Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-05APPROVED 9/3/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of 7/15/86 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 1986, AS CORRECTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Winchell MOTION PASSED Commissioner Schumacher requested that the staff, in the future, include approved resolutions as part of the minutes for easier referral to an item. A-2 General Plan Conformance 86-6 (Vacation of portion of Hartford Avenue between Lake and Huntington Streets to allow for the development of a 70 unit apartment project) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-6 UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IS IN A POSITION TO PROCESS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR ENTITLEMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjhahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Connie Mandic addressed the Planning Commission regarding pending closures of Horse Stables in the Country View Estates area due to the new construction of homes. She questioned whether a gradual phase out would be initiated as promised or if the horse stables would be notified to either vacate or become permanent. Chairman Livengood suggested that since there was an application for an extension of time of a temporary horse stable scheduled for action later on in the agenda, that this subject should be addressed at that time. Commissioner Porter complimented all parties responsible for the monument sign at the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant at Brookhurst and Garfield. �J PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -2- (5961d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44/TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 COMMISSION MEETING) The Planning Commission on July 15, 1986, reviewed seven alternative street layouts of the proposed tentative tract located at 16852 and 16862 Bolsa Chica. Three alternatives were retained: Alternative #2 (applicant's revised request); Alternative #3 (Connection to Moody Circle with landscaping barricade at Pearce); and Alternative #6 (same as Alternative #3 but includes extension to the east for future access) were retained. Staff further analyzed these three alternatives in terms of current and future traffic circulation (based on proposed land uses at Meadowlark Airport). A meeting was held on July 22, 1986, with staff, City Engineer, two Commissioners (Erskine and Livengood), Jack Broberg, Robert Skinner, Ken Moody and the Fire Department to discuss the feasib lity of the three concepts. The following is a recap of the three alternatives: Alternative #2 (applicant's revised request): This layout shows eight lots off a short cul-de-sac. The lots are rectangular in shape which eliminates the need for a variance for reduced lot width and frontage. Access to Bolsa Chica would be limited to right turns into and out of "A" Street. Moody Circle would remain unchanged. Alternative #3: This concept entails a connection between the proposed "A" Street cul-de-sac and existing Moody Circle to the north. A connection could be made by acquiring lot #6 of Tract 12206 and extending Moody Circle southerly to an L-shaped "A" Street within the proposed subdivision. The new subdivision would have eight lots and 28 apartment units, a reduction of two units. Lot #6 is currently vacant and conversion to a street would result in a loss of one lot and three units from the northerly tract. At the north end of Moody Circle, an emergency gate and landscaping could be provided. The driveways on the two northerly developments could serve as turnaround areas. Additional on -street parking would be created between lots #5 and #6 of Tract 12206. Alternative #6: This alternative combines access from Bolsa Chica to Moody Circle and from Bolsa Chica to parcels east of the subject property and future Meadowlark Airport development. Acquisition of lot #6 of Tract 12206 for the Moody Circle extension and an easterly extension of "A" Street to the easterly property line would be necessary. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -3- (5961d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard Holzapfel, representing the applicant, spoke in support of Alternative #2. He stated that Alternative #2 was an equitable proposal and addressed the concerns of the City and the neighbors. He presented renderings of the development. He further stated that his client was not interested in waiving the mandatory processing date on the application. Bill Walker, neighbor at 5071 Pearce Drive, spoke in opposition to Alternative #2. He had two concerns: 1) Bolsa Chica is too close to Moody Circle and presents a dangerous traffic hazard; 2) Parking is already congested and the apartments are not built yet. James Macmillan, neighbor at 5181 Stallion Circle, spoke in opposition to the proposed Alternative #2. He is a professional blueprint evaluator and was concerned with the plans proposed. His main concern was that there was no provision for future airport access. Mark Browning, neighbor at 16771 Roosevelt Lane, spoke in opposition to Alternative #2. He stated that he favored Alternative #3 or #6. He feels that Moody Circle should be closed due to safety reasons and that a fire gate or crash gate be installed for security reasons. He was concerned with access on Lot #6 to the sewer line, traffic problems, and on -street parking problems. Tammy Spaeter, neighbor at 5064 Pearce Circle, spoke in opposition to Alternative #2. She was concerned with the additional traffic on Pearce Street if the Meadowlark road goes through. Cheryle B. Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, spoke in opposition to Alternative #2. She feels that by allowing all of the maximums, a dangerous trend is being set and that there is not enough open space. She is concerned with public safety. She feels that the building looks nice but is in violation of the codes., She would like all of the problems addressed. Michael Downey, 5161 Pearce Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. Sally Graham, 5161 Gelding Circle, spoke in opposition to Alternative #2. She stated that there are a large number of children on Pearce and the project would cause traffic hazards. Virginia Oviatt, resident, had several questions regarding the project. She stated that she had not be notified of the continued public hearing. Her property backs up to the proposed project. Werner Puttner, 5081 Pearce Drive, spoke on opposition to Alternative #2. He stated that Pearce Drive has too many cars already and is unsafe for children. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -4- (5961d) 1 Concerns were expressed by the Commission regarding the safety of the project in relation to the Meadowlark Airport traffic, and inadequate access to adjacent existing and proposed developments necessary to alleviate traffic problems. Since several violations had been reported on the Moody property a follow-up was requested. Verification of the electrical lines and sewer lines traversing Lot #6 was also requested. Two lots are less than the minimum lot width required for R2 developments, therefore a plotted map is needed on the project. Due to the mandatory processing time and the unwillingness of the applicant to extend the processing time, the Planning Commission acted to deny the request based on the findings outlined in this report. City Attorney stated that the tract map must be acted on due to the mandatory processing date and that there was not an amended tract map submittal for the Commission to consider. The Commission requested that the City Attorney's office prepare a temporary restraining order to prevent any further building permits to be issued on Moody Circle pending a report from Development Services on alleged violations. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44, WITH REVISED FINDINGS, 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 ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT 12756, WITH REVISED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -5- (5961d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. The parcel can -be divided into parcels that conform to minimum lot width. 2. Since the subject property can be divided according to regular established -standards such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. 4. Experience with similar requests for tentative tract maps with reduced lot frontages has resulted in excessive curb cuts and severe parking problems. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756: 1. Approval of the subdivision would preclude access from Bolsa Chica to adjoining -easterly underdeveloped parcels. 2. The subdivision of land into 8 individual lots will not allow for proper buffers and setbacks to the airport site and commercial center. 3. The proposed subdivision creates lots which are within 400 feet of the Meadowlark Airport runway and of inadequate size to accommodate a low profile building design and necessary building setbacks in order to reduce the possible conflict between buildings and airport users. Due to the uniqueness of the site and its surroundings, it should be developed as an integrated project to allow flexibility in building design and to create sufficient buffers to ,the airport and adjacent commercial uses. 4. The proposed subdivision does not provide adequate access to the adjacent northerly development pursuant to Section 9960.2.d which is necessary to alleviate neighborhood traffic problems on Pearce Street by providing an alternate access to Moody Circle. 5. The proposed map is not consistent with the zoning code because two lots are less than the minimum lot width required for R2 developments. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -6- (5961d) C-2 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-1 The City Council adopted Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 on June 4, 1984. Circulation Element Amendment 84-1 was in response to the circulation section of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Precise Plan of Street Alignment is intended to establish the precise alignments of adopted arterials: (A) Walnut Avenue between Sixth Street and Lake Street; B) deleted; C) Sixth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue; D) Sixth Street between Orange Avenue and Lake Street; E) Orange Avenue between Sixth Street and Third Street; and F) Lake Street between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The precise alignments are the first step in implementing those arterial extensions, realignments and reclassifications which were adopted by Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1. Those arterials were previously analyzed in Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 in terms of existing and proposed circulation patterns and traffic volumes, impact on existing and planned land uses and consistency with adc ted goals, policies and plans. Precise Plan of Street Alignment 86-1 was initially submitted to the Planning Commission for their June 17, 1986 meeting but was continued at the request of the Planning Commission so that a study session could be scheduled and additional information provided. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The environmental impact of the proposed realignment was previously assessed at the time of Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1. Negative Declaration No. 84-14 was adopted by the City Council on June 4, 1984. Environmental Impact Report 82-2 previously analyzed the downtown arterials in conjunction with the Downtown Specific Plan. Section 4.0 of this report elaborates on that environmental analysis. No additional environmental assessment is necessary. Staff notified residents within a 300 foot radius of the alignments (approximately 1,000). THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Bame, representing Russel D. Walkins, spoke in opposition to the proposed alignment. He stated that the widening of Walnut will demolish on -going oil wells that are major producing wells in this area, and that the Planning Commission should consider this before making a decision. Susan Worthy, resident - 515 Walnut Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed alignment. She stated that there are buildings that would be affected from the alignment that have been in Huntington Beach since 1903 and that they should be declared historical sites. Doug Langevin, resident - 8196 Pawtucket Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed alignment. He felt that the proposed alignment would force several property owners to sell historical sites and would trigger eminent domain land grants. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -7- (5961d) Guy Guzzardo, Member of the Historical Society and resident - 515 Walnut Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed alignment. He stated that he is concerned for the property owners and businesses in the area. He feels that the City should be more sensitive to its citizens. He further stated that several historical sites would be in jeopardy. Mark Hodson, resident - Pacific Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to the extension of Walnut Avenue. He suggested that a committee be formed that would include members of Pacific Mobile Home Park and others to address all impacts. Don Galitzen, apartment owner in the area, spoke in opposition. He is concerned that the proposed alignment would lower the standards of safety for his tenants. He would lose 2 units from his apartment complex. David Weisbart, resident - 21462 Pacific Coast Highway, spoke in opposition. He urged the Commission to preserve all of the historical buildings. Lance Jaco, resident - 215 Crest Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed alignment. He urged the Commission to postpone their decision until they received more input from the residents and other concerned parties. He felt that each street and area needed separate consideration. Faye Ogden, resident, spoke in opposition to the alignment. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the alignment. The Commissioners stated their concerns which included projected traffic problems, density, parking problems, preservation of historical sites, and the lack of community concensus. It was suggested that an advisory committee be formed which would include such groups as Driftwood Mobile Home Park, Pacific Mobile Home Park, the Historical Society, Development Services staff, Redevelopment Staff (Mike Adams), and the Planning Commission (Commissioners Erskine and Winchell), and that every link would be discussed separately for design solutions. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 86-1 WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING AND SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1986, WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, 1 PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -8- (5961d) C-3 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT N0: 86-6 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-3 The appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of Use Permit No. 86-6 and Conditional Exception No. 86-3 was continued from the July 15, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, with the applicant's concurrence. Use Permit No. 86-6 is a request for the construction of an approximately 2,500 square foot drive-thru restaurant located at 16311 Beach Boulevard (northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and MacDonald Avenue) and Conditional Exception No. 86-3 is a three -fold variance request: (1) to reduce the minimum 27 foot turning radius; (20 to reduce the minimum 10 foot wide landscape planter width to 8 feet; and (3) reduce the required number of parking spaces from 42 to 29 spaces. On May 21, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied Use Permit No. 86-6, Conditional Exception No. 86-3 by a vote o- 5-0. The Board of Zoning Adjustments agreed with staff's evaluation that the number of variance requested represented too great a d--arture from the provisions in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Staff indicated to the applicant that the proposed square footage for the building needed to be reduced in order to comply with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Code Ordinance. The applicant requested a continuance at the July 15, 1986 Planning Commission meeting in order to submit a site plan which would eliminate most of the variance requests and also provide an improved circulation and parking plan. Reciprocal access was obtained from the property owner of the recently approved motel project located adjacent to the subject site and staff has encouraged the applicant to integrate reciprocal access with the motel site along the MacDonald Avenue frontage. In addition, staff indicated to the applicant that the proposed elevations for the new restaurant building should be architecturally compatible with the recently approved motel. Staff stated that the plan does not provide for an adequate stacking area for the drive-thru facility. This would have a serious negative impact on Beach Boulevard when the "Super Street" improvements are made. It would remove the parking lane on Beach Boulevard. Thus, any stacking onto Beach Boulevard would have a serious impact. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 2 Section 15302 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED A representative from Jack In The Box spoke in support of the project. He stated that the facility has been redesigned; the square footage reduced; and agreement from the adjacent motel owners had been received for reciprocal parking. He was surprised that constraints had been recently placed on his project and that an already large investment had been made. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -9- (5961d) John Emanuelli, Regional Manager, Jack In The Box, spoke in support of the project. He discussed his stacking plans for the project and showed comparable plans. He also stated that he is trying to increase sit-down business. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that the egress/ingress on the project needed re -addressed and that a low profile monument sign would be preferred at the site. They were also concerned with potential stacking problems. They suggested that a continuance be granted in order to allow staff time to sit down -with the applicant and produce a plan which would comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and address the concerns regarding potential stacking onto Beach Boulevard. The applicant did not choose to have a continuance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PORTER, TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND DENY USE PERMIT NO. 86-6 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-3, BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 86-6: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 2,100 square foot drive-thru restaurant will be detrimental to: 1 a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because of potential ingress, egress, and stacking at proposed driveways on MacDonald Avenue and Beach Boulevard; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building because the proposed project will not be compatible with surrounding structures. 2. The granting of Use Permit No. 86-6 will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Recent observations of similar drive-thru restaurants on Beach Boulevard have indicated an average of 13 stacking spaces needed for peak hours. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -10- (5961d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-3: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within the required setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The proposed on -site parking and circulation plan is inadequate and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard at the proposed shared driveway located on MacDonald Avenue. 4. Ingress and egress to the site at the shared driveiiy located on MacDonald Avenue has the potential of creating additional traffic impacts. 5. The possibility of stacking onto Beach Boulevard has the potential of creating a major traffic hazard because the existing parking lane on Beach Boulevard will become a travel lane as the result of the "Super Street" improvements. C-4 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-39 After carefully reviewing the mechanism for adding suffixes in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and the intent of this zone change, i.e. to increase the density so that an identical number of units are permitted on these lots after the additional right-of-way and improvement of Heil Avenue (between Beach Boulevard and Silver Lane) is completed, staff has determined a more appropriate zoning designation which will ensure equitable zoning. The method outlined in the code for adding a density suffix to the district specifies that the number used regulates units per gross acre. With these particular lots, most of which are small in size and are not normally entitled to use the gross site area, a problem develops in (1) coming up with a fair number of units per gross acre, and (2) one which results in the appropriate density being allowed for a given lot. Further complicating the problem is that the gross site area would include the total 40 foot Heil Avenue right-of-way as well as another 30 feet of Alhambra Drive. For these reasons, staff has determined that a "Q" (qualified classification) added to the R2 zoning is the best, simplest, and most appropriate way to address the problem. The "Q" would include only one condition, that is, PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -11- (5961d) (a) For purposes of calculating density, where Section 9120.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies that net site area shall be used, these lots shall be entitled to add twenty-five feet of the Heil Avenue right-of-way to net site area due to the dedication and improvement required to widen Heil Avenue. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Zone Change No. 86-22/Negative Declaration No. 86-39 to the meeting of August 19, 1986, to allow time for a zone change ordinance to'be prepared and advertised describing the change from R2 to (Q)R2. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present -to speak for or against the Zone Change. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO -ONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-22/NEGATIVE DECLARTION NO. 86-39 WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN TO THE AUGUST 19, 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 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-48 Conditional Exception No. 86-48 is a request to permit a building height of 32 foot 6 inches and to allow for a 6 foot cut in the rear yard so that a swimming pool can be constructed. The subject property is located in Country View Estates, east of Edwards and south of Ellis Avenue. The property is zoned Q-R1-(2.7)-0-8,000. In addition to the R1 standards, additional development criteria for the property is contained in the Conditional Use Permit 82-3 and Tentative Tract 11473. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class V Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Eric Mossman, architect, spoke in support of the project. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -12- (5961d) David Dahl, Subdivider, spoke in support of the project in regards to the cut and fill on the site. He stated that he had been approached by several clients to do similar jobs and that the Commission would be seeing more projects similar to this one in the future. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir announced that he would be abstaining from voting on this project since he was the structural engineer. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-48, BASED ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND ADDED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property including lot size of 49,060 sq. ft., topography of up to 17% gradient and the required 100 ft. open space corridor, strict application of the R1 standards relating to building height are found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the tract. 2. Because the construction of a swimming pool cannot be stepped to accommodate sloping topography, strict application of Condition No. 15 in Tentative Tract 11473 is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the tract. 3. The terracing of the retaining walls in the rear of this property will soften the visual impact of a 6 foot cut, in keeping with the spirit and intent of the grading restrictions in Tentative Tract 11473. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-48 will not have a detrimental effect on the general health, safety, welfare and privacy of surrounding residents, or in surrounding property values. The proposed house will set back 60 feet to the adjacent lot to the south and 130 feet to the adjacent lot to the west. 5. The location, site plan and building design are harmonious and compatible with the streets, property lines and surrounding neighborhood. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -13- (5961d) 6. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-48 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The area in which the cutting will exceed the allowed 2% is for a very small percentage of the property which is located at the rear of the parcel. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated July 23, 1986, and the floor plans and elevations received and dated June 25, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Because of low water pressure in the area, the property owner must file a letter of agreement to participate on the Reservoir -Hill Water Assessment District. 3. A fire apparatus access road, minimum 24 feet witt approved turn -around, shall be installed so it is located within 150 feet of all portions of the building perimeter; or an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed to improve building fire protection capabilities. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-24 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-20 and Conditional Exception No. 86-24 is a request to utilize an existing church building located at 7641 Talbert (northwest corner Talbert Avenue and Brookshire Lane) by expanding its operation to include a pre-school for 106 children. The conditional exception requested is to permit the required playground area to occupy a portion of the site's parking lot. Huntington Beach Ordinance Code requires that a grassed outdoor play area be provided at the rate of seventy-five square feet per child (106 x 75 = 71950 square feet). The applicant is requesting that the majority of this space be within the parking lot and within an area of the parking lot surfaced with turf -block so that the landscaped spaces will be available to meet required parking requirements for the church use when the pre-school is not in operation. The church site, which is located in an industrial zone, has reciprocal access easements with industrial parcels to the north. Customer traffic and truck deliveries to other industrial tenants use the site to access the various buildings. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -14- (5961d) L� THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Steven Purdue, pastor of the church, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the project would be maximizing the use of his property and would not be a burden to his parking. He is very concerned with the safety of the children. Most of the children belong to people who work in the adjacent buildings. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project. Concerns were expressed by some of the Commissioners regarding the children's security and safety by using a parking lot as a playground. They felt that there is more appropriate areas for pre-schools already existing in vacated school sites and should be utilized. Other Commissioners felt that an asphalt play- area was acceptable. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO DEN- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-24, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A discussion took place regarding a possible continuance to have staff present additional information concerning truck traffic, an easement on the westerly drive and the position of adjacent property owner. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-24, WITH PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN, TO THE AUGUST 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -15- (5961d) C-7 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 86-3 Special Sign Permit 86-3 is a request to permit a 14.6 square feet, internally illuminated channel letter wall sign at an existing commercial center located at the southwest corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner Avenue. The proposed sign will be attached to the second level facia of the building facing Warner Avenue. The upstairs suite that the applicant leases in the building is not visible from Warner Avenue or Bolsa Chica. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt 11(a)', Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kelly King, Erwin Sign Co., spoke in support of the proposed sign. He stated that the sign would conform to the other sign in the center. His client desires to comply with the sign ordinances. Since 50 percent of his client's business is walk-in customers, the sign is needed for identification purposes. Kathryn .Toy, owner of Body and Nail Revue, spoke in support of the proposed sign. She stated that she does need proper signage and that it is imperative to her 50 percent walk-in business. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the sign and the public hearing was closed. The Commission agreed that since this business is located in a poorly designed center that proper signage is imperative to be successful. They felt however that square footage of the proposed sign should be reduced and that the applicant should submit an alternative sign based on the needs of the other building tenants. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-31 WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine NOES: Porter ABSENT: Mirjahangir, Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.5 will result in a substantial hardship to the applicant. 2. The proposed 7.6 square foot sign will not adversely affect other signs in the area. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -16- (5961d) F_� 1 L, 3. The proposed 7.6 square foot sign will not be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. 4. The proposed 7.6 square foot sign will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous distraction. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The copy of the signage shall be generic (i.e. NAILS) in keeping with the other signage in the center. 2. The type style and color of the signage shall be identical to the existing permitted channel letter wall signs in the center. 3. Final design of the proposed 7.6 square foot sign, based on other needs of building tenants, will be subject to review by Development Services. C-8 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-34 Zone Change no. 86-20 is a request to change the zone from R5 (Office Professional) to R3 (Medium High Density Residential). The subject site at the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Cameron Street was originally zoned R2. A zone change was approved in 1969 to redesignate the property as R5. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a similar request in April of this year for another parcel along this segment of Newman Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services will post draft Negative Declaration No. 86-34 for ten days. This review period will expire August 10, 1986. 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. 86-20, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-34. The City Council must take final action on the negative declaration prior to approving the zone change. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the zone change. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE, TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-34, WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN, TO THE AUGUST 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir, Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -17- (5961d) C-9 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-26 Currently, Article 917 specifies that senior projects may be eight stories in height. The proposed ordinance would delete this exception and add wording specifying that such projects shall be regulated by the maximum height specified for the base district in which they are located. CONTENT CHANGES: 1. Section 9173 is deleted which separately addresses the eight story building height. 2. Section 9171 is expanded to explain that the building height shall comply with the requirements of the base district. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the F ovisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-26, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -18- (5961d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 EXTENSION OF TIME -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-19 This item is a request for a 3-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 83-19, a request to permit the establishment of a temporary community horse facility, approved by the Commission on August 2, 1983 for a three year period. (Expiration date is August 2, 1986) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THREE YEARS (AUGUST 2, 1989) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-19 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, EXCLUDING #7, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated June 11, 1183, shall be the approved layout with the maximum horse density not to exceed 100 horses. 2. Within four (4) months of the approval of this conditional exception and conditional use permit, these items will be rescheduled for review by the Planning Commission to determine compliance with the stated conditions of approval and requirements of the City code. Should the Planning Commission find that the applicant has not complied with all requirements, including conditions of approval, a public hearing shall be scheduled to determine whether the conditional exception and conditional use permit shall become null and void, and the applicant shall be required to cease and desist the commercial stable operations. Should the Planning Commission find that the use is in substantial compliance with all City requirements, the conditional exception and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for two years, eight months from that review date. 3. Fire Department access roads shall be maintained clear at all times and surfaced to support fire apparatus. 4. Corrals, racks and stalls shall be noncombustible construction or structures with combustible walls and noncombustible roofs shall be limited to no more than six stalls. Structures having six stalls, as above, shall be separated from each other or any other combustible materials or structures by at least thirty (30) feet. Structures with combustible walls and combustible roofs shall be limited to three (3) stalls each and shall be separated from other combustible materials or structures by at least thirty'(30) feet. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -19- (5961d) 5. No hay storage shall be permitted within any of the tack rooms or stall facilities. Bulk hay storage shall be kept at a minimum of thirty (30) feet from all corrals or stables. Storage of flammable or combustible liquids shall be prohibited within thirty (30) feet of any tack room or staff facility. 6. The present facility shall be provided with City address and numbers located in front to comply with City code. D-2 REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF NON -CONFORMING USE A request to approve an outside stairway and enlarged deck recently added without the benefit of building permits to an exiting non -conforming duplex. The duplex is non -conforming because it is two of three units on a lot zoned for only one dwelling unit (R1). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 2 Section 15302 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF NON -CONFORMING USE TO THE AUGUST 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-5 A request for the development of a single family residence on a 25-foot wide lot on the east side of 17th street, south of Walnut Avenue. The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. The specific plan permits residential uses in District Two subject to a site plan review by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -20- (5961d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-5 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed single family residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood if redesigned in accord with the conditions below. 2. The proposed single family residence conforms to the General Plan. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residence is compatible with other uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residence is properly oriented to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed single family dwelling will not create any undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plans dated July 2, 1986, shall be revised to include the following modification: a. Additional open space area shall be provided in accordance with Section 9130.9. b. Maximum building height of 22 feet within the front 25 feet and rear 25 feet of the property is required. c. Projections within the front setback are limited to architectural features only. 2. The elevations dated July 2, 1986 shall be revised and resubmitted for final approval by the Design Review Board with the following modifications: a. Light lace stucco textured walls. b. Spanish or navejo white walls with blue trim, or sandlewood walls with orangish (Arizona Clay) colored trim; or similar color combination. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -21- (5961d) c. California mission clay tile roof. d. Windows shall project from building facade to provide for adequate tenestration. e. Eaves shall have a minimum 18 inches overhang. f. Raised trim accents shall be continued around all sides of the structure. 3. An alley dedication (2 feet 6 inches) is required and must be improved per Public Works standards. 4. The project shall comply with all other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. 5. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating unit-s. 6. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 7. 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. 8. 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). 9. Landscaping shall comply with Section 9130.12 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. D-4 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-6 A request for the development of a single family residence on a 25-foot wide lot on the southeast corner of Walnut Avenue and llth. Street. The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. The specific plan permits residential uses in District Two subject to a site plan review by the Planning Commission. 1 PC Minutes - 8/5/86 --22- (5961d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-6, WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed single family residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood if redesigned in accord with the conditions below. 2. The proposed single family residence conforms to the General Plan. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residence -is compatible with other uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residence is properly oriented to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed single family dwelling will not create any undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plans dated July 2, 1986, shall be revised to include the following modification: a. Setback the second floor above the garage a minimum 5 feet from the exterior side property line. b. Adjust ground floor open space area so no dimension is less than 13 feet. Adjustment must meet approval of the Director of Development Services. C. Maximum building height of 22 feet within the front and rear 25 feet of the property is required. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -23- (5961d) 2. The elevations dated July 2, 1986 shall be revised and resubmitted for final approval by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following modifications: a. Light lace stucco textured walls. b. Spanish or navejo white walls with blue trim; or sandlewood walls with dark orange (Arizona Clay) colored trim; or similar color combinations. C. California mission clay tile roof. d. Windows shall project from the building facade to provide for adequate fenestration. e. Eaves shall have a minimum 18 inches overhang. f. Raised trim accents shall be continued around all sides of the structure. g. Provide two smaller windows and a mansard roof cap along the third level wall facing Walnut Avenue. 3. An alley dedication (2 feet 6 inches) is required and must be improved per Public Works standards. 4. Dedicate 20 foot radius at corner of Walnut and 17th. Street. 5. The project shall comply with all other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. 6. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 7. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 8. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 9. The 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). 10. Landscaping shall comply with Section 9130.12 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -24- (5961d) 1 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A legal notice from the City of.Westminster was presented to the Commission regarding off -sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a new supermarket proposed for the Pavillion Shopping Center being developed at the northeast corner of Heil Avenue and Beach Boulevard. F. PENDING ITEMS: January 1986 Pending List Update. Staff was complimented on the diligent effort expended on the pending items list. The updated Pending Items List was discussed. Concerns of the Commissioners on several items were presented. It was requested that staff indicate the date when items are sent up to City Attorney for prosecution and that they alsa list the property owners involved. Commission is still concerned with pending item #5 regarding the Mobile Service Station on Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Would like an update on the activity. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The Commission expressed concern that they are not being involved in the Redevelopment process. They requested a letter be drafted to Mr. Thompson and the Redevelopment staff stating their concerns and to set up a meeting with interested individuals regarding development standards, the redevelopment process, communication, and the re-establishment of PACs (Project Area Committees). The Planning Commission requested that the Board of Zoning Adjustments refer the Angus Petroleum Use Permit to the Planning Commission so that it can be reviewed and acted on by the Commission concurrently with the zone change and environmental impact report. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Zone Change No. 84-15 - William Curtis (Council Appeal of Planning Commission Denial) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO PREPARE A REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-15, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS: 1. PROXIMITY OF PROPOSED LOCATION IS TOO CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL; 2. WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED IN A WETLAND AREA; PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -25- (5961d) I. AN ALTERNATE SUGGESTION IS TO MOVE THE LOCATION BACK CLOSER TO THE EDISON PROPERTY, STILL WITHIN THE MINERAL OIL LEASE OF THE WILLIAM CURTIS PROPERTY. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 AM to the Study Session on August 19, 1986 at 6:00 PM on Angus Petroleum followed by the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting ar 7:00 PM. APPROVED: i C� Tom LierCgl od, Ch drmary PC Minutes - 8/5/86 -2 6- (5961d)