Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-16APPROVED 1/21/87 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, P P Pierce, Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of December 2, 1986 Planning Commission meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 1986, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Porter MOTION PASSED Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood announced that this would be the last meeting that Commissioner Porter and Commissioner Mirjahangir would be attending since their terms were expiring. He thanked them both for the dedicated years of outstanding service. Commissioners Porter and Mirjahangir thanked the Commission, Staff and the public for the opportunity and gratifying experience given them by serving on the Planning Commission. Chairman Livengood instructed staff to put the election of Chairman and Co -Chairman on the January 6, 1987 agenda. He also set a study session on the nine General Plan Amendments for January 6, 1987, a study session for Ellis/Goldenwest for January 21, 1987, and discussed with the Commission the scheduling of a third Planning Commission meeting on January 27, 1987, for the General Plan Amendment. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 APPLICANT: MAGNA CORPORATION At the December 2, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, this item was continued as requested by the applicant to allow time for plan redesign. In addition, the applicant waived the mandatory processing time. 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. Revised plans depicting 109 units were received on December 8, 1986. Major changes include a reduction of four units from the total unit count and the inclusion of two-story buildings abutting the Rl zoned properties. Guest parking spaces are evenly distributed throughout the project. End units on buildings along Garfield have an average 5 foot offset between second and third floors. Also, some special permit requests have been reduced or eliminated and new ones added. The applicant has worked with staff and the adjacent homeowners to create a balanced project which attempts to satisfy everyone's concerns and an economically viable project in today's condominium marketplace. At the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 1986, all seven special permit requests were denied by straw vote. The applicant was advised to revise the project to substantially conform with the PRD Standards. . 1. A 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the front property line in lieu of a 20 foot setback; no change except fence will contain landscaped cut-outs. This is more desirable and provides greater security. 2. A 34 foot building separation between opposite second and third floor rear elevations (driveway side) in lieu of 40 feet; reduced to only one area between buildings. 3. Six feet to 10 feet setback from dwelling unit to driveway and/or parking spaces in lieu of 15 feet; 15 feet provided between dwelling units and driveway. 4. Provide 20 feet setback for garages from drive aisle for 18.6% (21) of the units in lieu of 500 (55); increased to 27.5% (30 units). PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -2- (6987d) 5. Provide no offsets in twelve front building facades in 4 and 5 unit building types in lieu of 4 feet; only four buildings have no offset. 6. All three story units in lieu of one-third (37 units) being two story; 31 units (28.4%) are two-story but clustered adjacent to Rl zoned properties. 7. A common open space area of 84,400 square feet in lieu of 90,400 square feet; a common open space area of 90,249 square feet is provided but some areas contain less than a 20 foot dimension (87,200 square feet is now the required open space). Additional special permit requests are required with the revised plan as follows: 8. Solid private patio walls, 6 feet in height, with 13 feet to 16 feet front yard setback in lieu of 20 feet. 9. Interior yard setback from R1 zoned properties of 30 feet in lieu of 33.7 feet and 42 feet. Staff presented revised plans which depicted a reduction in the overall unit count from 113 to 109 and the creation of a two story building type along the east and south property lines adjacent to the existing single family homes. Staff pointed out the intent of the special permits allowing deviations to the code is to provide a more aesthetically pleasing development. The concerns of the adjacent neighbors have been addressed therefore creating the requests for the special permits. Staff also, because of the concerns of the Commission regarding the requested special permits,- presented an additional site plan prepared by staff, that if agreeable with the developer and the Commission, would eliminate six of the nine requested special permits, but would reduce the unit count from 109 to 105. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896 as modified by staff based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Bruttomesso, applicant, spoke in support of the development. He stated that he has spent a considerable amount of time under several constraints (wishes of the Commissioners voiced at the previous meetings, concerns of adjacent neighbors, codes of the City of Huntington Beach, and demands of a competitive market, ) and has come up with some major changes from their original plans. They have reduced the density, have reduced the height of the units along PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -3- (6987d) the south and east property lines to two stories and removed the berm, and have set back the end units to create more movement in the buildings. He Feels that they are proposing a high quality development that will be geared to the upper end of the market. He stated that he agrees with all conditions and recommendations from staff except for the requirement for the retention of the storm water from a 100 year flood for six hours. He does not feel that this condition should be imposed because there is not an existing storm drain system on the property to work with, the.nearest storm drain'is 2,000 feet from the project. Stan Uchizono, architect for the project, reiterated the comments made by the applicant. He feels that all of the concerns have been met and the major impacts have been mitigated. Chairman Livengood asked the applicant if he supported the newest plans presented by staff reducing the unit count another 4 units. The applicant stated that he has already lost 4 units from the original plans that requested 113 units and is not in favor of losing any more, therefore would not support the new proposed plans. Russell Skattum, 8102 Wadebridge Circle,.spoke in support of the development as revised by staff. He stated that there is a good working relationship between the adjacent,neighbors and the developer. He did, however, readdress his concerns of the project. He stated that he agreed with the applicant in opposition to the requirement for the retention of the 100 year flood water for six hours. He is still concerned with the fire dangers presented from this project, the intensity and density of the project, the traffic impacts from the project, and the compatibility in the design of the project with the adjacent neighborhood. He further stated that he would like to see the condition requiring 4 fire hydrants on the property increased to 5 hydrants, he would like the construction hours changed to give the adjacent homeowners some relief from the noise on the weekends, and would like a further meeting with the contractor to discuss landscaping along the property lines adjacent to the single family homes. He fully supports the new plans proposed by staff that would eliminate most of the special permit requests. Philip Bertino, 8121 Wadebridge Circle, spoke in support of the development and the cooperation that the adjacent homeowners have had with the developer. He did however express his displeasure and concerns regarding the traffic report presented by the City Engineer. He feels that the traffic problems created by this project will be monumental. Larry Curran, 8131 Wadebridge Circle, stated that the developer has been very responsive to the wishes of the adjacent homeowners. Since he will have a five unit building behind his house, 30 feet from his backyard, he feels that the roofline of the buildings will be too bulky and displeasing. He also feels that the grading of the property may cause problems with flooding in the adjacent single family homes that have basements. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -4- (6987d) Tom Bruttomesso, applicant, readdressed the concerns expressed by the homeowners. He stated that the entire project will be fire sprinkled eliminating some of the fire problems and that the five unit buildings are going to be set back an additional five feet than the four unit buildings providing some design relief. He further stated that he cannot afford to lose another 4 units and therefore cannot support the new proposed plan by staff. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Les Evans, City Engineer, explained to the Commission that as a result of the overflowing of the flood channels that occurred in 1983 the City Council has been imposing the condition to detain a 6-hour 100-year storm volume on -site on large developments. He feels that the condition could be eliminated on this project because there is no storm drain system on the site or adjacent to a flood control channel. It would require the installation of a reservoir on site that would be filled during a storm and then pumped out, which would not be safe. Tom Poe, Fire Department, stated that his department is requiring that all units be fire sprinkled and the development include four fire hydrants. He felt that this would be a sufficient number of hydrants on the property. Chairman Livengood felt that the Commission had given clear direction at the previous meetings regarding the project and that the developer was still asking for a maximum project with nine special permits and not respondong to the Commission's direction they provided to substantially comply with the PRD Standards and by denying by straw vote the request for 7 special permits. He then asked that each Commissioner make his or her comments regarding the proposed development. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she feels that this project is too intense and that the special permit requests are being stretched to the limit. She feels that the deviations to the code should be considered as conditional exceptions, which would require a stricter criteria. She asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney. Attorney Sangster stated that after referring to Section 9150.21, a Special Permit Request was the proper procedure to take action on this proposal. Commissioner Schumacher further commented that she feels that there should not be any exceptions given when it comes to parking in residential areas. She also feels that all of the units along the property line of the single family homes should be 2 stories and 4-unit buildings and that the developer should conform to code in all instances. She was in favor of the new plans proposed by staff. Commissioner Porter stated that he was not as concerned with the requested special permits as he was with the bulk of the structures, the height, and the architectural compatibility. He further stated PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -5- (6987d) that he thought the relationship between the developer and the adjacent homeowners hid been excellent and that the compromise they had reached concerning the removal of the three story structure and berm along the property line of the single family homes was acceptable. He does feel that the design of the development warranted more of a contrast in an area that would be better served with something more compatible. Commissioner Pierce stated that he felt this development was more oriented toward family type living and that he felt the -architecture was acceptable and would be saleable in today's market. Commissioner Higgins had concerns regarding the storm retention condition. He felt it was a rather extreme expenditure to impose on the developer in a situation that wasn't typical and that didn't warrant the condition. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he did not have any problems with the proposed building material and the compatibility of the architecture. His main concern was a workable solution regarding the drainage. Scott Hess explained to the Commission the revised layout that would eliminate 5 of the 9 special permits. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51, AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL AND REVISED CONDITIONS SUBMITTED BY STAFF AND THE, DELETION OF CONDITION NO. 23 REGARDING THE STORM WATER RETENTION. AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO ADD A CONDITION TO PROVIDE AN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE CHANGE WITH A MORE COMPATIBLE ROOFING MATERIAL FOR VISUAL RELIEF AND TO REVISE SITE PLANS SUGGESTED BY STAFF DEPICTING 105 UNITS WITH 4 UNIT, 2 STORY BUILDINGS ALONG THE R1 PROPERTY LINES. AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO DELETE SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 4 REGARDING THE 20 FOOT SETBACKS FOR GARAGES FROM DRIVE AISLES FOR 18.6% (21) OF THE UNITS IN LIEU OF 50% (57). The following votes on the amendments were taken: IN FAVOR OF DELETING CONDITION #23 WITH FINDINGS REGARDING THE STORM RETENTION: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None AMENDMENT MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -6- (6987d) TO REQUIRE MORE COMPATIBLE ARCHITECTURE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter NOES: Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir AMENDMENT MOTION FAILED TO REVISE SITE PLANS SUGGESTED BY STAFF ALLOWING A MAXIMUM OF 105 UNITS, TWO-STORY, 4 UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY, ALONG THE R1 PROPERTY LINE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter NOES: Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir AMENDMENT MOTION FAILED TO REVISE SITE PLAN DEPICTING TWO-STORY, FOUR -UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY, ALONG THE R1 PROPERTY LINE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Mirjahangir NOES: Pierce AMENDMENT MOTION PASSED DELETE SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 4 REGARDING THE 20 FOOT SETBACKS FOR GARAGES FROM DRIVE AISLES FOR 18.6$ (21) OF THE UNITS IN LIEU OF 51 (57): AYES: Schumacher, Porter NOES: Rowe, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir AMENDMENT MOTION FAILED Commissioner Pierce stated that the only amendments to his motion that he would be in favor of would be the suggested additional conditions from staff, the deletion of condition #23 regarding the storm retention, and the revised site plan depicting two-story, four -unit buildings only, along the R1 property line. The motion was restated: A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51, AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL AND REVISED CONDITIONS SUBMITTED BY STAFF, THE DELETION OF CONDITION NO. 23 REGARDING THE STORM RETENTION AND TO REVISE THE SITE PLAN DEPICTING TWO-STORY, FOUR -UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY, ALONG THE R1 PROPERTY LINE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -7- (6987d) Chairman Livengood stated that the motion to approve with minor changes would provide protection and flexibility to the adjacent residents and developer. He felt that too much valuable time had already been spent on this project by the developer, architects, staff, commissioners, and the adjacent neighbors to not take positive action. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 WITH ADDED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Higgins NOES: Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51: 1. The proposed 109 unit condominium project will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to the amount of special permits required to provide the development as proposed. 2. The proposed 109 unit condominium project will not be compatible with surrounding single family residences to the east and south because of the lack of conformance with the requirement for architectural compatibility which is required by the ordinance code. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The nine requests for special permits will not promote a better living environment nor provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing architecture. 2. The granting of nine special permits will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood; and detrimental to the value of property and/or improvements of the neighborhood. 3. The special permit requests are not consistent with the objectives of the planned residential development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12896: 1. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of 13.7 units per acre and type of development proposed. The building bulk and three-story height from existing grade is not conducive to the site. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -8- (6987d) 1 C-2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-92 APPLICANT; GERALD CHAPMAN Conditional Exception No. 86-92 is a two -fold request to: (1) allow a reduction in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12 feet for a length of 32 feet and from 25 feet to 24 feet for a length of 20 feet; and (2) to allow for 4 feet of fill to be placed within the 100 foot open space corridor along the western edge of the property located at 6742 Shire Circle (Country View Estates). The home, as conceptually designed, requires the conditional exception for encroachment into the rear yard setback. There is adequate room on the site to place a home with a three car garage and not encroach into the rear yard setback. However, this would require the home to be redesigned. Another alternative would be to reduce the size of the garage from a three car to a two car. A two car garage would not encroach into the rear yard setback. The applicant could easily modify the floor plan to reduce the family room by 1 foot. The family room would then be 20' x 2216", and an encroachment into the rear yard setback would be eliminated. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SPECIFIC PLAN• The property is within the boundaries of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Exception No. 86-92 to allow for grading (fill) within the 100 foot open space corridor only and denial of the request for a reduction in required rear yard setback. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gerald Chapman, applicant, spoke in support of the requests. He stated that the property has extreme limitations and that he has tried to preserve the equestrian trails and the aesthetics of the area and at the same time build an attractive home that would enhance the area. Mark A. Gennaro, Architect, spoke in support of the overall plans. He stated that the plans were designed to create an entry statement that would make a pleasing visual impact for the neighborhood. Designing the garage was a problem, however, he feels that it should remain three -car instead of two -car. He also stated that the size of the family room should not be reduced. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -9- (6987d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that because of the size, shape, and the 100 foot open space corridor and 25 foot equestrian and drainage easement present on this property that the applicant would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity if not allowed the reduction in rear yard setback. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE BOTH REQUESTS OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-92 BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - THE PLACEMENT OF FOUR FEET OF FILL WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR: 1. The placement of 4 feet of fill within the 100 foot open space corridor will not be detrimental to the property and improvements in the vicinity of the open space corridor. 2. The placement of 4 feet of fill within the 100 foot open space corridor is in keeping with the visual character desired for the estate residential area. The newly created slope will be much gentler and the form will appear to be natural. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-92 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN REAR YARD SETBACK: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, and the presence of the 100 foot open space corridor and 25 foot equestrian and drainage easement, 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 is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-92 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. The portion of the PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -10- (6987d) building which encroaches into the rear yard setback is 32 feet in length en a lot which has an overall length of 180 feet. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated November 41 1986, is the conceptually approved site plan. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit: a. A cross section of the 100 year floor elevation within the 100 foot wide open space corridor both before and after the proposed fill to the Department of Public Works. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed fill will not create a hazardous situation either on site or further down the swale. b. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. 3. An automatic residential sprinkler system shall be installed to Fire Department standards. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-59 APPLICANT: MARK FRY Conditional Use Permit No. 86-59 is a request for live entertainment (live music for dancing and listening) in an existing bar located at 18582 Beach Boulevard #20 (Town and Country Shopping Center). The entertainment will be on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights from 9:00 PM to 1:30 AM, and on Sunday afternoon from 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM. The type of music will vary but will be primary jazz and rhythm and blues, which will cater to people 25 years of age or older. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The proposed use is located in the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project area. Comments received from the Redevelopment staff on December 4, 1986, indicated that they support the request as proposed. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -11- (6987d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-59 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Prim Shey, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-59 BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of live entertainment (live music for dancing and listening) will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; the proposed live entertainment substantially complies with the criteria in Section 9730.83 of the Ordinance Code. 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 proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The floor plans received and dated November 18, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Hours of live music shall be limited to Thursday, Friday, Saturday 9:00 PM to-1:30 AM Sunday 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -12- (6987d) 3. An entertainment permit shall be submitted and approved prior to the establishment of the live entertainment within the bar. 4. 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. 5. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building codes, including Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 6. The proposed live entertainment shall comply with Chapter 8.40 "Noises" of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Should complaints be received regarding noises generated by the live entertainment, the Planning Commission reserves the right to require the applicant to mitigate the noise level. C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-60 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.86-106 APPLICANT: SMOKEY'S STABLES USA INC. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-60 is a request by the applicant to re-establish a temporary commercial horse stable on the subject property located 1000 feet southeast of the southerly terminus of Bolsa Chica Rd. Conditional Use Permit No. 81-13, approved by the Planning Commission on June 2, 1981, for a five-year period expired on June 2, 1986. Therefore, Conditional Use Permit No. 86-60 has been submitted by the applicant to re-establish the facility. Conditional Exception No. 86-106 is a request to permit a reduction in required perimeter landscaping and a waiver of the perimeter fencing requirement pursuant to Sections 9670.10(b) and 9760.9 of the Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 15301 Section 1 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The subject property is located within the "White Hole" area of the coastal zone, an area which has not been certified by the Coastal Commission. Therefore, the applicant is also required to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission to re-establish the temporary commercial horse facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-60 and Conditional Exception No. 86-106 based on the findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -13- (6987d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Fred Burkett, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the County has just approved his request for a period of 5 years. He requested that his entry sign located at Bolsa Chica remain where it is until such time as a new sign is created and approved by the City. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that since the site in question is both on County property and City property that the approvals should coincide (five year approval). A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE FOR FIVE YEARS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-60 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-106, WITH FINDINGS AND ADDITIONAL AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-60: 1. Operation of the use will not create a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, insofar as the use is compatible with the surrounding area and in conformance with the City's General Plan. 2. The use is compatible with existing uses in the surrounding area and does not detract from the rural environment of the area. 3.' The site plan and design of the existing facilities are harmonious with adjacent structures and uses in that they conform with the existing facilities. 4. The arrangement, access, and parking for the use has not created an undue traffic problem. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-106: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-106 will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood since exceptional circumstances apply to the land which preclude detrimental effects. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -14- (6987d) L_ 2. The requested exception will allow the continuation of a previously estal,lished stable which is compatible with surrounding properties and does not detract from the general environment of the area, and therefore, the exception insures the preservation and use of substantial property rights. 3. Because of the location of the site upon which the use is proposed exceptional circumstances exist that do not generally apply to other properties or classes of uses in the same district due to the remoteness of the site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated November 19, 1986, shall be the approved layout with the exception of the sign which shall be deleted. 2. This approval shall be in effect for a period of 5 years from date of approval to coincide with the recommendation of the County since the site is located on both City and County property. 3. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 4. No structure other than those shown on the approved site plan shall be constructed. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal fire codes, ordinances, and standards, including availability of on -site water for fire prevention purposes. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of this approval or violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing shall be based upon specific findings. 8. A copy of the current liability insurance policy shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for the file and shall be available for review by the public. 9. Horses, hay rides and related activities shall be limited to the subject property, unless written authorization is obtained from the property owner. A copy of the authorization shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for the file. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -15- (6987d) 10. Fire protection for the temporary commercial horse facility shall comply with Fire Department Specification No. 404. 11. The facility shall not exceed 25 horses per acre or a maximum of 125 as permitted by Section 9670.3. 12. Solid waste shall be removed from the site a minimum of twice weekly by an approved commercial collection company. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-61 APPLICANT: TOM PERKINS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-61 is a request to utilize 2,600 square feet of an existing commercial center located at 19092 Beach Boulevard, Suites G and H, for a fitness studio with morning and evening classes pursuant to Section 9332(p) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The proposed fitness center is within the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment staff has reviewed the proposed project and has indicated that it does not conflict with the objectives of the project area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-61 based on findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that his client will be the first tenant in the new shopping center. He presented a copy of the parking agreement that each tenant of the center must sign as part of the tenant lease. It stated that employees shall not park in the central parking areas of the center. He feels that as a result of this agreement Condition No. 2 shoud be removed. He further stated that his client is willing to comply with all of the Fire Department requirements and that Condition No. 5 specifying particular requirements should be removed. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -16- (6987d) L I�� The Commission felt that Condition No. 5 should be rewritten stating that the applicant stiall comply with requirements of the Fire Department before occupancy of the site instead of specifying particular requirements. They also felt that a copy of the parking agreement provided by the owner of the center and imposed as part of the tenant lease should be a part of the records. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-61, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed fitness studio will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity and to property and improvements in the vicinity of such use. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Based on the hours of operation and the number of students proposed for the fitness studio there is sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed fitness studio and other general commercial uses within the commercial center. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Site and floor plans received and dated December 1, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. A parking management plan submitted by the property owner shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department to assure that all employees of the businesses within the commercial center park in the parking area at the southeast corner of the center. 3. Each class or session shall be limited to a maximum of 25 individuals. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 5. Prior to occupancy of the site the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Department. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -17- (6987d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 1258 APPLICANT: ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH On May 20, 1980, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 80-15 which established a mixed use industrial project and Resolution No. 1258 which governs the types of uses allowed in the mixed use project. Conditional Use Permit No. 80-15 allowed 50 percent of the uses along Gothard Street to be Commercial. Resolution No. 1258 was revised in 1984 which added a nail and beauty supply to the list of permitted uses. The request is that a non-profit thrift store and charitable service be added to Resolution No. 1258 in order for them to locate in Unit R at 16582 Gothard Street. They have operated at their present location at 223 Main Street since 1969. They are cooperating with the City and the redevelopment plans in the downtown area which requires them to vacate the Main Street location because of seismic safety code enforcement. Also, during the hearings for a request to amend a resolution for the mixed use development at the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and Gothard Street earlier this year, the Planning Commission indicated that non-profit uses such as the Assistance League were appropriate for mixed use industrial projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amending Resolution No. 1258 and adding the Assistance League of Huntington Beach to the list of permitted uses. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF RESOLUTION NO. 1258 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce,. Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-8 APPLICANT: RICHARD KELTER Site Plan Review No. 86-8 is a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot located on the southwest corner of Walnut Avenue and 19th. Street (119 19th. Street). The Downtown Specific Plan permits residential uses in District 2 subject to the Planning Commission's approval of a site plan review. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -18- (6987d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from environmental review because it is in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically excluded from the requirement of a coastal development permit pursuant to Section 989.5.3.15(e) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. SPECIFIC PLAN: The property is located within the Downtown Specific Plan, which governs the development of the parcels. Since the Specific Plan does not contain standards for single family residential development, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1356, which states that the certain Townlot Specific Plan Standards for single family units shall apply. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Site Plan Review No. 86-8 based on the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-8 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposal fbr a single family residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed single family residence will not adversely affect the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residence is compatible with other uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -19- (6987d) 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orient the proposed structure to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed single family dwelling will not create any undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated December 1, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Should existing or former abandoned oil wells be found on the property, the oil wells must comply with Fire Department standards and Department of Gas standards for abandonment prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. 4. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Huntington Beach: a. Two and one-half feet on the rear alley; b. A twenty (20) foot corner radius at Walnut and 19th. Streets. 5. The applicant shall construct all street improvements as required by the Public Works Department. 6. Second story bay windows shall not extend down to the second floor -and shall be designed with an exterior beveled base. 7. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 8. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 9. 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. 10. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -20- (6987d) 1 D-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-9 APPLICANT-- RICHARD KELTER Site Plan Review No. 86-9 is a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot located on the west side of 19th. Street approximately 25 feet south of Walnut Avenue (121 19th. Street). The Downtown Specific Plan permits residential uses in District 2 subject to the Planning Commission's approval of a site plan review. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from environmental review because it is in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically excluded from the requirement of a coastal development permit pursuant to Section 989.5.3.15(e) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. SPECIFIC PLAN: The property is located within the Downtown Specific Plan, which governs the development of the parcels. Since the Specific Plan does not contain standards for single family residential development, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1356, which states that the certain Townlot Specific Plan Standards for single family units shall apply. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Site Plan Review No. 86-9 based on findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-9, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposal for a single family residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -21- (6987d) 2. The proposed single family residence will not adversely affect the General Plan. of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residence is compatible with other uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orient the proposed structure to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed single family dwelling will not create any undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated December 1, 1986, shall be the approved layout: 2. Should existing or former abandoned oil wells be found on the property, the oil wells must comply with Fire Department standards and Department of Gas standards for abandonment prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. 4. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Huntington Beach: a. Two and one-half feet on the rear alley; 5. The applicant shall construct all street improvements as required by the Public Works Department. 6. Second story bay windows shall not extend down to the second floor and shall be designed with an exterior bevered base. 7. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 8. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 9. 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. 10. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -22- (6987d) P-J D-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-3 - INTERIOR FENCING MATERIAL IN COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 set forth the conditions for the development within Country View Estates. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan called for fencing to be constructed of wood picket, wood rail, wrought iron or similar open type designs. The condition relating to fencing was changed by the Planning Commission in 1985. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-11 stated that: "Solid fencing will be allowed around the entire rear yards, provided that the fencing is of wood construction and such fencing is not constructed beyond the front facade of the house." The developer is requesting a permit to construct interior fencing along the rear and side yards of the westernmost lots in the tract (Tentative Tract 11805). The developer is proposing that the fences be constructed of "Woodcrete", a concrete fence that simulates wood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use of "Woodcrete" for construction of the interior fencing along the rear and side yards of the westernmost lots in the tract. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE THE USE OF WOODCRETE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERIOR FENCING ALONG THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS OF THE WESTERNMOST LOTS IN THE COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES TRACT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, D-5 INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT O.C.T.D. PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOTHARD STREET AND CENTER DRIVE On April 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 85-69 to allow O.C.T.D. to develop a transportation center at the northeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive. At the recommendation of the Redevelopment Staff the Commission imposed a condition requiring that O.C.T.D. reserve the "air rights" above the subject site for possible future use (office structures or parking compound). PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -23- (6987d) O.C.T.D. has submitted a letter to the City requesting that we prepare the necessary --general plan amendment and zone change in order for the site to have the appropriate designations for future development of office/commercial uses. The subject site presently has the General Plan designations of Public, Quasi -Public, Institutional and an overlay zoning designation of Community Facility -Education with an underlying zone of Highway Commercial (C-4). A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE PREPARATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOTHARD STREET AND CENTER DRIVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, BUS ROUTES - DOWNTOWN ARTERIALS Route #29 was not shown on the report presented. Staff was requested to research the status of Route #29 to determine if it was a discontinued route or whether it had been overlooked. F. PENDING ITEMS LIST: Pending list was submitted by staff regarding: (1) Terry Buick Sign and (2) Service Station located at the northwest corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner. One item was added to the list: (1) Post Office located in the Chevron Service Station at Five -Points. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood requested that the agenda for the January 6, 1987 meeting include the Standing Committees. Staff was requested 6, 1987 meeting and January 27, 1987. to include study sessions for the January to advertise for a Special Meeting on 1 PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -24- (6987d) H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: RESOLUTION 1367 - In appreciation to Jeanine Frank who will be retiring from the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1367, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Attorney Sangster requested that a committee be formed to discuss the Brown Act Changes and the Bylaw Revisions. Chairman Livengood will serve on the committee. I. ADJOURNMENT: A MOTION WAS MADE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO A STUDY SESSION ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 87-1 AT 6:01 PM IN ROOM B-8 ON JANUARY 6, 1937 AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 1987 AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Miarjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: Zog7,07 J mes W.IPalin, Secretary P anfing Commission Chair kla PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -25- (6987d)