Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-05APPROVED 11/18/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P (left @ 9:35) P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe , Winchell, Livengood, Pierce, P P Mirjahangir, Porter P Erskine, A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of October 21, 1986 Planning Commission meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 1986, WITH REVISIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood requested a status report on Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-391 (Applicant: Cambro Manufacturing - consolidation of 6 parcels into 1 for building construction - 7601 Clay Avenue), an entitlement being acted on by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Staff informed him that the tentative map for lot consolidation had been continued until the November 19, 1986 BZA meeting at the applicant's request to allow him time to consider an alternative method to consolidate the lots. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-45 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-79 APPLICANT: MARIS AND EDWARDS VANAGS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-45 and Conditional Exception No. 86-79 was continued from the October 21, 1986 Planning Commission meeting because of concerns raised by the adjacent northerly property owner and Commissioners regarding the building's encroachment upon the adjacent building's visibility from Beach Boulevard and internal circulation between the two commercial properties. The revised plan dated October 30, 1986, is for a 17,280 square foot commercial building with 96 parking spaces located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 560 feet north of Ellis; prior building size was 17,872.5 square feet with 89 spaces. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 3 Section 15305(a) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Scott Fawcett, property owner to the north, spoke in support of the proposed project. He stated that he is very pleased with the revised plans and is working out a better trash location and circulation plan. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. It was suggested that a finding be added to the conditional exception stating that the granting of the conditional exception was reasonable due to the slope of the property causing up to a 4 foot grade difference at the alley along the rear property line. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-45 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-79, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, G PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -2- (6639d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-45: 1. The building placement at the rear property line (01) 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 portion of the abutting easterly residential property is improved as an alley which negates the need for a 10 foot setback and reduces the impact of the proposed development. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-19: 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. 2. The granting of a conditional exception for a maximum 22 foot building height is reasonable due to the slope of the property causing up to a 4 foot grade difference at the alley along the rear property line and zero building setback along the southern property line adjacent to a storm drain easement is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-79 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. The granting of the Conditional Exception is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 30, 1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Provide 17 foot x 45 foot turning radius at driveway turns or 28 foot aisles as required by Fire Department. b. Special architectural treatment shall be provided on the south and east building walls. Such treatment is subject to approval by the Department of Development Services. Building materials and colors are subject to Development Services and Redevelopment Department review and approval. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -3- (6639d) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating two parcels. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection unless waiver of the final map is approved. 3. 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. Landscaping shall comply with Section 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 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. c. Building surcharge plan along southern property line and soils report approved by Public Works Department. 4. All signage shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 6. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (21). 7. Applicant shall pursue CalTrans approval of radius type driveways on Beach Boulevard. 8. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 9. All public improvements, including street lights, shall be constructed to Public Works standards. 10. Access between the subject property and adjacent easterly alley is prohibited. 11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 12. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 13. 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. 14. 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. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -4- (6639d) 15. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent northerly property. Proof of such easement shall be submitted prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 16. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. a. Automatic sprinkler systems to be installed throughout building per Fire Department standards. 17. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. C-2 USE PERMIT NO. 86-70 APPLICANT: TONY URSINO Use Permit No. 86-70 is a request to construct 61 apartment units on a 1.97 gross acre parcel of land located on Springdale Street, south of Edinger Avenue. The property is presently zoned R5, however a zone change to R3 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1986, and is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 3, 1986. This would allow a maximum of 49 units to be developed. The applicant is requesting a 25 percent density bonus which would allow . for the construction of an additional 12 units, bringing the total units requested to 61 units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-49 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. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved Negative Declaration No. 86-49 on October 21, 1986, in conjunction with Zone Change No. 86-25. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tony Ursino, applicant, presented slides and spoke in support of the proposed project. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A discussion ensued regarding the affordability agreement. The enforcement of the agreement and density bonus was addressed. The condition dealing with the agreement was reworded. Staff was instructed by the Commission to develop an overall policy on the enforcement of an affordability agreement and density bonus and bring it back at a future meeting. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -5- (6639d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 86-701 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a 61 unit apartment complex 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 use permit for a 61 unit apartment complex (49-allowable plus 12 unit density bonus) will not adversely affect the General Plan (High Density Residential) of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed development of 61 apartment units is compatible with adjacent properties which are also developed with apartment units. 4. The capacities of the City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 5. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments and recreational resources. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Zone Change No. 86-25 shall be approved and adopted by the City Council. BY 2. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated October 21, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. Show additional dimensions on plans for hammerhead turn to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 401.1. All streets must be installed with all-weather surface prior to combustible construction. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -6- (6639d) [J 3. 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. Landscaping shall comply with S.9600 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit an Affordability Agreement for review and approval by the Planning Commission, City Attorney and Development Services Department, and then have it notarized and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. The agreement shall be enforced by the City of Huntington Beach and subject to review and approval on an annual basis by the Planning Commission. The agreement shall be for 12 units as granted by approval of a 25% density bonus, which will consist of 6 low income and 6 moderate income units. The selected units shall be a mixture of one and two bedroom units equivalent to the ratio of one to two bedroom units for the entire complex. 5. Prior to the issuance of permits, a materials board shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval. 6. Stamped concrete or bomnite shall be provided, minimum 10 feet wide, along the applicant's side of the property at the driveway entrance. 7. A turnaround area at the eastern end of the site shall be provided and cross -hatched to prevent parking. 8. All garages shall be equipped with electric garage door openers. 9. The driveway approach shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 10. The driveway on Springdale Street shall be limited to right turn in and right turn out only. 11. The painted Springdale Street median and northbound left turn lane pocket shall be revised by the developer as per Public Works specifications. 12. Remove and replace Public Works improvements as required. 13. If on -site water system is required, it shall be dedicated to the City. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -7- (6639d) 14. The on -site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained. 15. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The service road and fire lane, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 17. Automatic sprinkler systems MUST be installed throughout all buildings to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. 18. A fire alarm system MUST be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. The system MUST provide the following: a. Water flow valve tamper and trouble detection. b. 24 hour supervision. c. Annunication. d. Audible alarms. 19. Fire extinguishers MUST be installed and located in the Recreation Room to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. 20. Four (4) fire hydrants MUST be installed prior to combustible construction. Shop drawings MUST be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 21. If security gates are installed, they MUST be designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 403. 22. Building and Unit Numbers - Each building MUST post a minimum ten (10) inch address for the building and minimun four (4) inch address letters for individual units. 23. The development shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 24. 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). PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -8- (6639d) 25. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 26. 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. 27. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 28. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 29. 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. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-54 APPLICANT: ROBERT CORONA The application is for a conditional use permit with a request for special permit to allow for two deviations from the zoning code for a single family residence. On October 7, 1986, the Planning Commission reaffirmed staff's decision to reject the site plan review application and to instruct the applicant to modify his plans. He was asked to submit a conditional use permit application and revised plans reflecting no more than 1 or 2 deviations from the code. The applicant has submitted plans with application for conditional use permit showing: Architectural projections into the front yard setback and building height in excess of 22' within 25' of the rear property line. The patio cover shown on the plans submitted for site plan review has been eliminated to meet the open space requirement. It has been determined that a conditional use permit is not required to allow minor architectural projections into the front setback. Therefore the applicant is requesting approval of one variation from code for rear height exception. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 3 Section 15303 (a) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bob Corona, applicant, spoke in support of his project and addressed all of the specifics of his plans. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -9- (6639d) The Commission discussed the project in regards to its conformance with Townlot Standards. There was some concern regarding the bulk and length of the proposed structure, however it was felt that the design is very pleasing. The alternate action recommended by staff was to continue the conditional use permit to allow the applicant time to apply for a coastal development permit which is required prior to approval and to revise his plans to conform with the Design Review Board recommendations. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-54 TO THE NOVEMBER 18, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 APPLICANT: MAGNA CORPORATION Conditonal Use Permit No. 86-51 in conjunction with Tentative Tract 12896 is a request to develop 113, three-story condominiums on a 7.94 gross acre site known as the old Edison Maintenance Yard property on the south side of Garfield approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard. In addition, seven special permits are requested pertaining to building setbacks, building bulk elements, and open space area. In 1980, a 113 unit condominium project was approved on the site. This plan was slightly revised in 1984. The last approved plan contained 113 two -bedroom units with special permits for building bulk and open space. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered under previously approved Negative Declaration No. 80-11. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject property is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project area. This project conforms to the objectives of the Redevelopment Department. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -10- (6639d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Bruttomesso, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He expressed some concern to staff's recommendation of removing the wrought iron fencing. He feels that the wrought iron fencing is an added safety element to the project and that it would deter intruders. He also expressed concern over the letter submitted from the adjacent homeowners. He stated that he had sent a letter to the homeowners and had not received any response. Martin Okabe, Civil Engineer for the project, expressed his concern regarding the addition of Condition No. 23 (requirement to detain a 6-hour 100-year storm volume on -site) since the project site was not in a flood zone. Larry Curran, 8131 Wadebridge Circle, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He stated that the property owners in Huntington Crest were never aware that the proposed development would be three stories and adamantly objected to any three story structures along the property line of the Rl neighborhood due to the loss of privacy. He is concerned with the drainage problems that would be presented by the berm. He stated that many of the adjacent homes have subterranean family rooms and that with the raising of the grade on the project property that it might cause flooding due to water runoff. He also expressed concern in regards to the traffic problems that would occur, the sewage problems, and the architecture of the proposed project. He feels that cape cod styling would be incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Philip Bertino, 8121 Wadebridge Circle, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Since he has recently spent approximately $11,000 in new tile and repairs to his swimming pool and deck, he is concerned with the potential damage incurred during preconstruction of the project. Who will be responsible for damages done to walls, walks, etc.? He also expressed concerns with rodent control problems. He further stated that he is strongly opposed to any three story structures along the abutting property line and the style of construction proposed. Mrs. Tyler Brinker, 8122 Wadebridge Circle, spoke in opposition to the project. She is extremely concerned with the potential traffic hazards caused by the project. She stated that the impact of the added vehicles from this development will create a hazardous situation to the number of school age children walking to school at prime work hours. She suggested that a traffic study be done immediately and that perhaps a traffic light be added at the corner of Garfield Avenue and Colchester Lane. Emilio Vargas, 19041 Colchester Lane, stated his concerns with the proposed development. With the addition of 4,000 yards of dirt he is certain that a drainage problem will exist. He is strongly opposed to a three story development. He also feels that the proposed project is too intense. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -11- (6639d) Russ Skattum, 8102 Wadebridge Circle, outlined his concerns and the concerns of the homeowners in Huntington Crest. He feels that the height of the proposed development should be scaled down to 27 feet which is the highest roof peak in the adjacent neighborhood. He stated that there are already 48 mounds of dirt present on the site for purposes of grading and building a berm and that if allowed will cause a severe drainage problem to the homes abutting the property. He also expressed concern over the loss of sun light in the adjacent yards. He also feels that the trash receptacles planned in the development should be spread out more to alleviate noise problems, the potential traffic hazards should be further studied and addressed, and that the proposed visitor parking in the development be redesigned to avoid problems. Pete Christey, 19092 Colchester Lane, spoke against the proposed project. He feels that the proposed development is not homogeneous to the area and too intense. He urged the Commission to deny the request. Ralph Lombardo, property owner on Colchester Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He stated that his property line is just 20 feet from the proposed development and he is very concerned with the loss of privacy from the three story structures. Ron Pattinson, consultant for Magna Corporation, asked for a rebuttal by the applicant. Tom Bruttomesso, applicant, stated that the proposed project is in conformance with the drainage requirements and that he is providing more open space than is required. He intends to build a masonry block wall along the property line. Stan Uchizono, project architect, stated that a masonry wall will be added along the perimeter of the property. He stated that the original grade, surveyed in 1980, will be used and analyzed and added to the count of dirt to be brought onto the site. He further stated that a trash location plan has been submitted. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners discussed their concerns with the proposed project. It was felt that further studies should be made regarding the drainage on the site, traffic problems, and the aesthetics of the development. They felt that there should be more sensitivity to the privacy of the adjacent homeowners and that the guest parking should be beefed up. They were mainly concerned with Buildings 10 and 11. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -12- (6639d) The Commissioners felt that there should be more justification for granting the seven special permits. A straw vote was taken on each special permit request. 1. A 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the front property line in lieu of a 20 foot setback. MOTION: TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO CREATE A BETTER STREETSCAPE. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None 2. A 34 foot building separation between opposite second and third floor rear elevations (driveway side) in lieu of 40 feet. MOTION: REQUEST TO BRING TO CODE AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None 3. Six feet to 10 feet setback from dwelling unit to driveway in lieu of 15 feet. MOTION: REQUEST TO BRING TO CODE AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Pierce 4. Provide 20 feet setback for garages from drive aisle for 17% (21) of the units in lieu of 50% (57). MOTION: GENERATE MORE GUEST PARKING AND REQUEST TO BRING TO CODE AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None 5. Provide no offsets in front building facade in 4 and 5 unit buildings in lieu of 4 feet. MOTION: PROVIDE BUILDING MOVEMENT AND COMPLY WITH CODE REGARDING OFFSET. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None w PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -13- (6639d) 6. All three story units in lieu of one-third (37 units) being two story. MOTION: PROVIDE 2-STORY STRUCTURES ALONG PROPERTY LINE OF ADJACENT R1 NEIGHBORHOOD. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None 7. A common open space area of 84,400 square feet in lieu of 90,400 square feet. MOTION: COMPLY WITH CODE AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None Staff was instructed to consolidate and further analyze all of the concerns (from the adjacent neighbors, Commissioners, Public Works, and staff) regarding the proposed project. It was further suggested that the applicant meet with the adjacent property owners to address their concerns and revise their plans. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 TO THE NOVEMBER 18, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. -4 APPLICANT: ROBBIE L. WORLEY The appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of Conditional Exception No. 86-49 is a request to overturn the denial and permit the reduction of required rear and side yard setbacks for an existing 72 square foot, 12 foot high accessory structure located at 6471 Sundance Circle (north side of Sundance Circle at the end of a cul-de-sac). The accessory structure is located in the northeast corner of the rear yard which abuts an adjacent rear yard to the north. 1 PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -14- (6639d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Robbie and Janet Worley, applicants, spoke in support of the structure. They explained that the illegal structure is a playhouse constructed for their daughter. Richard Hewitt, 6462 Sundance Circle, spoke in support of the structure. He stated that as far as he knew there was no existing neighbors that objected to the structure. Robert Owens, 6461 Sundance Circle, spoke in support of the structure. He stated that the structure was enjoyed by all of the neighborhood children and was considered to be very safe and well constructed. Frank Howard, 6472 Morion Circle, spoke in support of the structure. He pointed out that there were trees blocking the sound and the structure from adjacent neighbors. He does not feel that the structure is detrimental to the neighborhood. Colleen Tolman, 5891 Liege Drive, stated that she drives down the abutting street daily and that the structure is not an eyesore from that view. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the structure and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO OVERTURN THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-49, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Erskine (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 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. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -15- (6639d) 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-49 is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights because of the existing improvements in the rear yard. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-49 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications because the location of the structure does not block Fire Department access to the rear yard. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-49 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 29, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Provide similar landscape buffer along Edwards Street property line as indicated along rear property line. 3. The appropriate building permits shall be obtained. C-6 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-83 APPLICANT: David Gilmore Conditional Exception No. 86-83 is a request to construct a 6,320 square foot commercial building at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Hamilton Avenue, which does not comply with the standards of construction (S.969.6.19) for all commercial structures within a floodplain. Flood proofing the building or elevating the building an average 4 feet above existing grade are two generalized construction methods for compliance. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class 3, Section 15303 of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant requested a two -week continuance to the November 18, 1986-Planning Commission meeting in order to explore design options for the commercial building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -16- (6639d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-83 TO THE NOVEMBER 18, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Erskine (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-28/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-54 APPLICANT: DAVID D. DAHL Zone Change No. 86-25 and Negative Declaration No. 86-54 is a request to modify the conditions of the "Q" zoning which was placed on a 15 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue (Country View Estates). One of the conditions of the "Q" was that any future project approved for this parcel of land shall make provisions for equestrian uses within the development. One acre parcel at the southeast corner of the project was set aside for equestrian stables. The intent of the requested zone change is to allow for the construction of a single family home on the lot that was set aside for equestrian stables. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-54 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 86-28, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-54. SPECIFIC PLAN: The project is part of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan prepared in 1982. The Specific Plan has not been adopted by the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED A petition was submitted containing 18 names of property owners within the tract supporting the conversion of the previously approved horse stable on Lot 1 to use as a single family home with the retention of the horse trail, drainage easement, and open space corridor. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -17- v(6639d) David Dahl, applicant, spoke in support of the zone change. He explained that the buyers of the smaller lots within Country View Estates are not interested in owning or stabling horses at an equestrian facility within the tract. The zone change would modify the condition of the "Q" designation. Bonnie Wakeham, 20031 Big Bend Lane - representing ETI Corral 100, spoke in opposition to the zone change. She feels that the lot providing the 16 stalls should remain as originally planned and that the "Q" should not be modified. Al Bell, 20292 Eastwood Circle, had questions regarding the original open space corridor and whether a trail is required. He feels that easement from one edge to another does not provide a decent trail and asked if the trails would ever been connected. Staff stated that proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan addressed the connection of the riding trails. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A discussion followed regarding the conversion of Lot 1 from a horse stable to a single family home. Since this lot was originally designated as a a common stable facility it was felt that if the lot was converted to a single family home the development would lose its equestrian flavor. It was suggested that another lot be used instead of this one. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-28 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-54, WITH REVISED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Pierce ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed modifications of the "Q" designation on the property to allow one additional home to be constructed instead of a common stable facility is not in keeping with the intent of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2. The character of the surrounding area will be impacted by an additional home and the loss of a common stable area. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -18- (6639d) 1 3. The development of Country View Estates will lose its equestrian flavor with the development of the lot designated for a common stable facility. 4. The irregular shape of the project area was designed for an equestrian use and will not adequately facilitate the development of a residential structure. C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-77 APPLICANT: DAVID DAHL Conditional Exception No. 86-77 is a request to allow a reduction in the required rear yard setback for a single family home in Country View Estates from 25 feet to 10 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5, Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Since this application was considered by the Planning Commission concurrently with Zone Change No. 86-28 and Negative Declaration No. 86-54 (which was denied) the applicant requested a continuance until the second meeting in February 1987. He waived the mandatory processing date. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-77 TO THE FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-15 APPLICANT: DEBORAH PENROSE Conditional Use Permit No. 86-15 is a request to permit the re-establishment of a temporary commercial horse stable located at 6842 Ellis Avenue (south side of Ellis Avenue, approximately 600 feet west of Goldenwest). This item was first acted upon by the Planning Commission on March 16, 1976, under Conditional Use Permit No. 74-22. This application subsequently was approved for a 5-year period until April 20, 1981. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-15 was PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -19- (6639d) submitted by the applicant, at the request of staff, on March 18, 1986, however, the application was rejected due to an incorrect letter of authorization. Since that time, a new letter of authorization has been submitted by the applicant allowing staff to begin processing Conditional Use Permit No. 86-15. The existing horse facility consists of two riding rings, watchmans quarters, barn, stalls and paddocks. The facility presently boards 77 horses which are privately owned. The site also includes 35 on site parking spaces, a hot walker, training pen and hay storage area. The facility has been extensively used since its initial development in 1976. 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 Deborah Penrose -Fischer, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. She had some questions regarding the upgrading of the landscaping and stated that she would like to meet with staff to go over the requirements. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-15, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The temporary commercial horse facility is in substantial conformance with the development standards of Article 967, Commercial Equine Standards. 2. The re-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 - 11/5/86 -20- (6639d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated March 17, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. This approval shall be in effect a period of 3 years from date of approval. 3. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 4. The lounge and office areas shall not be used for residential purposes. 5. No structure other than those shown on the approved site plan shall be constructed. 6. On -site landscaping and the all-weather surface within the parking area shall be upgraded and approved by the Department of Development Services within 90 days from this approval. 7. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 8. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. C-10 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-9 APPLICANT: HUNTINGTON BEACH SIGN CO. Special Sign Permit No. 86-9 is a request to modify an existing 20 foot high, 108 square foot internally illuminated freestanding sign located at 16242 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 150 feet south of Stark Avenue). The applicant is proposing to remove a 33 square foot changeable copy panel which will reduce the sign area to 72 square feet which will exceed the permitted sign area by 22 square feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The site is located within the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment staff recommends that the proposal be reviewed by the Design Review Board; increase the landscape planter width to ten (10) feet wide along Beach Boulevard; support the staff proposal of 17 feet high, 60 square feet, internally illuminated freestanding sign. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -21- (6639d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dennis Krausch, Sports Chalet, spoke in support of the sign. He stated that his signage is the most important aspect of his business. Since his business is being impacted from the new Von's Pavillion which is adjacent to his location he requested that the Planning Commission grant him a 72 square foot, 20 foot high sign. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission agreed that due to the applicant's location that the signage being requested would not be a hazard or a distraction and would not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic and should be granted. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-9, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.5 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because the sign must clear an existing 816" bus shelter. 2. The proposed 20 foot high, 72 square foot freestanding sign will not adversely affect other freestanding signs in the area. 3. The proposed 20 foot high, 72 square foot freestanding sign will not be detrimental to properties located in the vicinity. 4. The proposed 20 foot high, 72 square foot freestanding sign will not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous distraction and is needed for sign visibility. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevation received and dated October 16, 1986, shall be revised to depict a 20 foot high, 72 square foot freestanding sign located within a landscape planter behind the front property line. 2. The existing roof sign shall be removed prior to the issuance of sign permits for the modified freestanding sign. 3. No wall signage shall be permitted on the Beach Boulevard frontage. PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -22- (6639d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS LIST: The current pending item list was reviewed by the Commission. Comments were made regarding the Mobile Station at the northwest corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner and the dirt stock piling at 226 17th. Avenue. Staff was requested to provide an updated report regarding the possible acquisition of additional property for parking purposes at Charter Centre by Mola Development. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The Commission requested that staff provide them with a Time Line for the Walnut Extension. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Update on Ascon - Commissioner Pierce will be representing the Planning Commission at the Ascon Landfill Interagency meeting scheduled for Monday, November 10, 1986, 1:30 PM, City Hall, Room B-8. I. ADJOURNMENT: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, AT 10:35 TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: Livengood, Erskine, Pierce, v Tom Li e o , Ch irm n PC Minutes - 11/5/86 -23- (6639d)