Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-07APPROVED 8/4/87 C' MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1987 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P A P P ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, P P Summerell, Livengood A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of June 16, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 1987, TO THE JULY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SO THAT ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS COULD BE MADE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS STATUS OF BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The Commission was informed that the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan was rejected by the City Council on July 6, 1987 by a 5 to 2 vote. CLEAN-UP OF ORDINANCE CODES Mark and Cheryle Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, addressed their concerns with codes that are being violated in their neighborhood. They requested that the Commission initiate a request immediately to clean up and eliminate loopholes in the City's existing codes. They would like to uses more descriptive and clearly stated s be no misinterpretations. It was further recreation rooms, attics and "great rooms" approved without imposing requirements for because there is not enough parking spaces neighborhoods for the intended use. They there be maximum square footages imposed f see definitions of o that there would stated that should not be more parking provided in also requested that or garages. Pictures of homes with potential code violations were presented to the Commission by the Brownings. They were directed to make a list containing the addresses of homes with potential code violations in their neighborhood and forward it to staff for investigation. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -2- (8641d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 APPEAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9; USE PERMIT NO. 87-34 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSON MEETING) APPLICANT: BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT APPELLANT: RICHARD J. APRAHAMIAN The proposed project consists of one 122,424 square foot industrial building, to be located on a currently vacant 5-acre parcel located west of Beach Boulevard and south of Talbert Avenue (between the east terminus of Redondo Circle and the south terminus of Kovacs Circle). On April 15, 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Administrative Review No. 87-15 and Negative Declaration No. 87-9 by a vote of 5 to 0, and approved Conditional Exception No. 87-24 by a vote of 4 to 1. Administrative Review No. 87-15 is a request by Boureston Development in accordance with Section 9510.01 of the Ordinance Code to permit a new 122,424 square foot industrial building on a 5 acre parcel currently owned by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-24 is a request to permit a 10-1/2 foot front yard setback from Redondo Circle in lieu of the required 14-foot setback as required by Section 9510.06(b)(3), and to permit a truck well to be 50 feet in width in lieu of 20 feet in width as required by Section 9510.12(b) of the Ordinance Code. These requests are covered by Negative Declaration No. 87-9. These actions were appealed by Triple "H" Properties (Reliable Lumber). After further analysis, it was determined by staff that a use permit is also required to permit a new industrial use within 150 feet of residentially zoned property and to permit truck doors to face a public street (Sections 9510.18(a)(1) and 9510.12). On May 27, 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments declined to act on Use Permit No. 87-34 by a vote of 5 to 0 in accordance with Section 9815.3 of the Ordinance Code thereby referring the item to the Planning Commission. Therefore, Use Permit No. 87-34 has been submitted in conjunction with the appeal. These items were continued from the Planning Commission hearing of June 16, 1987, in order to allow the applicant and the appellant to work with staff in examining alternative designs for the proposed project. At the June 16, 1987 hearing, several Planning Commissioners and property owners on Redondo Circle expressed concern as to how the cul-de-sacs proposed for Redondo Circle and Kovacs Street would impact traffic flow. The Planning Commission directed staff to examine design alternatives that would provide for a connection of Redondo Circle through to Talbert Avenue and also provide the applicant with an acceptable building layout. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -3- (8641d) Staff maintains that the original layout for the project as proposed by Boureston Development project will not have an adverse impact on traffic, noise, air quality, or other development in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment's approval of Administrative Review No. 87-15, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-24 and Negative Declaration 87-9 and deny the appeal, and approve Use Permit No. 87-34, with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Belsher, appellant, presented an alternative to the original plan. He pointed out that on the alternate plan the single user building has been moved back separating it with a landscape buffer from the adjacent senior citizen project; it has 100,000 square feet which can be expanded on the second floor and can be recycled into a multi -tenant use. He feels that the building has more potential with very little change in construction and provides more protection for the senior project and that it will save money on fire insurance because it is more fire safe. He further stated that he feels staff's proposal creates bad circulation problems because the roads proposed would call for too many negotiations with other property owners. He would like to see a new precise plan of street alignment. He feels that the alternative plan presented is the only one that complies with the General Plan and urged the Commission to grant approval. Michael Todd, applicant, presented the alternate site plan that Boureston and staff had agreed on. He stated that time, cost and partnerships were issues that the City should not be concerned with and that after being awarded the RFP by the City that Boureston had taken risks to develop their original plans based on commitments and requirements made by the City. He stated that the City's request for proposal was a request that permitted them to develop a plan with or without a through street and that they based their commitments on the City's requirements. He stated that they have tried to work out problems that existed on the site and were concerned with the costs (approximately $350 to $400 million dollars) being imposed by the modifications that would be involved with the alternative plan. He stated that Boureston Development has asked the appellant if they would be interested in sharing the costs of such modifications and have been turned down. He does not feel that the appellant's-plan.is economical and that the variances pertaining to residential property are critical. He feels that the two plans are just trading problems and that there would be condemnation problems for the property owners. He urged the Commission to approve his original plan. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -4- (8641d) 1 A comparison was made by staff on the original plans and the alternative plans. It was pointed out that the appellant's alternative plan would present two more variances that could be potential problems (truck door openings and building height). The Deputy City Attorney stated that the original bid did not include completing a street and that the main objective was to preserve an industrial business in the City. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was in favor of Alternate A because she felt that it was a solution to an unfortunate problem, more in conformance with the General Plan, created less impact on the senior project and would not require any undue requirements on this developer. She further stated that she feels that the street is very important however running it down the property line was not feasible, taking property from each side was not sensible, and is in favor.of giving variances. Commissioner Silva felt that it was not fair for the City to promise what the Planning Commission may approve or deny. Since reducing the square footage was not economically feasible for the developer he is in favor of allowing additional square footage. Staff stated that the site plan could be altered however if additional variances were needed they would have to be re -noticed and heard by the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Livengood felt that the City has made a commitment to this developer and that the notice did not state the status of the situation. He feels that protection of industrial uses should be a finding for rescinding the specific plan. He also was in favor of adding a second story to the proposed building. Chairman Pierce questioned whether a through street would alleviate the parking and circulation problems. He stated that he was not in favor of putting through the street and granting variances for less parking for such a large building. He further stated that he feels the applicant responded and acted in good faith to the RFP and that the Agency should pay for the completion of the street because it was an unreasonable burden on the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 87-15 AND USE PERMIT NO. 87-34, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS BASED ON THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 7/7/87- -5- (8641d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24, WITH THE FINDING THAT APPROVAL WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS ACTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Livengood NOES: Leipzig, Summerell ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Leipzig, Summerell NOES: Pierce, Livengood ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY SILVA, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 WITH AN ADDED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher NOES: Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 (THE ORIGINAL MOTION) WITH FINDING THAT APPROVAL WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS ACTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 87-34: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of an industrial building will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -6- (8641d) 1 b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. Any potentially adverse impacts have been considered and mitigated. 3. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The project is in conformance with the M1-A zone and General Plan designation of General Industrial for the site. 4. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO, 87-15: 1. The site plans, floor plans and elevations dated April 1, 1987, shall be revised and resubmitted to depict the modifications described herein: a. Provide a street connection between Redondo Circle and Kovacs Street. b. Comply with Fire Department requirements and the Uniform Building Code. c. Comply with all requirements of the M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing) District, including setbacks, parking, landscaping, building height and sound attenuation. d. Deviations to any of the above variances will require re -submittal and conditional exception approval by the Planning Commission through public hearing process. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection. 4. Grading plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with plans for silt control for all storm runoff if determined to be necessary by the Director of Public Works. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -7- (8641d) 5. If foil type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 6. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 7. Service roads and fire lands, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 8. Fire access lands shall be maintained. If fire lane viola- tions occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. 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. The development shall comply with mitigation measures specified for "Future Industrial Activity" in the Report prepared by J.J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc., dated April 6, 1983 (attached). 11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water heaters and central heating units. 12. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 13. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 14. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, Tract Map 11955, as amended to show the alternate precise plan, adopted to show alignment of Redondo and Kovacs to conform to the modified site plan, shall be approved by the City Council and recorded. 15. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 17. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 18. Landscaping shall comply with Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 19. Compact parking stalls shall be striped to a depth of 19 feet where possible. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Design Review Board. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -8- (8641d) 1 21. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Administrative Review No. 87-15 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 87-34: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 1, 1987, shall be the approved layout, with modifications as noted in Administrative Review No. 87-15. 2. All Conditions of Approval of Administrative Review No. 87-15 shall be applicable. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24: 1. The proposed conditional exception would be inconsistent with the Planning Commission action on Use.Permit No. 87-34 and Administrative Review No. 87-15. C-2a TAYLOR AND BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A request to repeal or amend the Taylor and Beach Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 73-1). The Specific Plan area is bordered by Talbert Avenue on the north, Beach Boulevard on the east, Taylor Drive on the south and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 1381 and recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution to repeal the Taylor and Beach Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 73-1). THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Comments made under C-1 referenced this project. There were no additional speakers and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood stated that the City Council had made a decision in 1973 and could see no reason to change. He feels that until decisions are made on this parcel that this specific plan is needed for protection. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO DENY THE REQUEST TO REPEAL OR AMEND THE TAYLOR AND BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -9- (8641d) C-2b PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 87-1 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 1.6_, 1987 PLANNING COMMISION MEETING) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 87-1 is a request to amend Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 74-3 by realigning Redondo Circle and Kovacs Street from a connecting loop street system to two separate cul-de-sacs. Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 87-1 would terminate Kovacs Street at its existing southerly terminus with a cul-de-sac on the adjacent property and would terminate Redondo Circle at its existing easterly terminus with a cul-de-sac on the adjacent property. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 1987, in conjunction with the Repeal of the Taylor and Beach Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 73-1). Since that meeting, staff has analyzed various conceptual street alignments that would allow for alternative connections between Redondo and Talbert to the existing Precise Plan, as well as provide an acceptable project layout for a major single user industrial project proposed to be located at the terminus of Redondo Circle and Kovacs Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 87-1 and recommend adoption by the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Comments made under C-1 referenced this project. There were no additional speakers and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 87-1 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE A NEW PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Silva (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 APPEAL - USE PERMIT NO. 87-28 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: HOPKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY The appeal of the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of Use Permit No. 87-28 by Hopkins Development was continued from the June 16, 1987 Planning Commission meeting at the applicant's request. The applicant waived the mandatory processing date. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -10- (8641d) Use Permit No. 87-28 is a request to permit a Round -Table Pizza Restaurant (take-out service only, no seating) in an existing suite in a small retail complex at 9502 Hamilton Avenue (southeast corner of Hamilton Avenue and Bushard Street) and to remove"a condition of approval of Use Permit No. 86-27 prohibiting restaurants. On May 6, 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied the new use permit request by a vote of 4 to 1, citing concerns with regard to traffic, noise and odors generated by such uses. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the proposed project is categorically exempt. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of Use Permit No. 87-28 based on the findings outlined in the attached report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED David Quatman, applicant, 18341 Gumtree Lane, spoke in support of the proposed use. He stated that a petition was circulated in the surrounding neighborhood and out of 48 residents contacted, 44 signed the petition in favor of the take-out pizza restaurant. He also stated that his restaurant will be using the best equipment available to mitigate any odors, there will be no games or juke box on the premises thus illeviating noise and that he feels that his clientele will not be potential noise makers since they will be picking up orders that they have phoned rather than staying to eat. Robert Deck, 9561 Drumbeat Drive, property owner adjacent to the proposed restaurant, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that the traffic at the intersection of Hamilton and Bushard has increased substantially resulting in numerous accidents and that there are a lot of cars and children, on bikes and on foot, that frequent the 7-11 store in the center that generate a lot of noise. He feels that restaurants should not be allowed in this center because of the additional traffic and noise from the cars, radios, etc. that will be generated. He suggested that an environmental impact report be done on the center. Henry Lutke, 9892 Garrett Circle, owner of a pizza store down the street from the proposed site, spoke in opposition to the request. He feels that two identical uses within close proximity of each other is creating too much competition for a small businessman. Dorian Sonnenschein, 4040 MacArthur Blvd., representing the applicant, pointed out that this proposed establishment isn't a normal "restaurant" as defined in the code. He stated that it is a take-out restaurant only with no seating provided. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -11- (8641d) Sallie Frank, 9581 Drumbeat Drive, voiced her concerns with the center, which is right behind her house. She stated that because the center already contains a 7-11 store and a liquor store that the traffic has increased. He said that a lot of people use the alley that separates the center from her home and therefore generates a lot of litter and that the houses directly adjacent to the alley get garbage and litter thrown over the walls. Joseph DeFelice, 655 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, representing Round -Table Pizza, spoke in support of the request. He stated that Mr. Quatman is a good businessman and has been in the business for a long time. He feels that the take-out restaurant will be compatible with the other uses in the center and does not feel that it will create excessive or additional noise. Richard Mount, resident from Newport Beach, stated that the intersection has a four-way stop and that the site is controlled by a light with a reciprocal agreement with the other shopping center. He feels that parking is more than adequate and that the site has multiple ways in and out of the shopping center. Gayle Melstrom, 9562 Drumbeat, stated that she has not seen any petitions being passed in her neighborhood. She stated that she has five children and that there are a lot.of accidents on this particular corner. She feels that the use will add too much traffic to an already congested area and that people will be eating outside of their automobiles and throwing trash around causing clutter and odor. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that this particular use could not be blamed for on -going problems and that loitering in the parking lot should be enforced by the police department. They felt that a take-out restaurant would be more compatible than another use. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 87-28, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the take-out pizza restaurant without seating will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -12- (8641d) 1 b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. No seating will be provided; therefore parking can be accommodated and noise and activity generated will be minimal. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated May 19, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. All applicable conditions of Use Permit No. 86-27 shall still apply. 3. No alcohol sales shall be permitted. 4. Signs shall comply with Planned Sign Program for the shopping center. 5. 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. 6. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 7. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 8. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 9. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 10. No seating (provided for eating) shall be allowed in establishment. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this use permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -13- (8641d) C-4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-77 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: DAVID DAHL Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 86-77 is a request to allow a reduction in the required rear yard setback for a single family home in Country View Estates located at 6722 Shetland Circle from 25 feet to 10 feet. The applicant submitted a zone change along with this conditional exception to allow for the construction of a single family home on the lot within Country View Estates which had been set aside for equestrian facilities. The zone change was denied by the Planning Commission on November 5, 1986. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. At the applicant's request, the City Council on December 15, 1986, 1986, tabled the zone change request to allow time for the applicant to work with City staff to explore other avenues by which the equestrian needs in the area can be addressed. Staff is currently in the process of revising the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. It is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in September of 1987. 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 86-77 to the October 6, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as per the applicant's request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-77, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CONTINUE STATING, "TO BE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 6, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING", BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -14- (8641d) C-5 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-36 APPLICANT: RENGEL & CO. ASSOCIATES Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-36 is a request to construct a new single family dwelling unit with four (4) variances on a legal, non -conforming lot located at 427 Tenth Street (Tenth Street and Pecan Avenue) in the Townlot area. The applicant intends to demolish an existing residence on the property. On June 3, 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied the applicant's conditional exception request with findings by a vote of 3 to 2 because the site is substandard in size and the proposed residence would not be consistent with other residences constructed in the Townlot area. On June 11, 1987, Rengel and Company Architects, on behalf of their clients, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Johnson, appealed the Board of Zoning Adjustment's June 3, 1987 decision on Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-36. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 5, Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve three of the four variance requests of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-36, as modified by staff,.with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Harriet Johnson, 5336 Brookview Avenue, Edina, Minnesota, property owner, spoke in support of the request. Richard Rengel, architect, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the reason that they requested to use the existing foundation was for preservation of ,the existing basement and felt that it was a reasonable solution to a complex problem. He further stated that that the existing foundation may have to be completely replaced. He said that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation and conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that if the initial request was granted an additional variance would be required. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would be voting no because of the site coverage. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -15- (8641d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE THREE OUT OF FOUR VARIANCE REQUESTS, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Pierce, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig, Summerell ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None TIE VOTE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Staff was directed to re -schedule this request and make it Item No. C-1 on the July 21, 1987 agenda. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-64 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION. (VARIANCE) NO. 86-114 APPLICANT: MIDAS REALTY CORPORATION Conditional Use Permit No. 86-64 is a request to construct a 3,928 square foot minor auto repair facility, with a temporary 408 square foot additional service bay, on a corner lot located at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Owens Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act relative to new construction. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The project is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-64 and approve Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 86-114 for reduction in lot width only, based on the findings and conditions of approval. . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Charles Margolin, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He feels that the facility will enhance the property however stated that giving up an additional 50 feet would not be economically feasible. Ed Vinscog, architect, stated that an additional 24 foot easement had been provided for future access and that he felt that constituted an extraordinary circumstance. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -16- (8641d) Frank Jennings, Midal Realty, spoke in support of the request. He stated that Mr. Margolin had won numerous national awards for his shops and feels that the buildings would be compatible with the surrounding property. Barbara Kimbrough, 19361 Beach Boulevard, stated there she had no reasons to question the architectural ability of the applicant, however felt that there were already too many cars being parked on Owens and Williams and she was concerned about the pollution and noise problems that might be caused by the shop. She said that adjacent neighbors on Owens Street were not provided with garages or parking spaces and that cars are being parked illegally all over the area. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that the establishment of an auto repair facility would not be detrimental to the vicinity and felt that the request for reduced lot width and building encroachment into the front site angle setback should be approved. Staff was directed to investigate the illegal parking problems expressed by Ms. Kimbrough. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-64 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-114 AS REQUESTED, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-64: 1. The establishment of a minor auto repair facility will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 2. The establishment of a minor auto repair facility will not be detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the neighborhood. 3. Based on the layout and design of the proposed minor auto repair facility, it will be compatible with the surrounding uses. 4. The proposed minor auto repair facility is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and General Commercial Land Use designation. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -17- (8641d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 86-114 (REDUCED LOT WIDTH AND BUILDING ENCROACHMENT INTO FRONT SITE ANGLE SETBACK)• 1. Because of the location and original subdivision of the subject property there are special circumstances to the subject property that deprive the subject property of other privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. Without the variance, development of the site is precluded. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 86-114 for reduction in lot width and site angle setback encroachment is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 86-114 for reduction in lot width and site angle setback encroachment 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. 5. The proposed structure into the site angle setback would not have a detrimental impact upon the adjoining southerly property and impact the site angle visibility for motorists exiting from Owens Avenue onto Beach Boulevard. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated June 12, 1987, shall be revised as follows: a. Relocate trash enclosure away from the westerly property line to be adjacent to the building. 2. The elevations dated June 12, 1987, shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits the following shall be completed:. a. A tentative parcel map or parcel map waiver to consolidate the three parcels proposed to be built upon shall be filed with the City of Huntington Beach. The parcel map and plat map and notice shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy of the recorded map filed with the Department of Community Development prior to final occupancy. b. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval. Particular consideration shall be given to landscaping to effect screening along Owens Avenue. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -18- (8641d) c. A rooftop mechanical equipment plan indicating screening for all rooftop mechanical equipment and the type of material proposed to screen said equipment shall be submitted. d. An irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent southerly parcel shall be submitted. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and when approved shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. The copy shall then be filed with the Department of Community Development prior to occupancy of the structure. 4. The driveway approach on Owens Avenue shall be a minimum of 27 feet wide with radius type curbs. 5. A soils report and grading plan shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. 6. Public works improvements, including street lights, shall be constructed along Owens Avenue and Beach Boulevard in accordance with Public Works and CalTrans standards. 7. A 25 foot right-of-way corner radius shall be provided at Owens Avenue and Beach Boulevard. 8. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed pursuant to Fire Department standards. 9. Fire extinguishers shall be installed in locations approved by the Fire Department. 10. Welding and cutting operations shall comply with Article 49 of the Uniform Fire Code. 11. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed 2 inches along the southerly property line. 12. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. All repair work shall be conducted wholly within the building. 13. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable material shall be disposed at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 14. Lighting within the parking lot shall be high pressure sodium vapor lamps and shall be designed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 15. All signage shall comply with the Huntington Beach Sign Code. Only one freestanding sign may be permitted for the subject property and shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the structure and shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -19- (8641d) 16. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday. 17. The 12 foot building section depicted on the site plan dated June 12, 1987, shall be removed at such time as the adjacent southerly parcel is developed to enable reciprocal access between the two parcels. A document guaranteeing such removal shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 18. 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-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-23 APPLICANT: ROSTON SCHOOLHOUSE Conditional Use Permit No. 87-23 is a request to permit the establishment of a private school for children ages 2-1/2 to 12 years old within an existing two-story office building located at 15881 Goldenwest. The applicant, Roston Schoolhouse, will be constructing an additional 3,400 square feet to the existing structure. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-23 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Rehanna, Rezia and Rokeya Roston, applicants, spoke in support of the request. Avida McCray, 15852 Rollins Lane, stated that the home faces the proposed site and that she opposes the use due to traffic problems and noise problems. She stated that her bedroom directly faces the site and that she is concerned with the hours. of recess because she sleeps during the day. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed.' It was suggested that a condition be added requiring that a sign stating "right-hand turn only" be placed at the driveway exit onto Goldenwest Street. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -20- (8641d) 1 �J A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-23, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-23: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the private school will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to the location of the outdoor play area in the southwestern portion of the site. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map which designates this site as General Commercial. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed private school properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. The access to and parking for the proposed private school does not create an undue traffic problem nor will traffic need to travel through the adjacent residential neighborhood. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-23: 1. The site plan dated June 12, 1987, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Travel lanes shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 2. The proposed building elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development to insure architectural compatibility with the existing structure. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the subject property owner shall make an offer of irrevocable reciprocal driveway easement between the subject site and adjacent properties to the south. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development prior to occupancy. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -21- (8641d) 4. The maximum enrollment shall be limited to 128 students. Any expansion in number shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 6. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall obtain approval from the State Social Services Department. 7. The applicant shall comply with the following Fire Department regulations: a. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed throughout to comply with Fire Department standards. b. Automatic alarm system shall be installed in areas specified by State Fire Marshal regulations. C. Fire extinguishers shall be installed in locations approved by the Fire Department. d. Any installation of fences must provide for adequate Fire .Department emergency access. e. The exit system shall comply with regulations of the State Fire Marshal. 8. The applicant shall comply with the following Public Works requirements: a. Remove and replace any deteriorated street improvements. b. Install one street light. C. Construct a wheelchair ramp at Goldenwest and Breeland. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permit the applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval of the Department of Public Works. 10. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and Building Division requirements. 11. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach. 12. All signs shall comply with Article 961 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and shall be subject to a sign permit. 13. The use of bells, speakers or other audio devices outside the building shall be prohibited. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -22- (8641d) 1 1 14. The driveway exit onto Goldenwest Street off of the property shall be signed "right-hand turn only". 15. All mature trees on site shall be preserved. 16. 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-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-22 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-19 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Conditional Use Permit No. 87-22 and Negative Declaration 87-19 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach to construct a water booster station at the northwest corner of Clay and Goldenwest. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 87-19 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. 87-22, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration 87-19. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-22 and Negative Declaration 87-19 based on the findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher addressed her concerns with the request. They included: 1) lack of public notification; 2) negative impact upon the entrance into the residential subdivision to the south; 3) removal of the existing trees; 4) need for an acoustical study; 5) location of site on existing earthquake fault. The Commission felt that re -notification of the request was necessary and that a continuance was in order. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -23- (8641d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-22 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-19 TO THE JULY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITH THE NOTIFICATION AREA BEING EXPANDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-25 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-30(R) APPLICANT: LEPLASTRIER DEVELOPMENT CO. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-25 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30(R) is a request to construct a 159-unit planned residential development with special permits pertaining to building bulk and open space. The applicant has requested a two -week continuance to the July 21, 1987 Planning Commission meeting in order to prepare additional comparative analysis plans of the proposed project and the previously approved project (Summerhill) on the subject site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 87-25 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30(R) to the July 21, 1987 Planning Commission meeting per the applicant's request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-25 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-30(R) TO THE JULY 21, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -24- (8641d) C-10 ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-8 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-24 APPLICANT: PHILLIP OLIVER/TAREK SAMEE Zone Change No. 87-8 is a request to rezone a 6,590 square foot portion of a parcel from R2-PD (Medium Density Residential -Planned Development) to C4 (Highway Commercial) located at 20800 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard south of Indianapolis Avenue). This zone change will result in consistency between the zoning and approved development on the subject property. It was initiated by the applicant in order to comply with Condition No. 4 of Tentative Tract 12820 which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 1, 1986, for the construction of six condominium units behind an existing two-story office building and adjustment of the common property line between such uses. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 87-24 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration 87-24 and Zone Change No. 87-8 based on the findings and recommend adoption by the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Phillip Oliver, applicant, was present and available to answer any questions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the zone change and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-8 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-24, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Pierce (Both out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone change from R2-PD to C4 is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use of Medium Density Residential because the portion of land being rezoned is less than one acre. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -25- (8641d) 2. 3. The proposed zone change will not result in any change of permitted uses on the site. The proposed zone change will be compatible with surrounding land uses because of setbacks and buffers required by the zoning. 1 PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -26- (8641d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 12268 APPLICANT: WALDEN & ASSOCIATES A request by the applicant, Walden and Associates, for a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 12268. Tentative Tract 12268 was approved on August 6, 1985, by the City Council on appeal for the creation of a one -lot subdivision on a 7.4 gross acre site located on the east side of Lake Street between Pecan Avenue and Atlanta Avenue for the purpose of constructing 159 condominium units. The subject entitlement will expire on August 6, 1987. In addition to the tentative tract, Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50, Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30 and Negative Declaration 86-51 were approved and will expire on December 1, 1988. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant a one-year extension of time (until August 6, 1988) for Tentative Tract 12268. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12268, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-3 APPLICANT: JAMES W. MOSICH Site Plan Review No. 87-3 is a request to permit the construction of two single family dwellings on two 25-foot wide lots located on the east side of 8th. Street approximately 125 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. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -27- (8641d) 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. 87-3 based on the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-3, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposal for two 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 residences will not adversely affect the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residences are 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 structures 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 dwellings will not create any undue traffic problem. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -28- (8641d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated July 1, 1987, shall be the conceptually approved layout subject to the following modifications: a. Site coverage for Building B shall not exceed 50%. b. The rear access stairway shall be designed so it is open to the adjoining hallway with a partial wall with railing, and the exit door is open into the courtyard or located off the family room. 2. Primary stucco colors shall be reviewed by staff. The colors on the two units shall be varied to provide contrast. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits the following shall be provided: a. An access easement on the adjoining lot for a strip of property wide enough to meet the minimum sideyard setback requirement of 5 feet clear for side entryways. Such document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that each single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. 4. 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. 5. Adequate distance must be provided (100 feet) from any adjacent oil operations or fire protection systems approved by the Fire Department will be required. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Huntington Beach two and one-half feet on the rear alley. 7. The applicant shall construct all street and alley improvements as required by the Public Works Department. 8. The curb and gutter on 8th. Street shall be reconstructed 29-1/2 feet from centerline of street with 8 foot wide sidewalk to accommodate future cul-de-sac at Pacific Coast Highway. 9. A grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works and Community Development departments. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -29- (8641d) 10. Street lights as required by the Public Works Department shall be constructed per City standards. 11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 12. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 13. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 14. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 15. 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. 16. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Building Division requirements. 17. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the property owner shall offer to donate (for a period of 30 days) the structure to the City of Huntington Beach for relocation or to fully document it and preserve important architectural elements. D-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-4 APPLICANT: FERGUSON, GEIL & STONOFF Site Plan Review No. 87-4 is a request to permit the construction of four single family dwellings on four 25-foot wide lots located on the west side of 22nd. 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. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -30- (8641d) 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. 87-4 based on the findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-4, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposal for four 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 residences will not adversely affect the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed single family residences are 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 structures 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 dwellings will not create any undue traffic problem. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -31- (8641d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated July 1, 1987, shall be revised to reflect the following: a. Provide minimum 5 foot wide clearance, on -site, to front entryway of the most southerly unit (Lot 11). b. Provide a 6 foot wall on the side property line of Lot #11 adjacent to the alley up to the front 15 foot setback line. C. Reduce the site coverage of units B1 and B2 so as not to exceed 50% (1437.5 square feet). d. The rear access stairway shall be designed so it is open to the adjoining hallway with a partial wall with railing, and the exit door is open into the courtyard or located off the family room. 2. Primary stucco colors shall be as indicated by the applicant as follows: Santana, Miami Peach and Sandstone with one color repeated. Window trim and chimney cap shall be white. All accessory structures, including walls, shall be architecturally compatible with the dwelling unit in terms of colors and materials and conform to the Downtown Design Guidelines. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be provided: a. An access easement on the adjoining lot for a strip of property wide enough to meet the minimum sideyard setback requirement of 5 feet clear for side entryways. Such document shall be recorded with the County Recorder. b. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that each single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. 4. 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. 5. Adequate distance must be provided (100 feet) from any adjacent oil operations or fire protection systems approved by the Fire Department will be required. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City of Huntington Beach two and one-half feet on the rear alley. 7. The applicant shall construct all street and alley improvements as required by the Public Works Department. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -32- (8641d) 1 8. The curb and gutter on 22nd. Street shall be reconstructed 29-1/2 feet from centerline of street with 8 foot wide sidewalk to accommodate future cul-de-sac at Pacific Coast Highway. 9. A grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works and Community Development departments. 10. Street lights as required by the Public Works Department shall be constructed per City standards. 11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 12. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 13. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 14. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 15. 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. 16. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Building Division requirements. PC Minutes - 7/7/87 5002 (8641d) E. F. DISCUSSION ITEMS APPOINTMENT OF THREE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE/HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPOINT CHAIRMAN PIERCE, COMMISSIONER LEIPZIG AND COMMISSIONER SILVA TO THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE/HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PENDING ITEMS Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, The following items were discussed and added to the Pending Items List: COUCH AND AUTOMOBILE LOCATED AT SOUTHERLY END OF KOVACS LANE: Commissioner Livengood reported that the couch and automobile that had been removed from the site however had recently been returned. Requested further follow-up on this matter. NEWSPAPER RACKS DISPLAYING IMPRUDENT MATERIAL AT THE WARNER AVENUE POST OFFICE: Attorney's office will follow up on this matter. PARKING CONDITIONS ON WILLIAMS AND OWENS STREETS TRASH IN ALLEY BEHIND SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAMILTON AVENUE AND BUSHARD STREET SEQUENCING OF SIGNALS AT BUSHARD STREET AND HAMILTON AVENUE ATLANTA/BEACH BOULEVARD (NORTHEAST CORNER) - VACANT LOT ACCUMULATING JUNK, WASHING MACHINES, PILES OF DIRT, ETC. BOUNDARIES OF BIDDLES FERTILIZER COMPANY - AREA OF USE BEING EXPANDED REPORT ON ALL PAST NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, VIOLATIONS AND STAFF'S INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSES OF MOODY CIRCLE APARTMENTS FILED WITH THE CITY 1 PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -34- (8641d) G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS A Parliamentary Procedure Study Session was requested by the Commission. It was suggested that a 5:30 PM session be scheduled before the regularly scheduled meeting of July 21, 1987. The Commission also requested a study session on Meadowlark preceding the July 28, 1987 meeting. The Commission requested follow-up from the Attorney's office regarding abandonment of streets designated on the zoning map as a precise plan of street alignment with a parcel map. Staff was requested to respond to an inquiry from the Boy Scouts of America on whether they could plant trees in Central Park as one of their scout projects. The Commission requested that any development projects within the Pearce Street/Bolsa Chica area come before them for approval. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, AT 12:10 AM TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO A 5:30 PM STUDY SESSION ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES PRECEDING THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF JULY 21, 1987 AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: Mike Ndamg, Secretary PC Minutes - 7/7/87 -35- (8641d)