Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-06APPROVED 1/21/87 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1987 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P A P P ROLL CALL: Leipzig, Schumacher, Higgins, Livengood, Summerell, P P Pierce, Silva The new members of the Commission (Leipzig, Summerell, and Silva) were welcomed by Commissioner Livengood. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS HONORING PAST COMMISSIONERS ROWE, PORTER AND MIRJAHANGIR, AND PRESENT THEM AT THE FIRST FEBRUARY MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of December 16, 1986 Planning Commission meeting Minutes of December 16, 1986 could not be approved since there were not enough members of the Commission present who could vote on them. Approval of the minutes of December 16, 1986 will be considered at the January 21, 1987 meeting. A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE - Sale of surplus property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SUMMERELL, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 87-1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 ELECTION OF COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND CO-CHAIRMAN SILVA NOMINATED KENT PIERCE FOR COMMISSION CHAIRMAN,. SECOND BY SUMMERELL. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS. VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Summerell, Pierce, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins VOTE PASSED LEIPZIG NOMINATED HIGGINS FOR CO-CHAIRMAN, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER. VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: Summerell, Pierce, Silva ABSENT: Higgins VOTE FAILED PIERCE NOMINATED SILVA FOR CO-CHAIRMAN, SECOND BY SUMMERELL. VOTE• AYES: Summerell, Pierce, Silva NOES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood ABSENT: Higgins VOTE FAILED THERE WAS A CALL FOR A CHANGE OF VOTE. VOTE: HIGGINS FOR CO-CHAIRMAN AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Silva NOES: Summerell, Pierce ABSENT: Higgins VOTE PASSED B-2 COMMENTS FROM 1986 CHAIRMAN Commissioner Livengood highlighted 1986 and his two-year term as Chairman of the Planning Commission. He would like to see another workshop scheduled for 1987 since it was very beneficial. Chairman Pierce, stated that he was looking forward to serving as Chairman. He enjoyed working with Commissioner Livengood and his fairness. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -2- (7112d) 1 1 1 MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE,iSECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION HONORING TOM LIVENGOOD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: Livengood MOTION PASSED B-3 DIVISION 9 UPDATE AND TIME LINE Division 9 Update and Time Line was presented to the Commissioners. There was no comment. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -3- (7112d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 6-9 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: CAROLYN DEDEN Conditional Exception No. 86-94 is a request to permit a six'foot (61) high block wall to encroach five feet (51) into the required fifteen foot (151) front yard setback at a residence located at 3442 Venture Drive. On December 3, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied Conditional Exception No. 86-94 by a vote of 5 to 0. The applicant has initiated the appeal because in her opinion full consideration was not given to all the facts that were available at the time of the hearing. Due to an error in the legal advertisement, staff is requesting this item be readvertised by the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has been notified and concurs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO RE -NOTICE AND RESCHEDULE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-94 TO THE JANUARY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-97 APPLICANT: DAVID GILMORE APPELLANT: TOM BERNATZ Conditional Exception No. 86-97 is a request to permit a portion of a proposed commercial building to encroach into site angle setbacks along Hamilton -Avenue at 21501 Brookhurst. On November 26, 1986,, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Conditional Exception No. 86-97 to allow 612.5 square feet of a proposed 6,406 square foot commercial building to encroach up to 25 feet into the required site angle setback (Section 9220.11.d) from Hamilton Avenue. The Board's action was subsequently appealed by Mr. Tom Bernatz, adjacent westerly property owner most impacted by the building encroachment, on behalf of his seven commercial tenants. [1 PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -4- (7112d) On January 51 1987, Tom Bernatz, Appellant, requested that the Planning Commission accept his written request for withdrawal of his appeal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-97, BY,THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-91 (REFERRED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS) APPLICANT: WAYNE HOWARD CONSTRUCTION Conditional Exception No. 86-91 is a request to permit 660 square feet of open space in lieu of the required 900 square feet in a single family residence located at 6421 Antrim Circle. On December 3, 1986,_the Board of Zoning Adjustments referred Conditional Exception No. 86-11 to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. The applicant requested a reduction of the required 900 square feet of open space be reduced to 660 square feet in order to allow the expansion of the dining area located in the rear of the floor plan. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Exception No. 86-91.- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Martin Garisek, applicant, spoke in support of his request. He stated that he is trying to upgrade his home and needs the exception granted to him. Christiane Garisek, applicant, spoke in support of the request. She stated that her and her husband had a choice of moving or remodeling their home to better accommodate their family and to upgrade their neighborhood. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -5- (7112d) Vicki Fliege, 6402 Antrim Circle, spoke in support of the request. She stated that homes in this particular neighborhood need expanding in the dining and kitchen areas to accommodate family -type living. She stated that she has remodeled her home like many others in the neighborhood and feels that this request should be granted so that her neighborhood can be improved. Robert Benwell, 6422 Antrim Circle, spoke in support of the request. He stated that he has remodeled his home twice and feels that it has been an upgrade to the neighborhood. Thomas Winford, 6441 Antrim Circle, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the applicant is trying to upgrade his home and improve the neighborhood and feels that his particular lot presents a hardship for normal remodeling. Donna Winford, 6441 Antrim Circle, 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. Some of the Commissioners felt that this applicant has a land -related hardship, while others felt he could revise his plans to accommodate his proposed expansions without violating the code. They were concerned that a number of similar requests had been processed in recent months and that the code may beed to be amended to reduce the open space requirement in the rear yard setback. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-91 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: Schumacher, Livengood ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Because the single family dwelling has been located 22 feet from the front property line in lieu of the 10 foot minimum as required today, 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 to preserve the rights. a Conditional Exception is necessary in order enjoyment of one or more substantial property 1 PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -6- (7112d) 3. ' The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-91 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 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 November 4, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 3. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 4. 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. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, RECOMMENDING THAT STAFF PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REAR YARD OPEN SPACE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-11 APPLICANT: ROB VERMAN/QRS SIGNS Special Sign Permit No. 86-11 is a request to change the sign face from Ole's to Mercury Savings for an existing 40 foot high, internally illuminated non -conforming freestanding sign located at 7800 Edinger Avenue (south side of Edinger Avenue approximately 500 feet east of Sher Lane). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -7- (7112d) REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject freestanding sign is located within the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment staff supports the request to allow Mercury Savings to use the sign until such time as the subject site is redeveloped. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Special Sign Permit No. 86-11 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mel Kapsin, applicant, spoke in support of the special sign permit. He concurs with staff's recommendation of a five year approval for the existing sign which would allow the joint plans of the Redevelopment Agency and Mercury Savings to go into effect. He also stated that it is the intention of Mercury Savings to close the easterly driveway entering Edinger Avenue and that he feels the sign is critical for directing the flow of traffic. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the special sign permit and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern that Mercury Savings was intending to remove a conforming sign and proposing to use a non -conforming sign and that she was not in support of the plan. Commissioner Livengood stated the he felt this center needed improvements up and that the traffic flow in the center would be vastly improved by the closing of the easterly drive. He further stated that since the proposed sign would eventually come down he felt the improvements to the center would far outweigh the approved use of the non -conforming sign. He also felt that the closing of the easterly drive should be stated as a finding for approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-11, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Livengood, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Pierce, Summerell, Silva MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1.' The existing 40 foot high, 176 square foot freestanding sign and proposed sign area change will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 1 PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -8- (7112d) 2. The existing 40 foot :nigh, 176 square foot freestanding sign and proposed sign area change will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 3. The five (5) year time limit for the existing 40 foot high, 176 square foot freestanding sign and proposed sign area change will be in keeping with the character of the shopping center. 4. The existing 40 foot high, 176 square foot freestanding sign and proposed sign area change will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. 5. The closing of the easterly drive on Edinger Avenue as indicated on special sign permit site plan dated December 12, 1986, will improve traffic circulation in this center. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevation received and dated December 12, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. Approval shall be for five (5) years or until the issuance of building permits for new construction, whichever comes first. 3. The applicant shall participate in any Planned Sign Program prepared for the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area and will remove or modify the subject sign in compliance with the Planned Sign Program. C-5 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-17 APPLICANT: THE HUNTINGTON VILLAGE PARTNERSHIP Site Plan Amendment No. 86-17 is a request by the applicant, the Huntington Village Partnership, to permit a reduction in the perimeter fence height on the southern and western boundaries of the property, from 8 feet to 6 feet. The 8 foot high fence was a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-12. The project abuts single family residential on the south and west. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on Site Plan Amendment No. 86-17 as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -9- (7112d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Alan Degenhardt, applicant, spoke in support of the reduction of the perimeter fence from 8 feet to 6 feet. He stated that if the fence' was not reduced in height that in some places it would be as high as 10 feet which would be imposing to the adjacent residential property. Elizabeth Short, adjacent property owner, urged the Planning Commission to leave the condition requiring an 8 foot fence in effect, but suggested that the 8 foot fence be measured from the adjacent residential property. Lance Berry, homeowner on adjacent property, stated that he was in favor of an 8 foot wall. Richard Short, adjacent homeowner, expressed his concerns over the reduction of the 8 foot wall. He urged the Commission to leave the condition at 8 feet. Jim Moore, adjacent homeowner, stated that he did not feel that an 8 foot wall would be imposing. He further stated that he felt comfortable with an 8 foot wall because of the noise factors. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. - Staff stated that an 8 foot fence is usually used when separating commercial property from residential property and.recommended that the condition stipulate 8 feet from the residential side so that the height would not exceed 8 feet on the existing resident's side. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SILVA TO DENY SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-17 AND TO MODIFY CONDITION NO. 20 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:--- Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: Nbne_� ABSENT: Higgins'-, ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The reduction in perimeter fence height from 8 feet to 6 feet along the southern and western edges of the property will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity of the project. 2. The reduction in perimeter fence height from 8 feet to 6 feet along the southern and western edges of the property will be detrimental to the privacy of the single family residents living to the south and west of the project. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 °;710- (7112d) 0 MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO. 20 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12: 20. An eight foot high masonry wall, as measured from the adjacent residential property, shall be constructed of uniform design and material along the western and southern edge of the property. The applicant shall work with adjacent homeowners to replace or repair any dilapidated rear yard walls. C-6 TENTATIVE TRACT 11769, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-63 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-64 APPLICANT: DAVID DAHL Tentative Tract 11769, Conditional Use Permit No. 86-63 and Negative Declaration No. 86-64 is a request for a 15 lot subdivision located on the south side of Ellis, 660 feet west of Goldenwest Street on 5 gross acres. The applicant has requested that Tentative Tract 11769, Conditional Use Permit No. 86-63 and Negative Declaration No. 86-64 be continued to the February 3, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has also waived the -mandatory processing date. As of January 2, 1987, no communications in favor or opposition to this proposal had been received by the Department of Development Services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continue Tentative Tract 11769, Conditional Use Permit No. 86-63 and Negative Declaratin No. 86-64 to the February 3, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT 11769, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-63 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-64, TO THE FEBRUARY 3, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -11- (7112d) C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-58 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-110 APPLICANT: ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-58 is a request to alter an existing gas station by adding a canopy and gas pumps along the Garfield Avenue side of the property located at 18972 Beach Boulevard. As required by the zoning code the gas station must be brought into conformance with all current code requirements for service stations. Upgrading the site is incorporated into the proposed development plans. However, due to existing building placement and driveway layout, some improvements are impractical and infeasible. Thus, Conditional Exception No. 86-110 is requested to maintain a 200 square foot planter at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue in lieu of 600 square feet, and a 5 foot wide planter along Beach Boulevard in lieu of 10 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class 11 Section 15301 from California Environmental Quality Act. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject property is within the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment staff has reviewed the request and encourages improved landscaping and signage. Overall landscaping proposed for the site exceeds the required minimum 10% and conditions of approval require an architecturally compatible monument base be installed on the existing freestanding corner pole sign. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Readvertise Conditional Use Permit No. 86-58 and Conditional Exception No. 86-110 for the January 21, 1987 Planning Commission meeting due to insufficient notification. The title company inadvertently submitted an incomplete ownership list to the applicant which was part of the application. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO RE -NOTICE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-58 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-110 AND CONTINUE TO THE JANUARY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva 1 PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -12- (7112d) 1 D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC FLARING: D-1 AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION REGULATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 2 TO �� THE STRUCTURE OVER TWENTY-TWO FEET IN HEIGHT APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH In response to Planning Commission direction on December 2, 1986, After discussing a request for conditional exception to the rear yard setback requirements, staff prepared an amended resolution to eliminate any difference in rear yard setback requirements for single family homes versus multiple dwelling units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1369 and recommend adoption by the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1369, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Silva (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -13- (7112d) RESOLUTION NO. 1369 A RESOLUTION OF, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CLARIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, DISTRICT TWO WHEREAS, the emphasis of the Downtown Specific Plan, District Two, was to guide the development of consolidations of parcels for residential development, and The Downtown Specific Plan requires Coastal. Commission review and approval as do any changes to the document, this resolution clarifying the intent of the plan with respect ->to development standards for single -unit dwellings will be followed up by a code amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan subject to review by the Coastal Commission at a later date, and'% There is a need to clarify regulations regarding construction of single -unit dwellings in the Downtown\Specific Plan, District Two. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that X\the Planning Commission states that all standards within the Downtown Specific Plan, District Two shall apply to the construction of single -unit dwellings, except as specifically identified below: (1) Parking requirements shall be as required for single -unit dwellings for the Oldtown/Townlot areas in Article 960. (2) Open space requirements shall be as required for the Oldtown/Townlot areas in Article 913. (3) Maximum building height shall be thirty feet for main dwellings and fifteen feet for detached accessory buildings. In addition, the maximum building height shall be twenty-two feet within twenty-five feet of the front property line. d• ' (4) Minimum parcel size shall be as stated in Article 913. (5) The requirements of Section 9130.16 and 9130.17 shall apply, including single -unit dwelling design standards. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby approves the standards clarified in this resolution which apply to the construction of single -unit dwellings in the Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on -the 6th. day of January, 1987, by the following roll call vote: PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -14- (7112d) 1 D-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.-36-13 APPLICANT: CORONA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Site Plan Review No. 86-13 is a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of 21st. Street approximately 50 feet south of Walnut Avenue. 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 EIR pursuant to Section 15182 of the provisions 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: Approve Site Plan Review No. 86-13 based on the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-13 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -15- (7112d) 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. 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 existing uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orients 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 31, 1986, shall be revised to reflect the following: a. Maximum site coverage of 1,438 square feet. b. A color palatte in more contrasting colors (subject to review and approval of DRB). c. False vents shall be one-half circles instead of full circles. 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. The curb and gutter on 21st. Street shall be moved 29-1/2 feet from centerline of street to accommodate future cul-de-sac at Pacific Coast Highway. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -16- (7112d) 1 7. Alley improvements shall be constructed from Walnut Avenue to the southern boundary of the proposed project. 8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. 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. 11. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 12. 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. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. D-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-14 APPLICANT: CORONA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Site Plan Review No. 86-14 is a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of 21st. Street approximately 25 feet south of Walnut Avenue. 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 EIR pursuant to Section 15182 of the provisions 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. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -17- (7112d) 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: Approve Site Plan Review No. 86-14 based on the findings and conditions of approval. The applicant requested that Condition of Approval No. l.d be deleted regarding the roof over the bay window. He stated that awnings were being proposed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-14, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins 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. 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 existing uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4.' The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orients 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 31, 1986, shall be revised to reflect the following: PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -18- (7112d) a. Maximum site coverage of 1,438'square feet. b. A color palatte in more contrasting colors (subject to review and approval of DRB). c. False vents shall be one-half circles instead of full circles. 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. The curb and gutter on 21st. Street shall be moved 29-1/2 feet from centerline of street to accommodate future cul-de-sac at Pacific Coast Highway. 7. Alley improvements shall be constructed from Walnut Avenue to the southern boundary of the proposed project. 8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. 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.. 11. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 12. 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. 13. 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 - 1/6/87 -19- (7112d) D-4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:FILING DATE SCHEDULING The City's General Plan requires that the Planning Commission annually establish by resolution the final filing dates for the four annual General Plan Amendments permitted by State law. General Plan Amendment No. 87-1 is already in draft form and will be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council in January and February. The filing date for Amendment 87-2 is also expired and that document should be heard in April or May of 1987. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Establish by resolution the final filing dates for the four annual General Plan Amendments permitted by State Law. The Commissioners discussed the resolution and made adjustments to some of the hearing dates. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO REVISE RESOLUTION 1340 AND PRESENT IT AT THE JANUARY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: DOWNTOWN BUS ROUTES (REVISED INCLUDING ROUTE #29) F. PENDING ITEMS LIST: A pending items list was presented that included the U.S. Post. Office located at the Chevron Convenience Market at Five Points and the Mobile Station located at the northwest corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner Avenue. The Commissioners requested that staff report back to them as to whether a conditional use permit is required for a post office in a convenience market -and to keep this matter on the pending items list. PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -20- (7112d) The following items were added to the Pending Items List: FOOTBRIDGE AT Bt-ACH AND WARNER 3311 EASTERLY DRIVE (IN THE HARBOR) - REPORTED THAT AN R1 RESIDENT IS BEING USED AS R2 AND THAT SEVERAL BOAT DOCKS ARE BEING RENTED AND THAT BOATS IN THE SLIPS ARE BEING LIVED IN. It was also requested that an up-to-date list be prepared that would include all of the Pending Items from 1986 and that a date be inclueed on all items sent up to the Attorney's office for prosecution. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION STANDING COMMITTEES FEBRUARY 18, 1987 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 - TO REVIEW PROPOSED BEACHFRONT CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT ON LAKE STREET PROPERTY AS PER REQUEST BY REDEVELOPMENT STAFF H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Staff will report back to the Commission several available dates to schedule a workshop to include Redevelopment, Planning, and the Commissioners. It was suggested that Saturday, January 24, and Saturday, January 31, be left open. I. ADJOURNMENT: A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, AT 9:40 TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO THE ELLIS/GOLDENWEST STUDY SESSION JANUARY 21, 1987, AT 6:00 PM IN THE CITY COUNCIL CAUCUS ROOM AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 1987, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: ames W. Palin, Secretary K6ny Pierce, Chairman kla PC Minutes - 1/6/87 -21- (7112d)