Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-03APPROVED 3/3I37 11 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION February 3, 1987 - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P ROLL CALL: Leipzig, Schumacher, P P Summerell, Silva A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California P P P Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, A-1 Minutes - January 21, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 87-1 Sell surplus, City -owned property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE. 87-1 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE GARFIELD LOTS MUST BE CONSOLIDATED INTO THREE OR FEWER PARCELS PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR THAT AN IRREVOCABLE RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT BE ENTERED INTO BY ALL GARFIELD AVENUE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ALLOW -REAR ACCESS TO ALL LOTS VIA STEWART STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood;,. Pierce,, Higgins, B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS B-1 CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE FOOTBRIDGE LOCATED NEAR RANCHO VIEW SCHOOL AND LANCASTER DRIVE A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO ADD TO THE FEBRUARY 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE FOOTBRIDGE LOCATED NEAR RANCHO VIEW SCHOOL AND LANCASTER DRIVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Staff was instructed to copy and include in the Planning Commission packets all of the back up material related to this action. ' 1 PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -2- (7400d) 1 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-40 86-105 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 2 MEETING) APPLICANT: STELLA TOLLY DITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 987 PLANNING COMMISSION Conditional Use Permit No. 85-40 is a request to add a 592.square foot second unit to an existing 1,724 square foot single story single family dwelling located at 17192 Rotterdam Lane. Conditional Exception No. 86-105 is a request to allow 861 square feet of recreation open space in lieu of the required 900 square foot recreation open space. The proposed single story second unit will be located in the rear yard attached to the main dwelling unit. On January 21, 1987, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 and Conditional Exception No. 86-105 in order for staff to research three possible code violations that were discussed during the public hearing. Staff has investigated the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and has determined that if the applicant complies with the conditions of operating a business from his home, there will not be any code violations. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-40 and denial of Conditional Exception No. 86-105. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dave Taylor, representing Ms. Tolly, spoke in support of the request and stated that he was availble for any questions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-40 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Livengood, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -3- (7400d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-40: 1. The establishment and maintenance of the proposed second unit will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the Citytof Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the goal's and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-40: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted which complies with the recreation open requirement. 11 2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and centr'a1'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. 6. Provide a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces on site. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-105, WITH FINDINGS,'BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Higgins, Silva NOES: Pierce, Summerell, 1 11 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-105: 1. Because the site is a standard, 6,000 square foot R1 lot which lacks unique configuration, shape or topographic features, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -4- (7400d) 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a Conditional Exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-105 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity because the proposed second unit can be designed to comply with the recreation open space requirements. 4. Since there will be two families residing at the site the required open space in the rear yard becomes even more critical. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-65 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12936/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-39 MRRTTNC APPLICANT: SOUTHRIDGE HOMES Conditional Use Permit No. 86-65 with Special Permits in conjunction with Tentative Tract 12936 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-39 is a request to develop a three-story with subterranean parking, 42-unit condominium project on a primarily vacant .88 acre site on Pacific Coast Highway in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. There are five special permit items related to parking, private open space and building offsets. This item was continued from the January 21, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as requsted by the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed residential 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 residential project is subject to approval of a coastal development permit because it is located within coastal zone boundaries under appeal jurisdiction to the California Coastal Commission. SPECIFIC PLAN: The subject property is located within the Downtown Specific Plan, District 2 (Residential) and subject to the development standards of that plan. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -5- (7400d) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: On January 8, 1987, the Subdivision Committee met and discussed the proposed condominium development and tract map. Representatives from the Fire Department,'Public Works Department, Development Services Department and Planning Commission were present. 'Ramp access design and accessibility to the guest parking spaces were their primary concerns. Ramp access has been improved and located off 15th. Street as opposed to the alley. Although the guest parking spaces are within the subterrenaen parking structure, the security gate system will be designed'to allow easy access. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The'Design Review Board reviewed the proposed residential'development for conformance with the Downtown Design'Guidelines. They felt the building orientation,-arrangement'and architectural design emanates contemporary mediterranean architecture. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-65 with special permits as modified, Tentative Tract 12936 and Coastal Development Permit.No:-86-39 based on the findings and conditions of approval.' ' THE PUBLIC HEARING'WAS OPENED Richard Kelter, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. He expressed concern with condition of approval #3 on the conditional_ use permit. He would like to keep the location of the security gate where it is presently shown on the plans. He feels that if it is moved that it will cause a police problem. He also expressed concern with condition #19 on the conditional use permit. He is opposed to providing 20% affordable housing in his development however would be willing to provide'10% moderate income housing. The tentative tract conditions of approval he objected to were #3 (regarding the individual water meters) and #5 (8 inch water mains). He stated that digging in the alleys can be hazardous. He would prefer to bring in the water mains from Pacific Coast Highway and hook in to the existing mains. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed.' The Commissioners discussed the project and the conditions that were being objected to by the applicant. Straw"votes were`taken on the issues of the location,of the security gate and the affordable housing. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -6- (7400d) STRAW VOTE - MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO LEAVE THE LOCATION OF THE SECURITY GATE AS SHOWN ON PLANS, HOWEVER REVISE THE CONDITION TO ADD A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO BE APPROVED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: Higgins STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED STRAW VOTE - MOTION BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY SILVA, TO DELETE CONDITION OF APPROVAL #19 REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ADD A FINDING EXPLAINING THE DELETION. AYES: Schumacher, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: Leipzig, Livengood STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-65 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12936, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-39, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-65: 1. The proposed 42 unit condominium project will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the vicinity; or will not be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The proposed 42 unit condominium project is compatible with existing or proposed uses in the vicinity. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed use is properly related to the streets, drives and other structures and uses in the vicinity in a harmonious manner. 4. The proposed condominium project is in conformance with the adopted Design Guidelines for the Downtown Specific Plan. 5. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed 42 unit condominium project shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the Downtown Specific Plan area. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -7- (7400d) 6. The proposed 42 unit condominium project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The following special permits -for deviations to the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan promote a better living environment and provide maximum use of the land in terms of site layout and design: a. The inclusion of 18 compact parking spaces (17.5%) in lieu of no compact size parking spaces. b. An 8 foot offset in lieu of 10 feet between the second and third floors of the exterior building facades, and no offset in lieu of 10 feet between the second -,and third floor of the interior buildings. The use of,bbilding facade popouts, balcony projections and varied roof lines create a more aesthetically pleasing visual effect. c. A minimum of 110 square feet of private open space in the form of patio area, balcony and outdoor enclosed storage in lieu of a'minimum of 250 square feet of patio -area for the townhome style developments (Unit Type A). d. A minimum of 110 square feet of balcony area with a minimum of 10 square feet of enclosed storage area in lieu of a minimum of 120 open square feet of balcony area for two bedroom units. e. A 25 foot wide ramp to subterranean parking in lieu of 28 feet. f. A maximum of 52% site coverage in lieu of 50%. 2. The approval of the special permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience -of the neighborhood in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood. 3. The special permit requests are consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the parcel and compatible with the surrounding environment. 4. The special permits are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12936: 1. The proposed one lot subdivision for condominium purposes of this 39,328 net square foot parcel of land zoned Downtown Specific Plan, District 2, Residential, is proposed to be constructed having 46.5 units per net acre. PC Minutes=' 2/3/87 -8- (7400d) 1 2. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation and Downtown Specific Plan, District 2, zoning designation were placed on the subject property. 3. The General Plan is set up for the provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation for this type of houseing. 4. The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development. 5. The tentative tract is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-39: 1. The proposed.42 unit condominium project conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 86-39 is consistent with the CZ suffix and the Downtown Specific Plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed 42 unit condominium project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4. The proposed 42 unit condominium project conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 5. The Mello Bill Affordable Housing requirements, Government Code Section 65590(d), is satisfied in the following manner: a. The City has provided density bonuses within three miles of the coastal zone which have provided affordable housing. b. Due to the location and economics involved it would not be feasible to develop affordable housing on this site. The value of the land coupled with the need to provide subterranean parking on site would prohibit the ability to provide for affordable housing. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-65: 1. The site plan and floor plans, received and dated January 28, 1987, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: PC Minutes - 2/3/87 (7400d) a. The balcony areas on the B, C, D and E unit -types shall be increased to a minimum of 110 square feet in size with a minimum 10 square foot enclosed storage area for a minimum total of 120 square feet of balcony space. b. Maximum site coverage shall not exceed 52% of the lot. c. A minimum 100 cubic foot over the hood storage spaces shall be indicated in the subterranean parking plan. d. Show north arrow. e. Show distances of•property line to centerline of streets. f. Minimum 25 foot wide drive ramp to subterranean parking. 2. The elevations dated January 28, 1987, shall conform with the following: a. Same accent color shall be used for the chimney cap, railings, and awnings. b. If eave is to be stuccoed, a thick sculptured -type is required. c. Colors shall be submitted to the Design Review Board along with the materials pallette for final approval. d. The north westerly end unit along 15th. Street shall be provided with additional architectural elements and/or clustering of plant materials. 3. A security gate communication system shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and -irrigation plan to the Department of Development'Services and Public Works for review and approval. a. Other than 14th. Street, all landscaping shall be installed on private property. b. Plant material as specified in the Downtown Landscape Guidelines manual shall be used. c. Palm trees shall be in settings of 3 to 5 with various trunk heights (i.e. 4 feet; 6 feet, 9 feet, 12 feet, and 15 feet). 5. Fire hydrants are to be installed pursuant to Fire Department and Public Works standards. The fire hydrants must be installed prior to combustible construction. Fire flow provided must be a minimum 4,500 gpm. t PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -10- (7400d) 6. All existing or formal oil well sites must be abandoned pursuant to Division of Oil and Gas and Fire Department standards. 7. The complex is to be protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed to comply with Fire Department standards. 8. Building address numbers are to be installed pursuant to Fire Department standards. 9. Any security gates which are locked must be provided with a "knox key box" for emergency access key. 10. Alarm systems must be installed throughout the complex to provide the following: water flow, valve tamper, trouble, audible alarm, annunciation, and 24-hour supervision. 11. A combination wet standpipe system must be installed in the stairways from the parking garage to each floor landing. 12. During construction, the construction site must comply with Article 87 of the Fire Code. Additionally, when the complex has reached 50% built stage, a 24 hour fire watch approved by the Fire Department must be provided for the abatement of fire hazards and for reporting Fire Code violations, suspicious persons and fires to the Fire Department. 13. The number and length of minimum 1 inch diameter hoses shall be approved by the Fire Department and must be provided on site for use on small incipient fires. 14. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. 15. Low volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 16. 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. 17. All dwellings on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with State Acoustical standards set forth for units that are within the 60 CNEL contour of the property. 18. The method of trash pick up shall be subject to the approval of Public Works Department. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12936: 1. Tentative Tract 12936 dated December 19, 1986, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Show cross sections of all adjacent streets and alleys on the map. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -11- (7400d) b. The curb and gutter on 15th. Street shall be moved to 29-1/2 from centerline with an 8 foot wide sidewalk. C. Sidewalk on Pacific Coast Highway shall be 11 feet wide. d. The right of way radii at Pacific Coast Highway and 14th. and 15th. Streets shall be 24 feet and 27 feet, respectively. e. Reflect 42 unit layout with ramp off 15th. Street. 2. The new curb and gutter on 14th. Street shall remain at 25 feet from centerline with an 8 foot wide sidewalk adjoining the curb. The remaining portion of the right of way (4-1/2 feet) shall be landscaped and maintained by the developer and/or homeowner's association. 3. The irrigation system shall be separately metered. 4. Backflow devices shall be installed on all domestic pool, fire and irrigation services. 5. Construct 8 inch water mains in the alley, 15th. Street, and 14th. Street to connect to the 12 inch water main on Pacific Coast Highway. 6. All required street improvements including the street lighting system, shall be approved by the City and shall be installed on all adjacent streets and alleys. 7. A detailed soils report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 8. A hydrology and drainage system shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 9. Off -site sewer shall be constructed in the north/south alley to Walnut Avenue and connect to Orange County Sanitation District Coast Trunk Sewer. 10. A portion of the Orange County Sanitation District sewer located in east -west alley shall be abandoned as required by the City. 11. CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Development Services Department in accordance with Article 915 prior to final recordation of Tract Map 12936. 12. A 5 foot wide right of way dedication shall be made along the alleyside of the property for alley purposes and shall be improved to Public Works standards. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -12- (7400d) C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 APPLICANT: STEPHEN C. ROESCH Conditional Use Permit No. 87-1 is a request to permit the addition of a 563 square foot second unit within a single family residence located at 9872 Lapworth Circle. The home is presently a two story structure. The second unit will be located above the garage, with access to the unit from the interior of the home. The applicant is also proposing an additional entry to the unit with an open stairway on the side of the house. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-1 as amended by staff based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Andrew Newquist, 9882 Lapworth Circle, presented a petition and spoke in opposition to the request. He stated his objections to the outside stairwell to the addition. He feels that the addition will alter the appearance of the R1 neighborhood. Bob Colton, 9871 Lapworth, spoke in opposition to the request. He is opposed to adding second units in an R1 neighborhood and feels it will have an impact on the parking. Ernest Vitucci, 9912 Lapworth Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. He objects to an outside stairway to the added apartment. He also stated that even though the State legalizes granny flats he feels that if the majority of a neighborhood objects to them they should not be allowed. James Kessell, 9892 Lapworth Circle, had questions regarding the request. He questioned the setback of the property in regard to the outside stairway and also questioned whether an additional unit should have a separate mailbox and address. Richard Jurchen, 9902 Lapworth Circle, spoke in opposition to the request. He feels that an addition to a house in an R1 neighborhood should not include a kitchen or outside entrance. He also stated that he thinks the CC&R's in the tract prohibit such additions. Stephen Roesch, applicant, spoke in support of his request. He expressed his concern over the objections from his neighbors. He stated that the addition is being requested for his mother's use only and that he has no intention of using it for a rental. He further PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -13- (7400d) stated that if the outside stairway is a problem that he will gladly modify his plans to remove them. He also stated that if his mother vacates the addition that he is willing to convert the house back to satisfy the neighbors. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. There was a question regarding the CC&R's prohibiting added units in this tract of homes versus the State law regarding granny units. City Attorney stated that the State law would take precedent over CC&R's. The Commissioners felt that the applicants intentions were sincere and since he was in agreement that the outside stairway should be removed, that a condition be added to include the removal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The second unit addition will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the persons residing in the vicinity nor to the property and improvements in the vicinity because it is architecturally compatible with the main unit and replicates a typical second story addition. 2. The second unit addition will not cause any change in the visible character of the surrounding neighborhood because the neighborhood is a mixture of one and two story houses. 3. The second unit addition substantially complies with the requirements of the zoning code for such a development and use. 4. The second unit addition to an existing single family residence is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modification described herein: a. The stairway located in the side yard leading to the second unit shall be removed. 2. The development shall comply with Section 9110.6 and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -14- (7400d) 1 u 3. 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. C-4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 87-6 APPLICANTS: GORDON AND LORIE WATSON Conditional Exception No. 87-6 is a request to permit a 6 foot encroachment in the required 30 foot front yard setback and to allow for a 3 foot cut in the natural grade -in order to construct a single family home at 6732 Shire Circle (Country View Estates). The property is located within Country View Estates at the end of a cul-de-sac and is adjacent to the 100 foot wide open space corridor. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SPECIFIC PLAN• The subject property is within the boundaries of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Exception No. 87-6 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gordon and Delores Watson, applicants, spoke in support of the request. Lamar Stewart, Project Engineer, spoke in support of the request There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 87-6, WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -15- (7400d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property including size, irregular shape due to the lots location on a cul-de-sac, and topography including a drainage swale in the rear yard of the property 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. Because of its location of the cul-de-sac the reduced front yard setback will not result in a home that projects out beyond the front of the adjacent home to the east. The 3 foot cut on the property to accommodate a level house will not adversely impact the drainage of the tract. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 87-6 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 5. 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 January 16, 1987, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. The 3 foot cut in grade shall be for the construction of the home and driveway only. Alteration to the landform in the rear of the property shall not exceed 2 foot of cut or fill. No land form alteration or structures shall be permitted within the 100 foot wide open space corridor. All grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works to insure that the drainage of other homes in the tract is not adversely impacted by grading proposals on this site. b. The building elevations shall be revised to show enhanced architectural treatment on the garage elevation facing the street. Such treatment may include small paned windows, pop out windows, inclusion of planter boxes or other features which create a more aesthetically pleasing building facade in keeping with the style of architecture within Country View Estates. PC Minutes-'2/3/87 -16- (7400d) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall obtain an access easement from Lots 3 and 4 of Tract 11473 to allow for access to be taken off of the private road serving Lots 3 and 4. The document shall be recorded with the County Recorder and a copy submitted to the Department of Development Services prior to occupancy. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-63/TENTATIVE TRACT 11769/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-64 APPLICANT: DAVID DAHL Conditional Use Permit No. 86-63, Tentative Tract 11769 and Negative Declaration No. 86-64 is a request to permit a 30 lot subdivision for the construction of custom single family homes. The 10 acre parcel is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, 660 feet west of Goldenwest Street. This application was continued from the January 8, 1987 Planning Commission meeting at the applicant's request. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the. environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-64 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-63 or Tentative Tract 11769, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-64. SPECIFIC PLAN: The project lies within the boundaries of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: The Subdivision Committee reviewed the revised 10 acre tract on January 8, 1987. The Public Works Department expressed concern over site grading, drainage and hydraulics. The Fire Department felt that looping the water system of this tract with Tract 11473 (Country View Estates) would enhance the water system reliability within Tract 11473. The applicant requested that conditions be inserted in this project so that future developers to the west and east who take access from the roads he installs or make use of the storm drain, water and sewer lines installed for this project would reimburse the applicant for their pro-rata use. PC Minutes 7 2/3/87 -17- (7400d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-63, Tentative Tract 11769 and Negative Declaration No. 86-64 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED David Dahl, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. John,Fisher, 6692 Shetland.Circle, representing eight.homeowners of Country View Estates, voiced some of the concerns that the present property owners have with their subdivision and made comparisons and suggestions for the proposed development. He stated that the private streets (with no sidewalks) are dangerous, that there is not sufficient parking and the setbacks requirements should be increased in the front of the properties. He stated that there -should be a master -plan of.the area. He further stated that he feels the lots are too small (they should be estate homes not tract homes). Mary Bell, Equestrian Trails Inc., spoke in support of the proposed project. David Dahl spoke in response to the concerns expressed by John Fisher. He stated that he is agreeable to sidewalks however center medians do cause parking problems. He would like to see a 22 foot setback required.-„ There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and.the public hearing was closed. Due to the concerns expressed by the residents,of Country View Estates and its relativity to the proposed development it was suggested that the request,be,continued and a study. -session and tour of the two sites be scheduled to allow time for'the Commission to further study the project and its,relationship to the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The applicant agreed to,a two;week continuance of the project with a tour of the two sites and a study session. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-63, TENTATIVE TRACT 11769, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-64, TO THE FEBRUARY 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISION MEETING, AND TO SCHEDULE A VAN TOUR AND STUDY SESSION ON FEBRUARY 18,,1987, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -18- (7400d) 1 C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-34 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-113 APPLICANT: RAMESH BAJARIA Conditional Use Permit No. 86-34 is a request to demolish an existing service station and install a self -serve gas station, and to expand and remodel an existing car wash located at 7949 Garfield Avenue. Conditional Exception No. 86-113 is to allow a reduction in planter width along Beach Boulevard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 86-34 and Conditional Exception No. 86-113 to the February 17, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. 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 LEIPZIG, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-34 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-113 TO THE FEBRUARY 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-57 APPLICANT: PADDOCK & FLAIR ARCHITECTS Conditional Use Permit No. 86-57 in conjunction with Negative Declaration 86-61 is a request to construct a three story, 53 unit motel which includes a manager's unit on the west side of Beach Boulevard north of Garfield Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration 86-61 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-57, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration 86-61. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -19- (7400d) REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject property is within the proposed Beach`Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The proposed 53 unit motel was referred to the Design Review Board for their review and recommendation. The Board recommends approval of the architectural elevations as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Table Conditional Use Permit No. 86-57 and direct the applicant to attempt acquisition of the northerly 37-1/2 wide parcel for consolidation purposes and to submit financial feasibility study to determine the impact and vacancy rate of additional motel space along Beach Boulevard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ken Paddock, architect representing Mr. Patel, spoke in support of the project. Tom Kievet, lawyer representing Mr. Patel, stated that his firm has been trying unsuccessfully to contact the adjacent property owner for a mutual driveway easement agreement. Mr. Patel, applicant, spoke in support of the project. Haroon Rashid, Financial Management consultant, spoke in support of the project'and presented the feasibility study prepared on the proposed 55 unit Travelodge. Dr. James Shen, adjacent property owner (dental office), spoke in opposition to the motel. He stated that he,feels there are too many motels on Beach Boulevard and that there is too much traffic generated by the auto dealerships to benefit another motel. He stated that parking problems currently exist on his property due to the auto dealerships and that he feels they would double with an added motel parking lot and that his street visibility would be blocked by the motel signs if'permitted next to his property. He further stated that he has never received a written -notice or offer from the applicant regarding any agreements. j There were no,other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. It was felt by the Commission that a more earnest attempt should be made to acquire the adjacent northerly lot for a consolidated development project and/or integrated driveway and parking system. PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -20- (7400d) 1 [1 Staff informed the Commission that the entitlement to use on the adjacent dental office property may be in violation of their conditions of approval and the possibility of revocation may exist because of their refusal to record a reciprocal access agreement. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-57 TO THE FEBRUARY 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-33 Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 86,-33 is a request to amend Article 913 (Oldtown/Townlot) to clarify minimum distance required between buildings and minimum side yard setback for structures where the main entry is on the side of the building. Also, to permit twenty-five foot wide lots in the Townlot area only. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Natalie Kosch, realtor, stated her viewpoint regarding 30 foot frontages in the Oldtown area. She stated that she would prefer to see two single family residences instead of one single family residence and a unit. She questioned what this would do to the Oldtown area? There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-33, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -21- (7400d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PENDING ITEMS The following items were added to the Pending Items list: CORNER OF GARFIELD/GOLDENWEST - Want list of code violations preparea on this property. OCEANVIEW STABLES - fence is falling down G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners=�Higgins,.Summerell and Livengood will be attending the League of California,Cities Planning Commission Training.Meeting:to be -held in Sacramento, California, on March 11, 12 and 13. Planning Commission selected Commissioners Livengood and Silva as the liaison to the Historical Resource Committee set up by the City Council. They will be recommended to the City Council for approval. The Commission requested that a van -tour of the Dahl Property be scheduled at 4:00 PM on Wednesday, February 18, 1987, preceding the Lake Street Redevelopment Study Session at 6:00 PM and regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 PM. Staff was instructed to provide updated copies of the following items to the Commission for their review before the study session on Tuesday,.,Febr.uary 10,.,1987:- 1. Transportation Element 2. Beach Boulevard Corridor Study 3. Traffic studies for Warner/Beach Blvd. and Newland/Magnolia 4. If available, a more current circulation map which is on page 51-oftthe General Plan , H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS None r rY PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -22= (7400d) F Ll I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS, AT 11:45 PM, TO ADJOURN TO THE INFORMAL STUDY SESSION SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 10, 1987, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1987, AT 7:00 PM., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: & e., r. � C �— �-- - s W. Pa in, Secretary PC Minutes - 2/3/87 -23- (7400d)