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) This request is to convert an existing service station to food mart and in -bay car wash in conjunction with a service station. MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE, PER APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REQUEST, TO THE AUGUST 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -7- ( 5673d ) C-3 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS NO. - AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 6- JULY 1, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DENIAL OF USE PERMIT This request is to appeal the Board of Zoning Adjustments denial of the construction of an approximately 2,500 square feet drive-thru restaurant and a request to reduce the minimum 27 feet turning radius, minimum 10 feet wide landscape planter width, and the required number of parking spaces. MOTION MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE, PER APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REQUEST, TO THE AUGUST 5, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-17 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 6, 1986 AND JUNE 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This request is to repeal existing Articles 969.5, 969, 965, 969.8, and 969.7 and add new Article 941, "Limited Use/Recreational Open Space Districts," and new Article 942, "Shoreline/ Water Recreation/Coastal Conservation Districts." This item was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1986. This code amendment streamlines provisions in the subject areas listed above. In addition, the articles have been modified to be consistent in format and numbering with the rest of Division 9. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed 969, Recreational Open Space District. Commissioners wanted (f) "Signs shall conform to Article 976" inserted in the new ordinance. Also, Commissioners discussed Article 969.7, "CC" Coastal Conservation District. Commissioners wanted S. 969.7.4 "Prohibited Principal Uses and Structures" inserted in the new ordinance. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -8- (5673d) L MOTION MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-17, WITH MODIFICATIONS, AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 Livengood, Erskine, Porter, AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES CONTINUED FROM MAY 6, 1986 AND JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS The City of Huntington Beach has adopted three goals for its housing program which are consistent with State and Regional housing policies. These goals are: 1. The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. 2. The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. 3. The development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities, community facilities, and adequate services. On June 16, 1986, the Planning Commission held a study session on the draft affordable housing policies. A public hearing on the housing policies was held on June 17, 1987, after which the Planning Commission took a straw vote on each of the draft policies. Staff has revised the affordable housing policies to conform with the straw vote taken by the Commission. As the Commission requested, copies of the revised policies were distributed to interested parties and their comments requested. The distribution included the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Huntington Beach Company, and Richard Harlow and Associates. No comments have been received, to date. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kirk Kirkland, President, Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to Resolution 1354 in the following areas: (1) He does not believe it is reasonable to expect affordable units, when they are included in a project, to be of the same size and mix as the rest of the project. (2) He does not want a maximum density bonus in the policy limits, and (3) he wants requirement for affordable units to be comingled. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -9- (5673d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners held a brief discussion on the draft affordable housing policies and Resolution 1354. MOTION MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ROWE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1354 APPROVING THE DRAFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES AND RECOMMEND THEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-21/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-25/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-12 ( CONTINUED FROM MAY 20 1986, JUNE 3, 1986 AND JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS This request is to construct a 5-unit apartment project with special permits and a conditional exception. MOTION MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-21, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-25 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-12 FOR 60 DAYS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-47 Conditional Exception No. 86-47 is a request to permit: (1) an angled building encroachment into the required front sight angle setback along Beach Boulevard; (2) a reduction in required parking spaces from 127.4 to 114 based on joint use of the parking area for the meeting rooms and motel rooms; and (3) reduction in required landscaping along MacDonald Avenue from 15feet to 10 feet in width. On July 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 to construct a 104-unit motel located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Holt Avenue and MacDonald Avenue with specific conditions. Revised plans have been submitted depicting these changes except for those included within this conditional exception request. The 104-unit motel has been reduced to 101 units. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -10- (5673d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This request is covered under Negative Declaration No. 86-28 previously approved for a 104-unit motel. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Ramsey, Ramsey Architects, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Ramsey took exception to conditions of approval item #l.b. and #l.c. Chandulal K. Patel, applicant, spoke in favor of his project. He also voiced his exceptions to conditions of approval item #l.b. and #l.c. He questioned one condition of approval under Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 and was told by the Commissioners that they could only discuss Conditional Exception No. 86-47 and not a previously approved conditional use permit. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners discussed the conditions of approval regarding the on -site parking spaces required. This item was trailed to allow staff time to prepare findings for denial for variance request #2. When this item was resumed, staff read to the Commission the prepared findings. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST #1 AND #3 OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-47 BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND DENY VARIANCE REQUEST #2 OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-47 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -VARIANCE REQUEST #1 AND #3: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-47, request #1 and #3, for building encroachment into the site angle setback, and reduced landscape planter width is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of property rights. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-47, request #1 and #3, will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Other lots that have a wider frontage along Beach Boulevard are less restricted by the sight angle setback. The 10 foot wide landscaped planter is consistent with an adjacent proposed development. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -11- (5673d) 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-47, request #1 and #3 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, location and existing adjacent developments, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The parcel is T-shaped with access to three streets. 5. The variance requests, except for reduction in parking requirement, under Conditional Exception No. 86-47 are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated June 25, 1986 shall be the approved conceptual layout with the following modifications: a. Show 10 foot wide planter along MacDonald Avenue to align with proposed restaurant parking layout. 2. All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 must be complied with except conditions l.b. and l.c. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -VARIANCE REQUEST #2: 1. The variance request for reduction of 12 parking spaces (based upon a revised site plan with 116 parking spaces) as required for the meeting rooms would be inadequate for the proposed 101-unit motel and would increase on -street parking in the vicinity. 2. The variance request for reduction in parking is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights because the site plan can be redesigned by either reducing or eliminating the meeting rooms and/or the number of motel rooms to meet the parking requirements. D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission previously acted on a resolution of this nature on April 15, 1986 (Resolution No. 1356, Attachment 2). Since one important set of requirements was omitted, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission take action on an amended resolution. The added point is listed as No. 6 on the resolution and covers the application of the miscellaneous requirements of Article 913 (Attachment 3). These include the specific standards I PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -12- (5673d) 1 or minimum corridor connection between the main portion of the dwelling and any living area over the garage, and, most importantly, the single family design standards that require the submittal of a notarized declaration, stating that the dwelling shall be limited for use as a single family dwelling unit. Staff feels that all of the miscellaneous requirements listed as Section 9130.13 of the Oldtown/Townlot standards are appropriate to apply to the development of single family dwellings in the Downtown Specific Plan, District 2. Commissioners discussed Mr. Kirkland's objection to Resolution 1356-A pertaining to the notarized declaration stating the dwelling is to be a single unit. They felt that this declaration was not as restrictive as the CC&R's which goes with the deed. This requirement is presently a requirement in the Zoning Code under S. 9130.13, Miscellaneous Requirements, item (e) (4), requiring that the owner/developer of a particular property provide to the Development Services Director prior to final inspection a notarized declaration stating that the building was constructed pursuant to approved plans and shall be limited for use as a single unit building. Commissioners discussed the reasoning for having this notarized declaration prepared and used. The intent is to keep a single unit dwelling as such. MOTION MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ROWE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1356-A AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, D-2 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-42 Conditional Use Permit No. 85-42 for "Under the Rainbow" pre-school and day care center at 6621 Glen Drive, was approved by the Planning Commission on September 4, 1985. Condition No. 4 states that the Planning Commission must review any increase in the number of children at the center. The same rooms specified in the original approval will be utilized, as Condition No. 3 states that a new conditional use permit (with public hearing) is required for any expansion in the number of rooms. The applicant is requesting an increase from fifty-five children to eighty-five children. As discussed at the time of the public hearing, her intent was to expand the operation over time. The purpose of the condition was to ensure that there be an opportunity to review the use prior to approving any expansion. Staff has checked with Land Use Enforcement personnel and no complaints have been registered in the time since the center has been in operation. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -13- (5673d) The square footage of the school (5000 square feet) would permit a total of 140 children pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requirement of 35 square feet per child. The expansion would conform to all code requirements. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE INCREASE FROM 55,TO 85 CHILDREN, WITH ALL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITr NO. 85-42 TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school/day care center will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school/day care center is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school/day care center will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated August 20, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -14- (5673d) 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of one hundred children. The initial approval, however, shall be for up to fifty-five children. Increasing the number beyond this amount shall require a review by the Planning Commission. Then again, prior to any expansion beyond eighty-five children, a review by the Planning Commission shall be conducted. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 6. The chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 7. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 8. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM only. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. D-3 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-19 This request for the Commission's review is a letter from Linda Felix received and dated July 10, 1986, requesting a 3-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 83-19. Conditional Use Permit 83-19, a request to permit the establishment of a temporary community horse facility, was approved by the Commission on August 2, 1983 for a three year period. (Expiration date is August 2, 1986.) Due to the present work schedule, staff has not been able to field check the facility to determine compliance with the conditions of approval and requests that the Commission delay action on this item until the August 5, 1986 Commission meeting. At that time, staff will have had the opportunity to perform an in-depth field inspection of the site and present this information to the Planning Commission. As stated, Conditional Use Permit 83-19 will expire on August 2, 1986. However, Section 9371.2 of the Ordinance Code permits one year extensions of time upon written request of the applicant. The PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -15- (5673d) Planning Commission may approve a request for an extension of time subject to a determination that the subject use has been in substantial conformance with the provisions of the Article and that all previous conditions of approval have been complied with during the past years of operation. Since the Department of Development Services is in receipt of the applicant's request for extension of time, staff has determined that it is appropriate to act on this request at the August 5, 1986 Commission meeting. MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-19 TO THE AUGUST 51 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS: Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Charter Center handicapped spaces. The Building Division has indicated that the architect for Charter Centre submitted revised plans on 5/20/86 to provide 10 handicapped parking stalls on the site. The architect has indicated the work will be completed within the next 30 days. January 1986 Pending List Update. Staff to provide complete update at the next meeting. Staff to investigate building shaking on Center Drive in Oldtown. The Public Works Department has not determined the cause of the vibrations emanating from Center Drive as of July 15, 1986. An answer will be provided to the Commission at the August 5, 1986 meeting. I PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -16- (5673d) 1 Notification Matrix. Commissioners wanted the Council on Aging and the Association of Mobilehome Owners added to the Groups column. Also, add #13 under "Subject Areas" to include Mobilehome Conversion. MOTION BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO ACCEPT THE NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST, WITH MODIFICATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Commissioner Livengood had requested information on a dance studio on Gothard. "Pace Dance Productions" at 16582 Gothard (Unit A) was approved by the Planning Commission on May 6,' 1980, by Conditional Use Permit No. 80-10. This is a 2226 square foot dance studio with unclassified use under Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. NEW ITEMS ADDED TO THE PENDING LIST: Large vacation boats are being stored on Clay and Goldenwest near Garfield. Texaco service station on Davenport/Algonquin sign protrudes into the sight angle thus limiting visibility of oncoming traffic. Public Works to review. Illegal dumping at Springdale/Bolsa Chica. Public Works will respond back on this item. Elevation and drainage on Heil and Gothard Avenue project. Les Evans will prepare a report on this item. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Public Hearing Process for Parcel Map and Tentative Tract Maps MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, PC Minutes - 7/15/86 -17 - (5673d) H. Commissioners want to intensify landscaping that is now proposed on vacant lots and the bare ground on Moody's development which is under construction at Bolsa Chica and Pierce. Mr. Moody has indicated a willingness to provide intensified landscaping. Chairman Livengood and Commissioner Erskine will comprise a subcommittee to meet with Mr. Broberg and Mr. Moody. Staff to set up this meeting for Tuesday, July 22, 1986, at about 8:00 AM. Mr. Sangster will also attend this subcommittee meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None I. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 PM to the Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 86-10 Study Session on July 22, 1986, at 7:00 PM, and to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on August 5, 1986, at 7:00 PM. There will be a Study Session on August 19, 1986 at 6:00 PM on Angus Petroleum followed by the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 PM. APPROVED: Tom Liveng od, C air an L� 1 PC Minutes - 7/15/86 mum (5673d)