Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-15APPROVED 5/3/88 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 1988 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega P P Higgins, Bourguignon A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 CONTINUED MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE CONTINUED MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ortega MOTION PASSED A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 88-2 - City Capital Improvement Program A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO FIND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 88-2 IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED t B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-39/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 87-38 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) On September 29, 1987, staff transmitted Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 to the Planning Commission for action. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the items to December 15, 1987, pending adoption by the State of Bolsa Chica State Beach General Plan Amendment. On February 2, 1988, staff requested continuance of the items to March 15, 1988, so that parking structure plans could be completed which would comply with the requirements of the State Beach General Plan. Staff is still working on preparation of the plans. It is anticipated that all design work will be completed by April 1988. As such, staff is requesting continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 to April 19, 1988. Staff will advertise these items ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39, Coastal Development Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 to April 19, 1988, for action. Staff will re -advertise these items ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY SILVA, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-39, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-29 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-38 TO THE APRIL 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 1 PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -2- (0264d) C-2 ZONE CHANGE NO, 87-17/USE PERMIT NO, 87-84/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 • 1 (CONTINUEDFROM FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: KERNVIW, OIL CORW,%QM9m- Zone Change No. 87-17 is a request to place an "01" suffix on a 15;000 square foot portion of a 40 acre parcel of land presently used for oil production and agriculture. Use Permit No. 87-84 is a request to drill one new well on the 100 foot by 150 foot site. The applicant has requested that Zone Change No. 87-17, Use Permit No. 87-84 and Negative Declaration No. 87-50 be continued to the April 19, 1988 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the applicant to complete certain technical matters. Continue Zone Change No. 87-17, Use Permit'No. 87-84 and Negative Declaration No. 87-50 to the April 19, 1988 Planning Commission meeting per the applicant's request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-17, USE PERMIT NO. 87-84 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-50 TO THE APRIL 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • • i_51�_ i • ��TMUOINTNI APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 88-3 is a request for revisions to expand residential uses in Districts 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Downtown Specific Plan and minor revisions in all districts in order to create -a more concise document. Districts of the Downtown Specific Plan are in the downtown area generally located along Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. Code Amendment No. 88-3 is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 19300.4 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -3- (0264d) K• ;T__WA The Downtown Specific Plan is the implementing ordinance of the Coastal Element and the proposed revisions are consistent with the Local Coastal Program contained in the Coastal Element which was certified by the Coastal Commission in March 1985. The Downtown Specific Plan contains the zoning and development standards for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area which was adopted by the City Council in 1982. The goals of the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area are to provide affordable housing opportunities, to preserve historically significant buildings while eliminating blighting influences, the elimination of seismic deficiencies, and to improve and expand visitor -serving commercial facilities. Approve Code Amendment No. 88-3 with findings and recommend adoption by the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Barbara Milkovich, member of the Historic Resources Board, spoke in support of a cultural center in either District 5 or 6. She stated that she would like to see a museum (i.e. a working oil well, sugar beet, first boat used.by lifeguards, surfing -history, etc.) located in one of these districts. She also voiced concern regarding the historic structures in the downtown area and said that she would like to see restored property styled architecturally to reflect the history of Huntington Beach. Guy Guzzardo, 515 Walnut Avenue, member of the Historic Resources Board, stated that there is an urgent need not recognized in the Downtown Specific Plan and that being the preservation of historic structures. He would like to see the Downtown Specific Plan revised to include a requirement for Historic Board review before demolishing any historical sites. He was asked by one of the Commissioners how many significant historical sites there were on Main Street. He stated that there were perhaps 10 to 15 sites. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, addressed his concerns with the closing of Fifth Street. He said that the closure would create a negative impact on residential areas (i.e. re-routing buses, traffic,.etc.). He expressed concern with the elimination of residential on the second story levels in the commercial areas. He said that there was a study done recently that concluded that second story office/commercial was not successful. He also stated a J 1 PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -4- (0264d) concern with the requirements imposed by the City to downtown property owners that wished to upgrade their buildings. He said that the requirements cost the property owners more than their properties were worth and felt that this was unfair. Loretta Wolfe, 411 6th. Street, stated her objections to the closing of Fifth Street. She said that major bus routes would then be diverted to her neighborhood causing more traffic and creating a parking and safety hazard. She also stated that because of the closure she feels that the City's historical sites will be jeapordized. Richard Harlow, 111 loth. Street, stated that the proposed code amendment is responsive to the community and market feasibility. He feels that mixed use in District 5 will strengthen the commercial on Main Street. He also stated that he feels the requirement for all on -site parking will eliminate possible shopping at more than one establishment and would like to see the requirement eliminated. Bob Mandic, 1112 Main Street, expressed his opposition to the closing of Lake Street and stated that street closures should not be permitted, especially on Fifth or Sixth Street. He said the circulation system is supposed to be a loop and that Sixth Street is presently too narrow. He further stated the Downtown Specific Plan was originally based on premises that no longer exist and feels if commercial development is reduced in the downtown area, residential should also be reduced. He suggested a long-term financial study be initiated. James Smith, 201 12th. Street, stated he is opposed to green belts being given away on Pacific Coast Highway and to on -site parking being locked up. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. Straw votes were taken on proposed revisions in each district of the Specific Plan. They are as follows: (a) Change District 4 from Mixed Use (Office/Residential/ Commercial) to 100 percent Residential. (b) Delete the commercial anchor concept in District 6. (c) Emphasize cultural/social node in District 5 or District 6 depending on scale. (d) The Historical Resources Board shall provide design recommendations for structures considered to be historically significant. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -5- (0264d) A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ACCEPT REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (d), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce (a) Introduce six (6) definitions: 1. Common open space 2. Gross site area 3. Hotel 4. Net site area 5. Private open space 6. Suite Hotel A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA TO APPROVE THE SIX NEW DEFINITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce STRAW VOTE NOTION PASSED (a) Delete reference to Board of Zoning Adjustments. (b) Require Design Review Board review prior to processing additional entitlements. (c) All new construction and establishment of uses shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. (d) Allow Special Permits in order to comply with State and Federal law. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE PROPOSED REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (d), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None STRAW VOTE I4DTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -6- (0264d) PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - (SECTION 4.0) - GENERAL PROVISIONS (Section 4.2) (a) Restructure non -conforming requirements. (b) Require minimum ten (10) foot setback for subterranean and semi -subterranean parking structures. (c) Delete specific setbacks from driveways and parking lots. (d) Require twenty (20) foot minimum dimension for common open space. (e) Parking for commercial developments shall be required to provide fifty (50) percent of total required parking spaces on -site and the balance within a reasonable walking distance of five hundred (500) feet. Hotels shall provide one hundred (100) percent parking on -site. (f) Require height of subterranean and semi -subterranean parking structures to be measured from highest street elevation (consistent with building height measurement). (g) Change on -site boa sizes for trees to match industry sizes. (h) Delete references to section numbers in Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (i) Maintain view corridors at vacated streets in District 2 and District 3 between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (i), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Bourguignon PRQPOSED REVISIONS TO DISTRICT 1 (a) Change all wording ("may" to "shall"). A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE REVISION (a), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -7- (0264d) PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DISTRICT 2 (a) Single family residential dwellings which comply with development standards shall be approved by Design Review Board. (b)' Require twenty-five (25) foot front setbacks along Pacific Coast Highway. (c) Allow common open space in front setback area if twenty-five (25) foot setbacks are maintained along Pacific'Coast Highway. (d) Require landscaping to reflect landscape design of Bluff Top Park across Pacific Coast Highway. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (d), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Pierce, Bourguignon (a) Allow residential south of Main Street. (b) Delete requirement that residential must be physically integrated with visitor -serving commercial structures. (c) Clarify language regarding commercial uses in Section 4.5.01(c). (d) Revise height in Section 4.5.04 regarding southeast of Main. STreet from 12 stories to 8 stories. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (d), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce (a) Revise to 100 percent residential. (b) Delete requirement that residential must be physically integrated with mixed -use commercial structures. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -8- (0264d) (c) Clarify language that single family detached dwellings will comply with development standards and be subject to.the approval of the Design Review Board. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (c), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Pierce, Silva, Bourguignon (a) Prohibit residential fronting Main Street with the exception of the existing structures that are designated historically significant. (b) Delete requirement that residential must be physically integrated with mixed -use commercial structures. (c) Require full block consolidation to allow commercial on the street or ground level for development fronting Lake Street, Fifth Street and Third Street. (d) Allow freestanding residential which will probably occur along Fifth, Third Streets and Lake Street. (e) Emphasize major cultural/social node. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (e), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce, Livengood, Ortega ABSENT: Silva TIE VOTE - STRAW VOTE NOTION FAILS A SECOND STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (e), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Leipzig, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Ortega STRAW VOTE MOTION FAILS PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -9- (0264d) A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO RETAIN ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF DISTRICT 5 WITH NO REVISIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Higgins, Leipzig (a) Delete commercial anchor concept and emphasize minor cultural/social node. (b) Clarify maximum height in Section 4.8.04 to identify actual height in feet. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) AND (b), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Pierce, Bourguignon STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DISTRICT 7 (a) Allow Professional Office (maximum 50 percent of total floor area). (b) Delete Mobile Home overlay. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DISTRICT 7 BY PROPERTY OWNER (a) Delete Corridor Dedication. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) AND (b) AND DENY REVISION PROPOSED BY PROPERTY OWNER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce ABSTAIN: Higgins STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -10- (0264d) PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DISTRICT 8 (a) Require master plan for each sub -area. (b) Delete requirement for Master Plan for entire district. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DISTRICT 8 BY PROPERTY OWNER (a) Revise maximum building height from fifty (50) feet to one hundred and fifty (150) feet or delete height limit altogether. (b) Delete Corridor Dedication. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) AND (b) AND DENY REVISIONS PROPOSED BY PROPERTY OWNER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Pierce ABSTAIN: Higgins STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DISTRICT 9. DISTRICT 10 AND DISTRICT 11 None A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO CHANGE ALL WORDING (-MAY- TO -SHALL-) IN EACH DISTRICT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Bourguignon NOES: None STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-3, WITH REVISIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: Pierce, Bourguignon ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -11- (0264d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO AGENDIZE AS A DISCUSSION -ITEM AT THE APRIL 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE FINAL VERSION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN BEFORE SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Silva, Leipzig,,Ortega, Higgins, Commissioner Higgins requested that a minority opinion be inserted for the record concerning District 5. He felt that retaining the original concept of mixed use with commercial on ground floor and office/residential above reflected a difference in opinion than his in the development of the area. C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-9 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ,CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-6 APPLICANT: GENE N. HILL Conditional Use Permit No. 88-9 is a request to amend the master site plan approved by Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 which designated Lot #1 of Tract 11473 for common equestrian uses to permit construction of a single family dwelling on the lot. When the Q-R1-(2.7)-0-8,000 zoning was placed on the property in 1981 prior to subdividing, one -of the conditions of the "Q" was that any future project approved for this parcel of land make provisions for equestrian uses within the development. With the subsequent approval of Tentative Tract 11473 and Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 (Country View Estates) in 1982, an approximately one -acre lot was set aside for common equestrian stables as well as a common equestrian trail. Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 also setback of 25 feet for homes within with the Estate Residential theme. No. 88-6 is a request to reduce the ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: specified a minimum rear yard the development, in accordance Conditional Exception (Variance) rear yard -setback to 10 feet. The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 and Class 5. Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -12- (0264d) SPECIFIC PLAN• The site is located within the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area. The draft plan was prepared by staff in 1982, but has not been adopted by the City Council. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-9 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-6 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gene Hill, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the CC&R's for his development do not mention equestrian facilities nor does the California Department of Real Estate White Report. Jeff Smith, Co-owner of Dahl Development Company, stated that 200 horses were displaced at the time of development of the tract and it was then the Dahl Company acquired additional facilities. He further stated his company would be willing to provide for the boarding of horses in a common stable facility within the vicinity and would post a bond with the applicant to satisfy the requirement. Debbie Cook, 6692 Shetland Circle, spoke in support of the request. She stated she would like to see this development completed and her neighborhood rid of construction vehicles. She further stated that only one resident in the neighborhood has a horse stabled at the Dahl property and she, as a non -horse owner and homeowner, does not want the responsibility of the upkeep of a horse facility. Phillip Gatton, 6691 Shetland Circle, stated he was opposed to upkeeping a stable set aside for the community when the community wasn't interested in using it. He said that he would rather see a home developed on the set -aside property. Bart Kubecka, 6741 Shire Circle, stated he is the owner of a large horse lot and eventually plans to keep a horse on the property. He spoke in support of the request and stated that he does not feel that the Homeowner's Association should be responsible for the upkeep of the community stable. Carrie Thomas, 6642 Trotter Drive, spoke in support of the request. She stated that she owns a large lot in the development however is forbidden to keep a horse because of the CC&RS. She would hate to lose the horse -provided facility. Bob Mandic, 1112 Main Street, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the set -aside lot was a great idea when the development first started however it is not presently. He feels Condition 9 presents a hardship to the applicant and the developer and that 14 horses is not a realistic number. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -13- (0264d) A discussion followed regarding the boarding of horses in a common stable. It was felt that a community facility should be provided and that a bond should be posted for a period of 10 years by the developer and applicant to satisfy the requirement. The amount of the bond was discussed. The Commission,felt that the bond ($56,000) should be posted prior to issuance of any building permits. The Commission requested that staff pursue the completion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-9 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-6, WITH FINDINGS AND ADDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1. Amending the original master site plan of development -to permit the construction of a single family home on Lot #1 of Tract 11473 will not be detrimental to the -general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to property and improvements in the vicinity because it will be compatible with surrounding uses and will not prohibit stabling of horses on the adjacent northeasterly lot. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-9 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the allowable density of 2.7 units per acre will not be exceeded. 3. The subdivider has provided for a total of 83 horse paddocks and stalls at nearby equestrian facilities, which will meet the requirements for common off -site equestrian facilities for this tract, as well as other tracts in the vicinity. 4. The provision of public equestrian trails within -the tract as well as the four large residential -equestrian lots satisfy the intent of the "Q" zoning in providing for equestrian uses within the development. •5. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed single family home properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -14- (0264d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, and location of a 100 foot wide open space easement, the strict application of the setback requirements of Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 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 (variance) is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (variance) No. 88-6 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property to the south, in that the second story contains high clerestory windows, which will protect the privacy of future residents to the south. 1. The elevations received and dated February 5, 1988, shall be the approved elevations. 2. The site plan and floor plan received and dated February 5, 1988, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Projecting deck and bay window shall be removed from the open space corridor. 3. 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. 4. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 5. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 8. Except as amended or noted herein, all applicable conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 shall remain in effect. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -15- (0264d) 9. The developer and the applicant shall provide for the boarding of 14 horses in a common stable facility within the Ellis-Goldenwest vicinity. A bond shall be posted for a period of 10 years by the developer and applicant to satisfy this requirement, to be used for a common stable off -site, within the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area. Bond amount shall be $56,000 and shall be posted prior to issuance of building permits for the single family dwelling at 6722 Shetland Circle. Due to the lateness of the hour a motion was necessary to continue any public hearings. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS C-5 AND C-6, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-5/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-8 APPLICANT: GREAT AMERICAN LEARNING CENTERS Conditional Use Permit No. 88-5 is a request to expand an existing day care facility from 24 to 42 children and from one to two classrooms at Meadowview School, 5702 Clark Drive. The proposed age range of the children is from 2 to 5 years old. Section 9630 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code lists day care centers as an unclassified use permitted subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-8 is a request to retain existing chain link fencing which encloses the play area and is attached to existing buildings. This request would be a variance from the six foot high masonry wall required in Section 9635.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt, Section 15301, Class 1, from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. [I PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -16- (0264d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-5 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-8 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Byron G. Conway, President of Great American Learning Centers, spoke in support of the request. He stated that there is an extreme need for day care. He addressed the issue of the block wall and stated that the play yard at the day care is L-shaped and surrounded on three sides by buildings and that a block wall would cause intense heat. -He also requested that the hours of operation be changed to 6:00 AM to allow for the dropping off of children. Myra Humphrey, 16201 Lassau Lane, homeowner adjacent to the playground. She stated she is tired of the noise coming from the school site and tired of objects (toys, etc.) being thrown into her back yard. It was determined that her complaints related to another school use on the premises and was referred to staff for code enforcement. 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 SILVA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-5 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-8, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO._88-5: 1. The proposed day care expansion of the facility from 24 to 42 children will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2.- Access to and parking for the day care operation for 42 children will not cause undue traffic problems. 3. The proposed expanded day care facility for 42 children is compatible with the intended use of the property for school purposes. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -17- (0264d) 4. The proposed expanded day care facility for 42 children is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, because the property was originally developed as,a school site, and will substantially comply with the provisions of Article 963 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape and surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found -to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone.classifications. The "L-shaped" play area is predominately enclosed by 225 linear feet of buildings with 5 foot high chain link fence covering approximately 90 linear feet. Replacing the chain link with 6 foot block wall would create an unattractive area that would also inhibit air circulation through that area. In addition to the entire school site being enclosed by a 6 foot high chain link fence, each of the preschool facilities have chain link enclosing their respective play areas. Requiring the applicant to enclose his facility with block wall would be in congruent with the adjacent facilities. 2. The granting of the conditional exception (variance) is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights-. The continued use of the existing chain link fence is consistent with the other school facilities at Meadowview and maintains the type of use and physical configuration and scale of the school site. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-8 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classification. Currently, a code amendment is being prepared that will address the issue of masonry walls surrounding day care facility play areas which will allow flexibility of requirements in relation to neighborhood compatibility and safety issues. 4. The granting of the conditional exception (variance) will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated March 4, 1988, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -18- (0264d) 3. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of no more than 42 children. Any expansion in number shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 4. This conditional use permit shall apply to the rooms labeled "8-A and 8-B" on the site plan. Any expansion in area of the day care center shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 5. Prior to expansion of the day care facility, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. The applicant shall file with the Department of Community Development a copy of the license issued by the Department of Social Services. 6. The day care facility operating hours shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, except for up to a maximum of four evening events per year. 7. The applicant shall obtain a revised business license from the City of Huntington Beach. 8. The Planning Commisson reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws, or upon receipt of several complaints from surrounding residents; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City with revised copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. All signs shall comply with Article 961 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and shall be subject to a sign permit. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-6 APPLICANT: SHARON A. ASHMORE Conditional Use Permit No. 88-6 is a request to operate a day care facility for 12 children in her home at 16252 Kim Lane. The facility will accommodate children ranging in age from infants to four -years old. Section 9630 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code lists day care centers as an unclassified use permitted subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commision. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -19- (0264d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt, Section 15301, Class 1, from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-6 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Sharon Ashmore, 16252 Kim Lane, applicant, spoke in support'of the request. She stated that the 12 children included in her day care would include her own children. A letter was presented to the Commission in opposition to the day care facility. 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 ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-6, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ,• O FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed day care operation for 12 children will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing in the neighborhood and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. Access to and parking for the day care operation for 12 children will not cause measurable traffic problems. The applicant's home is located on a short- dead-end street that has adequate access to both Edinger Avenue to the north and Heil Avenue to the south. 3. Granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -20- (0264d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated February 5, 1988, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and Building Division. 3. The day care operation shall be limited to an enrollment of no more than 12 children (including the applicant's children). Any expansion in number shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 4. Hours of operation will be limited from 6:00 AM to 6:06 PM. 5. Prior to operation of the day care program, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Orange County Social Services Department. The applicant shall file with the Community Development Department a copy of the license issued by the Department of Social Services. 6. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review/revoke this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violations of the terms of this approval, or violation of the applicable zoning laws or upon receipt of several complaints from surrounding residents; any such decision, shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing and shall be based on specific findings. D. ITEMS • None CK. DISCUSSION ITEM Due to the lateness of the hour Discussion Items scheduled were continued to the�next Planning Commission meeting. E-1 STATE MANDATED RECYCLING CENTERS PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -21- (0264d) ! NTAT Cc •vw •, w. RINEW57wl 1� I 1Y W41 • Vj • J v 1 +0 None �_� • !; �lv.! GYM A MOTION WAS MADE AT 12:20 AM BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 PM STUDY SESSION ON PHASE I, APRIL 5, 1988, ROOM B-8 AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM, APRIL 5, 1988, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva, Ortega, Higgins, Bourguignon NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSE MINUTES APPROVED: u- a Mike Adams, Secretary Victor Leipzig, C 1 PC Minutes - 3/15/88 -22- (0264d)