Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-07APPROVED 10/21/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION October 7, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P(arrived at 7:15) P P P A ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P P Pierce, Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of September 16, 1986 Planning Commission meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-7 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Applicant: Robert Corona Request: Review of a single family residence at 112 21st. Street A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO REAFFIRM STAFF'S DECISION TO REJECT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION AND TO INSTRUCT THE APPLICANT TO MODIFY PLANS AND SUBMIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND PLANS REFLECTING NO MORE THAN 1 OR 2 DEVIATIONS FROM THE CODE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Pierce ABSENT: Porter, Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-1 - BUS ROUTES Staff submitted a follow-up response to direction given by the Planning Commission on a study of the impacts of the precise plan on bus routes in the downtown. OCTD has been requested to supply input on how the downtown arterials will affect bus service and routes in the area. When the information is available it will be transmitted to the Planning Commission. B-3 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT - PART B - WALNUT EXTENSION Mark Hodson, representing Pacific Park, addressed his concerns regarding the precise plan of street alignment for the Walnut extension. He requested that mitigations be addressed on Atlanta, Huntington and Delaware. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A TIME LINE FOR REVIEW OF THE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT - WALNUT EXTENSION, ADDRESSING ALTERNATIVES, SPECIFYING STREETS AND MITIGATIONS, AT THE OCTOBER 21, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-4 MEADOWLAND, LTD. Planning Commission was asked for direction by staff on behalf of Meadowland, Ltd. They are requesting a rear wall reduction from 8 feet to 6 feet on their property at Springdale and Edinger. Planning Commission directed staff to schedule this request for a public hearing. 1 PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -2- (6431d) 1 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-26 APPLICANT: J. M. BROBERG Zone Change No. 86-26, a request to change (Q)R2 (Qualified -Medium Density Residential) to (Q)C4 (Qualified -Highway Commercial) at 16852 Bolsa Chica, was continued from the September 16, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to review various commercial use alternatives for the subject property. The applicant is requesting withdrawal of the zone change. He now intends to pursue a condominium or consolidated apartment project. The public hearing was opened. There were no persons present to speak for or against the zone change and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-26, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10 APPLICANT: MICHAEL SERVAIS - HUNTINGTON HEALTH GROUP Conditional Use Permit 86-7 is a request to construct an approximately 50,000 square foot, three-story addition to an existing single -story hospital (Pacifica Community Hospital - 18792 Delaware Street) and modernize the emergency entrance. The addition will result in a change in the number of private patient rooms but not in the overall bed count of 109. Conditional Exception 86-10 is a request to permit an exit stairway to encroach 10 feet and a second and third floor overhang to encroach 4 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback. On June 3, 1986, the Planning Commission tabled this item as requested by the applicant so negotiations between the applicant and adjacent property owners could be completed. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -3- (6431d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-22 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-7/Conditional Exception No. 86-10, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-22. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Michael Servais, Vice President -Board of Directors of Pacifica Hospital, spoke in support of the project. He feels that the expansion will improve and modernize patient services in the hospital. The setback adjustments are needed during construction to maintain the function of the hospital. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had concerns regarding the stairway encroachment and the loss of landscaping. Architect John Marlow was questioned by the Commission about the V-shaped projection on the second floor. He stated that all other options were exhausted and the projection was necessary. Commissioners directed staff to add to the findings for approval a further explanation of the requested setbacks and encroachments in the conditional exception. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-10: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, 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 existing building and parking areas limit available buildable area necessary for modernized hospital facilities. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -4- (6431d) 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-10 for the 10 foot stairway encroachment and 4 foot window projections into the required 15 foot front setback will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. Proper landscaping will soften the building facade. 3. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 4. The hospital expansion will not change the total number of hospital beds (109 beds) and therefore the parking requirements will not be affected. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7: 1. The proposed hospital expansion is in conformance with the General Plan and the purpose and intent of the Pacifica Community Plan. 2. The proposed hospital expansion will not adversely affect the surrounding properties and the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the use is permitted in the Pacifica Community Plan, compatible with surrounding uses, and the parking demand will not change. The modernization will significantly improve the hospital and upgrade vital facilities available to the citizens of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to notifying the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Conditions 1 through 5 must be completed. 1. The hospital expansion site plan dated April 29, 1986, floor plans and elevations dated April 24, 1986, shall be revised as follows: a. Reduce basement equipment room size and relocate sidewalk in order to maximize landscaping adjacent to the front stairway and building front. b. Indicate trash locations to be enclosed. C. Indicate 27 foot minimum aisleways in the parking lots on the north and south side at the hospital. d. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. 2. Appropriate subdivision maps for lot consolidation and lot line adjustment in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act must be submitted and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. These maps must be recorded prior to final occupancy of the expansion. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -5- (6431d) 3. 4. 0 5. Submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works Department for review and approval. a. Intensified landscaping shall be provided in the front setback and adjacent to the stairway. Comply with the following Fire Department conditions: a. A fire control room shall be installed in a location approved by the Fire Department. b. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed throughout the complex to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department standards. C. A wet combination stand pipe system shall be located in both stairways and installed per Uniform Building Code standards. d. An automatic alarm system shall be installed per Uniform Fire Code standards. The main annunciator panel shall be displayed graphically at a location approved by the Fire Department. e. All Fire Department siamese sprinkler connections for the complex must be looped. f. All elevators must be provided with emergency control capability. g. Lock boxes in locations approved by the Fire Department will be required for Fire Department access. h. Each individual heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems must have the capability to be operated from the Fire Control Room. Comply with the following Public Works Department requirements: a. Water Network Analysis shall be required to insure adequate water pressure. b. Flow meter testing of main sewer line necessary to check sewer capacity. C. Submit grading plan and soils report. d. The 2 foot strip adjacent to Delaware Street shall be properly vacated. e. Dedicate to the City 10 feet of the northerly lot for Delaware Street. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -6- (6431d) 6. The emergency entrance plans dated September 2, 1986, shall be the approval layout. 7. The following must be completed prior to final occupancy: a. Subdivision maps recorded. b. Landscaping installed. c. Trash enclosures constructed. d. Remove and replace Public Works improvements, per standards, as required. e. Remove and replace deteriorated and failed street fronting Pacifica per Public Works standards (Delaware Street). f. Install street light on Delaware per Public Works standards. g. Signs posted in Lot "B" as employee parking except for 20 spaces. h. Lot B restriped for compacts. 1 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. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 10. During construction, measures shall be taken to mitigate dust generation. 11. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed. 12. Prior to installing any new signs, a Planned Signed Program shall be submitted for all signage within the complex. 13. All existing reciprocal parking and driveway easements shall remain in effect. C-3 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-30 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 86-30 is a request to amend Article 963, Unclassified Uses of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code related to the provisions for day care centers. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -7- (6431d) This item was continued at the meeting of September 16, 1986, due to the lateness of the hour. On August 4, 1986, the City Council directed staff to review the provisions for large family day care centers (those that involve from seven to twelve children) and develop a revised ordinance that would be in keeping with State law, but also incorporate more restrictive provisions than are currently part of the code. State law permits cities to have reasonable standards for spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. The draft ordinance attached has thirteen new items added to the requirements for day care centers. Many of the requirements are simply clarifications of existing practices or provisions required by the State already. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dolores Young, 5392 Edinger Avenue, stated her concerns regarding the code amendment. She has been in the Day Care business for eleven years and has a license for up to 12 children. She feels that babysitters need to set their own hours to fit the needs of individual parents; since State and County operating licenses have to be obtained, business licenses should not be necessary because of the added expense. She does not feel that cinder block fencing should be required because of the costs and that children should be contained on the first floor of two-story homes. Janet Brock, Orange County Day Care Association, expressed her concerns regarding the reference to day care centers versus family day care homes. She feels that the two should be differentiated. She feels that this code pertains mainly to big day care centers rather than the individual home care facilities. She further stated that it would be impossible to set hours for operation in a private family day care home. Barbara Leonard, 17242 Argo Circle, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. She feels that undue restrictions are being set on large day care homes and are not complying with the Health and Safety Code. She feels that the needs of the community are being overlooked. Her main concerns include: enrollment, hours, location of facility in relation to another day care, and the requirement of a business license. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. 1 PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -8- (6431d) City Attorney explained that the 100 foot notification requirement which was in the legal opinion from the Attorney's Office has been recently amended and now stated that the 100 feet was a minimum and that it could be expanded to a greater distance. He further stated that the Attorney's Office was having some difficulty in some of the arbitrary provisions of the propsed code amendment. Since there still remained so many concerns and questions regarding the code amendment, the Commissioners felt that the item should be continued with the intention of reopening the public hearing. It was suggested that staff contact the authors of the legislature on day care centers for further interpretations It was also suggested that staff meet with the legal department and representatives of day care homes to discuss their concerns to avoid future legal problems. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-30 WITH THE INTENT TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, TO THE OCTOBER 21, 1986 PLANNING COMMISION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 USE PERMIT NO. 86-66/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-47 APPLICANT: WILLIAM WILSON Use Permit No. 86-66 is a request to permit three triplex apartment units each on a separate parcel, located on the northeast corner of Orion Avenue and Marina View Place. The applicant has proposed two layouts for the development. Scheme A depicts ingress and egress on Warner Avenue. Scheme B depicts ingress and egress on Orion Street. Both plans comply with the development standards in the R2, Medium Density Residential District. On September 3, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments referred Use Permit No. 86-66 and Negative Declaration No. 86-47 (by a 5 - 0 vote) to the October 7, 1986 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. Staff supported the applicant's request because referring the project to the Planning Commission would allow an expanded public notice of a 300 foot radius. Due to the controversial nature of an 11-unit apartment project that was proposed at the same site earlier this year, the Board of Zoning Adjustments concurred with staff's recommendation that Use Permit No. 86-66 and Negative Declaration No. 86-47 be referred to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-47. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -9- (6431d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED William Wilson, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. Don Hartfelder, Architect, expressed his support of the project. He feels the project is a value to the community and one that encompasses all of the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. William Halpin, Sunset Heights Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of Scheme A (access on Warner). Bob Conway, Michael Tebrich, and Bill Winn, adjacent neighbors, spoke in support of Scheme A. Sue Winn, 17192 Marina View, spoke in support of Scheme A. She requested that the access condition be incorporated into the final conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners discussed the access condition and the landacape plan for the project. They agreed that the access condition should be incorporated into the conditions of approval. They also suggested that the condition regarding landscaping be rewritten to specify that a 6 foot masonry screen wall be installed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 86-66 (SCHEME "A") AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-47, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed three triplexes, each on a separate parcel, 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. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -10- (6431d) 2. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The "Scheme A" site plan, floor plans and elevations dated September 24, 1986, shall be the approved layout as per the memo dated September 22, 1986, from the Traffic Engineer. a. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, a convenant shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney and recorded to run with the land dedicating vehicular and pedestrian access on Orion Avenue to the City and providing that the project shall take access only from Warner Avenue and/or include on Parcel Map 85-239. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Departments of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. Said landscape plan shall indicate a 6 foot high masonry screen wall (as permitted by code) to be provided except in locations of the front setback area and shall be subject to approval of the Landscape Division of the Public Works Department, Department of Development Services and the Fire Department. 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. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to occupancy of units. 5. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. Gas, water, and electrical outlets shall be provided at all ground level patios. 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. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -11- (6431d) 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. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL. 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. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 10. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations for Scheme B. 11. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 12. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall enter into an irrevocable reciprocal parking and access easement. The existing 20 foot easement on Tentative Parcel Map 85-239 shall be expanded to coincide with the 25 foot driveway and 8 foot parallel parking areas. 13.1 All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 14. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping in the City right-of-way at the intersection of Orion Avenue and Marian View Place per the requirements of the Department of Public Works. 15. Application for all new real estate developments and structures for human occupancy within Special Study Zones shall be accompanied by a geologic report prepared by a geologist registered in the State of California, and directed to the problem of potential surface fault displacement through the site. 16. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 17. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 18. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Use Permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -12- (6431d) C-5 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-12 APPLICANT: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN Site Plan Amendment No. 86-12 is a request to construct an approximately 2,500 square foot drive-thru restaurant within a commercial center under construction located on the east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 300 feet south of Garfield. The existing commercial center was approved under Use Permit No. 85-47 on October 15, 1985 by the Planning Commission. The approved site plan included four buildings, totalling 39,500 square feet. One of the buildings depicted was for a drive-thru restaurant; however, due to the uncertainty of the tenant proposed for the building, the Planning Commission conditioned the project for a Site Plan Amendment to be reviewed by them for final approval of that building. Property owners within 300 feet of the commercial center have been mailed public notices regarding the proposed site plan amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS This project is covered under Negative Declaration No. 85-53 which was approved for the entire commercial center which included the proposed restaurant. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The proposed restaurant is within the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Survey Area. The Redevelopment staff has reviewed the proposed project and recommends that the proposed signage be reduced in size and/or amount, and conform with the approved planned sign program for the center. In addition they have reviewed the architecture of the building and recommend Design Review Board review and approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Cheryl Nattress, applicant, spoke in support of the site plan amendment. She feels the site plan conforms to the design of the center. Russell Skattum, 8102 Wadebridge Circle - adjacent property owner, spoke in support of the site plan. He did, however, express his concerns regarding the possible noise from the order -speakers and the odors emanating from the chicken cookers. Cheryl Nattress explained to the Commission and Mr. Skattum that a new type chicken cooker would be used at this facility (she compared it to a jet engine) with the capability of cooking 40 chickens at a time and that there would be very little odor emanated from the cooker. She also explained that the order -speakers would be directed towards the ordering -car only and should not be heard by adjacent neighbors. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -13- (6431d) The Commission suggested that a condition be added mitigating any noise impacts from the order -speaker. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-12 WITH REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mirjahangir (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated September 11, 1986, and elevations dated September 30, 1986, shall be the approved layout with the following modification: a. Order speaker shall be relocated so as to provide for two (2) cars stacking behind car ordering. 2. The floor plans dated September 9, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 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. Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen such equipment. 4. All signage shall comply with the Planned Sign Program 86-1. 5. A copy of Final Parcel Map 86-104 with approved reciprocal easements shall be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The menu order board speaker shall be oriented towards the ordering -car only and shall be operated so as not to exceed maximum noise levels prescribed in Title 8 of the Huntington Bach Ordinance Code. 7. All conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 85-47 shall remain in effect. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -14- (6431d) C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-44 APPLICANT: GMP ARCHITECTS Proposed is a 8,540 square foot minor auto repair shop on a vacant parcel located on the south side of Warner, east of Bolsa Chica. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 is a request to permit a reduction in building setback (Section 9220.7.a) from ten feet to zero along the rear property line abutting R2 zoned property (apartments). If the building is permitted to encroach into the rear setback, building height is restricted to 18 feet for a - distance of 45 feet from the rear property line. The plans depict a building height of 20 feet 8 inches. Since the height of the building is critical to the proposed use, the applicant is requesting a continuance so a variance for height can be heard concurrently at the next Planning Commission meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Margaret Wilson, agent for John Gardner - 5051 Dunbar Street, questioned whether the setback was necessary. She asked if it were possible to check the plans. Chairman Livengood suggested that she contact staff. Ching C. Weng, 16402 Hobart Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He owns some adjacent four-plexes and is against granting any setbacks or height adjustments that may have an impact on his property. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-44 WITH PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN TO THE OCTOBER 21, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -15- (6431d) C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-45 APPICANT: MARIS AND EDWARDS VANAGS Proposed is an 18,280 square foot multi -tenant commercial building on a vacant parcel located on the east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 560 feet north of Ellis. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-45 is a request for a zero rear building setback in lieu of 10 feet as required when abutting residentially zoned property (Section 9220.7.a). In this particular case, the property abuts an alley of an apartment development and therefore will have minimal impact upon adjacent properties. The proposed building ranges in height from 18 feet to 22 feet along the alley side. The maximum building height allowed is 18 feet. The applicant has requested a continuance in order to file a conditional exception for building height so the conditional exception can be reviewed concurrently with the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the proposed project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-45 WITH PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN, TO THE OCTOBER 21, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-38 APPLICANT: EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH Conditional Use Permit No. 86-38 is a request to develop a parking lot with 140 parking spaces designed for church parking located at 1912 Florida (east side of Florida Street approximately 400 feet north of Adams). The parking lot will be used for surplus parking during church services and is for anticipated church expansion in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -16- (6431d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission opposed the condition that referred to access to the oil production area. They felt that it should be deleted from conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-38 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the parking lot 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 granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The parking lot will provide additional off-street parking ' primarily for the church and may be used by the adjacent Wycliff Office and Residential Complex. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated September 15, 1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Details of the oil production portion of the site in conformance with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. Prior to improving the lot, the applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating the three lots. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -17- (6431d) 3. Prior to improving the lot, 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. Landscaping shall comply with Art. 960 and Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Submit grading plan to Public Works Department for approval. 4. Landscaping shall be installed prior to utilizing the lot. 5. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27') in width and shall be of radius type construction. 6. Construction of street improvements per Public Works standards shall be completed prior to utilizing the lot. 7. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 8. Any future expansion to the church facility shall require a conditional use permit and conditional exception to include this parking lot towards off-street parking requirement. 9. The parking lot shall only be used by the church and Wycliff Office and Residential Complex. Parking for other uses and/or storage is prohibited. 10. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-39 APPLICANT: REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH Conditional Use Permit No. 86-39 is a request is to operate a pre-school for 62 children in an existing church building located at 16351 Springdale (west side, north of Heil Avenue). The hours of operation are proposed to be Monday through Friday, from 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM. Section 9630 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies that pre-schools shall be subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -18- (6431d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Charles Tittle, 5922 Par Circle - adjacent property owner, addressed his concerns with the proposed pre-school. He stated that the fences separating his property from the church property are old and dangerous and that there exists a 4-1/2 foot block wall between the properties that can be easily climbed. He feels that the children's safety should be considered. Nora Wakefield, 16352 Fairway Lane - adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed pre-school because of the noise. She also feels that the fencing between the church property and the residential property is unsafe. Tony Howland, Church Director, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the children would not be allowed outside of the grass area which has been recently fenced in by a 6 foot chain link fence. The Pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church spoke in support of the proposed project. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission suggested that the condition regarding the site plan should be revised to reflect the newly installed 6 foot fence. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-39, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed pre-school operation for 62 children will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. Access to and parking for the pre-school operation for 62 children will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed pre-school operation for 62 children is compatible with the intended use of the property for school purposes. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -19- (6431d) 4. The proposed pre-school operation for 62 children is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated August 21, 1986, shall be revised to reflect the newly installed 6 foot fence around the play yard. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code, Building Division and with State Fire Codes for exiting and alarm systems. 3. The pre-school operation shall be limited to an enrollment of no more than 62 children. Any expansion in number shall require approval of a new conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 4. The conditional use permit shall apply only to the rooms labeled for use on the site plan. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require approval of a new conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 5. The pre-school facility shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM daily. 6. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon receipt of several complaints from surrounding residents; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 8. The applicant shall furnish the City with copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 9. Signage is subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -20- (6431d) C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-40 APPLICANT: LAURA ROBERTS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-40 is a request by the applicant to establish a private dance school (located at Meadow View School, 5702 Clark Drive) for the purpose of teaching ballet, tap, jazz and miscellaneous dance. The dance school is proposed to be open between the hours of 2:30 PM and 6:30 PM, Monday through Saturday, and will provide dance instruction for approximately 8 to 10 students between the ages of 4 and 12. The applicant intends to utilize classrooms #6 and #7 of Meadow View School. Each classroom is approximately 900 square feet in area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Laura Roberts, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. She requested that the conditions on her use permit be revised to increase the limitation of students to a maximum of 15 instead of 10 and to revise her hours of operation to 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM on Saturday. There were -no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-40 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 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; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -21- (6431d) 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, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 22, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Hours of operation for the dance school shall be from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM on Saturday. 3. The dance class shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) students. 4. The dance school shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, of the Huntington Beach Municipal Co e. 5. Prior to occupancy, the dance school shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 7. Signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-41 APPLICANT: MELODY KENYON Conditional Use Permit No. 86-41 is a request to operate a day care center for twenty-four children in one classroom at Meadowview School, 5702 Clark Drive. The proposed age range of the children is from 2 to 5 years old. Section 9630 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code lists day care centers as an unclassified use permitted subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. It was pointed out by staff that the bathroom facilities were not located in the immediate classroom but across the hall into another building and that children would have to be supervised. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -22- (6431d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Melody Kenyon, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. She explained that approval of bathroom facilities from the Department of Social Services was a part of the license obtained from the State to operate a day care. The children would be escorted to and from the class and the bathroom. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission suggested that approval of the bathroom facilities from the Department of Social Services be included in the conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-41 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None . ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed day care operation for 24 children will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. Access to and parking for the day care operation for 24 children will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed day care operation for 24 children is compatible with the intended use of the property for school purposes. 4. The proposed day care operation for 24 children is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, because the property was originally developed as a school site, and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -23- (6431d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated August 28, 1986, 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. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of no more than 24 children. Any expansion in number shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 4. The conditional use permit shall apply only to the room labeled "8-C" on the site plan. Any expansion in area of the day care center shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 5. Prior to operation of the day care operation, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. 6. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development Services a copy of the license issued by the Department of Social Services. 7. Restroom facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Social Services. 8. The day care facility shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM daily. 9. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach. 10. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon receipt of several complaints from surrounding residents; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 11. The applicant shall furnish the City with 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. 12. All signs shall comply with Article 961 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and shall be subject to a sign permit. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -24- (6431d) C-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-42 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS TENTATIVE TRACT 822 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-48 APPLICANT: SASSOUNIAN & PARTNERS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-42 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract 12822/Negative Declaration No. 86-48 is a request to construct a 76 unit condominium project with a 14 percent density bonus and to grant a special permit to allow for a reduction in common open space at 4581 Warner Avenue. The applicant is requesting that this item be continued to a date uncertain. The zoning on the property is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. The zoning and the land use designation need to be brought into conformance before processing can continue on this item. The applicant has waived the mandatory processing date. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-42 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT 12822 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-11, TO A DATE UNCERTAIN, TO BE RENOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING, MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE WAIVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -25- (6431d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA - PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO TRAIL THIS ITEM ON THE PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, TO ALLOW THE COMMISSON THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT ON THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Staff Presentation Steve Kohler, Redevelopment staff, presented a preliminary plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project as it conforms to the requirements of state law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 24, California Redevelopment and Housing, Part I, Chapter 4, Article 3, Sections 33320.1 through 33328.7). The presentation included: (a) description of the boundaries of the project area; (b) a general statement of the land uses, layout of principal streets population densities and building intensities and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project area; (c) how the proposed redevelopment preliminary plan conforms to the General Plan; (e) description of the impact of the project upon residents thereof and upon the surrounding neighborhoods. The Planning Commission was requested to approve the boundaries of the proposed redevelopment project area and the preliminary plan and recommend approval to the Redevelopment Agency/City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS A report to meet the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act will be prepared, reviewed and approved in conjunction with the adaption of the final redevelopment plan for Beach Boulevard by the Redevelopment Agency/City Council. Concerns were expressed by the Commissioners regarding the proposed preliminary plan. It was felt that a study session should be scheduled to clearly define the redevelopment areas and boundary lines; to discuss the financial impacts, traffic impacts, impacts on school districts, and social impacts to the entire City; and to get public reaction, in general, to the redevelopment areas. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was ready to vote on the resoution to accept the preliminary plan. PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -26- (6431d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE THE PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRELIMINARY PLAN TO A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD OCTOBER 14, 1986, AT APPROXIMATELY 6:00, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Pierce ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 (REVISED) APPLICANT: MANSION PROPERTIES A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. All findings and conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 83-21 and Tentative Tract No. 11417 (Revised) shall remain in effect. D-3 REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-19 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12238 APPLICANT: MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-19 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12238 SUBJECT TO ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, NOES: Winchell, Rowe ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Pierce, Mirjahangir PC Minutes - 10/7/86 -27- (6431d) E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS LIST None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS H-1 ASCON LANDFILL STUDY SESSION - A study session has been scheduled to discuss the AScon Landfill. A site visit has been set up for 4:00 PM on October 14, 1986. It has been suggested that the study session be scheduled for October 14, 1986, following the site visit. H-2 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT projects scheduled for October 21, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting: (a) Town Square Project (b) Summer Hill Project I. ADJOURNMENT MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, AT 11:00 PM TO ADJOURN TO THE ASCON LANDFILL SITE VISIT AT 4:00 PM AND THE ASCON LANDFILL AND BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY SESSION AT 5:30 PM ON OCTOBER 14, 1986, AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1986, AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: James W. Palin, Secretary Tom Livengo lo d, Uairtnan kla PC Minutes - 10/7/86 Me (6431d)