Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-211 APPROVED 8-2-88 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1988 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega P (Arrived at 9:00) Higgins, Kirkland A. CONSENT CALENDAR None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-14 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 13559 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-13 APPLICANT: VISTA CATALINA Conditional Use Permit No. 88-14 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract 13559 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-13 constitute a request to develop a 3-story, 32-unit condominium project with subterranean parking. The site is located in the Downtown Specific Plan Area at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixteenth Street and is currently vacant except for one residence, which will be removed. A portion of the alleyway parallel to Pacific Coast Highway will be vacated and made a part of the project. There are six special permit requests in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit as follows: to allow 13.75 percent compact parking spaces in lieu of 100 percent standard size spaces; an 8 foot average upper story setback in lieu of 10 feet; a 25 foot-8 inch wide vehicular accessway in lieu of 28 feet; to reduce the area and dimension of private open space and divide private open space into two areas for eleven units; to permit up to 2 feet encroachment of patios into front yard and exterior side yard setbacks; and to permit 6 feet-8 inch exterior side yard setback for subterranean parking structure in lieu of 10 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act. No further environmental review is necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-14 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract 13559 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-13 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tony Ursino, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that in order to address all of the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood that he had gone from door-to-door to inform his neighbors about the proposed project. He requested that a waiver be approved for the affordable housing condition. Bob Bolen, 1818 Pine Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He addressed his concerns with parking if Sixteenth Street is to be blocked due to a cul-de-sac, potential fire hazards with the closure of the alley, pushing the project out to the property line to get more density, allowing a density bonus, inability for trash trucks to access the project. He stated that he feels the alley should be left as is. 1 PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -2- (0974d) Mike Thompson, 147 Via Undine, Newport Beach, owner of adjacent four -plea, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that the proposed driveway access is 50 feet from the intersection and feels that it will cause an impact on his four -plea. His concerns with the project included: too much noise from 32 units, the project will cut down'on the view corridors, if there are any over -sized vehicles in the project they will have to park on the street because they will not fit in the subterranean parking garage. He also stressed that he was opposed to the vacation of the alley. He further stated that he was not notified and feels that even the tenants'of the surrounding buildings should be notified. Colette Caterina, 19816 Waterview Lane, spoke in support of the project. Gerald Neville, 125 Sixteenth Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that the location of the driveway should be centrally located and that people will take short-cuts through the alleys. He also feels that there are too many variances being requested on the project. .Vi Cowden, 124 Sixteenth Street, stated that her bedroom was 10 feet from the ramp into the garages and feels that they should be moved to the middle of the project to alleviate noise. She stated that the proposed project looks very nice and is also against the closing of the alley. Scott Cowden, 124 Sixteenth Street, addressed his concerns with noise emanating from the recreation room, parking problems created by the project, increased trash pick-ups and the inability for trash trucks to enter the project. He stated that he is concerned with the widening of the streets and the narrowing of the sidewalks and the removal of the trees. He feels that the corner will become a "hodge-podge" situation. Jo Anne Kessell, 115-A Seventeenth Street, stated that she was opposed to vacating the alley and against cul-de-sacing. She feels the project will create more traffic on Seventeenth Street. She stated that she feels the alleys belong to the people and should not be closed. Yvonne Fowler, 111 Fifteenth Street, spoke against the vacating of the alley. She stated that trash trucks run over her property presently and she would hate to see what they will do if the alley is vacated. She requested that the location of the trash bins -for the project be relocated since they will be directly behind her . house. She also addressed the potential parking problems and the overcrowding of the local schools because of the project. Chris Fowler, 111 Fifteenth Street, stated that his kids play in the alley and is totally opposed to its closure. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -3- (0974d) Caryl Kipper, 202 Fifteenth Street, addressed his concerns with parking and stated his objection to the closing of the alley. - Bob Mandic, 1112 Main Street, addressed his objections to the proposed L-shaped alleys as a result of the closure. He said that they will not work in the area and feels that the proposed driveway location should be relocated and that•the recreation room should be -insulated to mitigate noise problems. He further stated that he feels that the setbacks next to a residence should be at least 10 feet instead of 6 to 8 feet. He also said that in his opinion projects proposed in -the area should completely meet code and special permits should not be requested or approved. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Opposition and support was expressed by the Commissioners. Commissioners Livengood, Ortega and Leipzig addressed concerns regarding circulation, closing of the alley, consolidation of the property, parking, and the requested special permits. Commissioners Slates, Silva and Higgins felt that the special permit requests created a nicer project and that alleys have been vacated without causing any problems. They also stated that the Downtown Specific Plan encouraged lot consolidation to create better projects and felt that this project would increase the property values in the neighborhood. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-14 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 13559 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-13 WITH FINDINGS,.,BY, THE -,FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Leipzig, Ortega NOES: Slates, Silva, Higgins ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None DUE TO LACK OF MAJORITY VOTE ITEM AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-14 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 13559 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-13 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Silva, Higgins NOES: Livengood, Leipzig, Ortega ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None DUE TO LACK OF MAJORITY VOTE ITEM AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED Continued to July 6, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -4- (0974d) 1 C-2 TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 13466/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-26/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 88-15 APPLICANT: WARMINGTON OCEAN VIEW ASSOCIATES Tentative Tract No. 13466 is a request to subdivide a 9.88 acre site into 52 lots with public streets and develop single family homes on those 52 lots on the eastside of Crestmoor Lane, 100 feet southeast of Serene Drive. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-26 is a request for a reduction in width for Street "A" and driveway length reductions for two lots. Coastal Development Permit No. 88-17 is a request to allow the development of a subdivision in the Coastal Zone. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 88-15 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 Tentative Tract 13466 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-26, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 88-15. The subject site is located within coastal zone. Prior to any action (Variance) No. 88-26 and Tentative the Planning Commission to review Permit No. 88-17. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: a non -appealable area of the on Conditional Exception Tract 13466, it is necessary for and act on Coastal Development. - Approve Tentative Tract No. 13466, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-26, Coastal Development Permit No. 88 -17 and Negative Declaration No. 88-15 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dana Bieber, representing Warmington Homes, spoke in support of the project and was available to answer any questions. Terry Dolton, 17892 Shoreham Lane, stated she was concerned with the problems that may occur during construction since the proposed site is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. She urged staff and the3 Commission to impose regulations regarding hours of construction, noise; dust control, truck delivery, clean-up of, streets, and the duration of the construction. She also expressed her concerns regarding the protection of Bolsa View Park. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -5- (0974d) Stephen Spiegel, 17691 Misty Lane, also expressed his concerns with the impacts from construction. He said that he bought his home because of the school site or open space and was now concerned with the development of that site. He feels with -the addition of 100 to- 150 cars because of the new development -that it will create real traffic problems in the neighborhood. He is also concerned that the value of his home will drop because of thb development. He urged the Commission to -deny any developments that requested variances. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Commission questioned the reason for selling the school site. A representative from the Oceanview School District stated the site is costing the school district $15,000 per year and the State has requested that it be taken off the tax rolls. Hours during construction were discussed and it was suggested that the site be fenced and guarded during construction for security and safety purposes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY'SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13466, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-26, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-17 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 88-15, WITH FINDINGS AND ADDED CONDITIONS OF-'APPROVAL;'BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland, ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT N0, 13466: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 9.88 acre site into 52 lots conforms to the R1 zoning requirements. Each lot is approximately 6,000 square feet in size and generally rectangular in shape. 2. The proposed 52 lot subdivision is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan. Single family homes will be developed within the subdivision which is . consistent with the -General Plan Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development. Proposed density is 5.2 units per gross acre and will more than adequately accommodate single family residential development. The redistribution of soil on the site, by grading, will create pad heights which place the finished floor above the minimum flood level. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -6- (0974d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) N0. 88-26: 'l. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject site, including size, elevation considerations and proximity to and integration with existing development, the strict application of the code regarding driveway length and street width is found to deprive the subject site of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the City of similar land use 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. 88-26 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to existing adjacent residential property which is in the same zone classification. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-17: 1. The tentative tract map and subdivision pursuant to the coastal development permit application conforms with plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan. 2. Approval of the conditional exception (variance) will result in no modification to the requirement of the City's Coastal Element. 3. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 4.- At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 1. Tentative Tract No. 13466 and the site plans received and dated June 9, 1988, shall be the approved layout. 2. Final floor and elevation plans for the three product types proposed for the subdivision shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to -the issuance of any building permits.- 3. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan and perimeter block wall materials shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -7- (0974d) 4. The developer is responsible for the design and construction of all remedial measures to,the City park drainage; irrigation system, etc., disturbed or caused by the construction of the tract. 5. A -sewer study shall be conducted to determine the adequacy of the sewer lift station at Brighton and Shoreham. The lift station equipment and wet well shall -be upgraded to accommodate existing,,plus anticipated flows. 6. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be performed as required, pursuant to City and County design criteria. 7. The public water system shall be looped in "A", "B" and "D" Streets to Crestmoor Lane and installed and dedicated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 8. 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. 9. A minimum 6 foot high decorative block wall as measured•from highest adjacent grade shall-be,constructed between the development and the City park (Bolsa View Park). 10. In accordance with Section 9960.2(F)(6), a 30 inch or 36 inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard of each lot and a second tree of the same size shall be placed in the exterior side yard of each corner lot as provided in the street tree standards adopted by,the City.- 11. All drainage on the property must drain into the streets labeled "A"; "B" and "CO. 12. Fire hydrants must be installed within 300 feet of travel of all buildings. - Fire flow (3,500 square foot building) will be approximately 2,000 gallons per minute minimum. 13. All weather surfaced roads and fire hydrants are to be installed and in service prior to combustible construction. 14. The Fire Department will require five (5) fire hydrants for the proposed project. 15. The surface of the public streets must be designed to support fire equipment. 16. All utilities shall be installed.underground at the time of development. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -8- (0974d) 1 17. A copy of the recorded final tract map shall be filed with the Department of Community Developmnt and Public Works. 18. Single family residential development on each lot must conform to all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code except as noted under the conditional exception (variance). 19. The proposed project shall comply with Flood Plain Standards in accordance with Code Amendment No. 87-1 - Revisions to Floodplain Management Regulations to comply with FEMA Requirements (effective May 18, 1988) 20. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 21. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 22. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers. 23. 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. 24. The structures on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dBA CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. 25. Existing mature trees on site shall be retained and incorporated into the site plan if feasible. Any existing mature tree that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with 36 inch box trees which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. 26. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type. shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 27. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan shall be submitted to the City's Department of Public Works. A.plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -9- (0974d) 28. Construction activities (grading, deliveries, etc.) shall be ,limited to 7:00 AMlto 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday;'8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Saturday; prohibited on Sunday. 29. A 24-hour guard will be on duty during construction and the area will be fenced for safety/security reasons. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-26: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 13466 showing Street "A" with a width of 52 feet and preliminary floor plans for lots 23 and 52 received and dated June 9, 1988, shall be the approved layout. 2. Any revisions to the preliminary floor plans for lots 23 and 52 shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, Final Tract Map No. 13466 must be accepted by City Council. • • • - • • • - yl _ ;_� • 1. Tentative Tract map No. 13466, the tentative tract site plan, floor plans -and elevations -received and dated June 9,, 1988, shall be the approved layout for Coastal Development Permit No. 88-17. C-3 USE PERMIT NO, 88-26 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-22 r APPLICANT: PADDOCK & FLAIR ARCHITECTS Use Permit No. 88-26 is airequest to permit a 3,200 square foot restaurant pad- in conjunction with an existing retail center. The applicant is also proposing to add 5,400 square feet of commercial area to the center. Conditional Exception No. 88-22 is a request to allow a commercial entrance with a depth of 96 feet in lieu of the Code required 100 foot depth and two (2) drive aisleways with a width of 20 feet in•lieu of the required 24 foot width. The subject retail center is currently legally nonconforming with regards to landscaping, drive aisleway widths, number of parking spaces, and type of ingress/egress with Beach Boulevard. Therefore, the parking lot layout has been significantly modified to conform with the current Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -10- (0974d) REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The proposed project is within the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Survey Area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Use Permit No. 88-26 for a 3,200 square foot restaurant, approve Conditional Exception No. 88-22 for a 96 foot deep commercial entry, and deny variance request for two (2) 20 foot drive aisleway with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Don Flair, architect for the project, spoke in support of the project however stated that if the overhangs are not allowed.that the planters will have to be reduced to 2 feet and does not feel that they will be effective. He urged the Commission to grant the exception for the two 20-foot drive aisles. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that enlarging the drive would require a reduction of landscaping and that the 20 foot driveaisle is adequate to handle the expected volume of traffic however felt that the southerly driveaisle shown on the plan as 20 feet in width is inadequate and has the potential of creating a circulation hazard. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 88-26, AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) FOR COMMERCIAL ENTRY AND ONE-20-FOOT AISLEWAY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Kirkland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 88-26: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a restaurant and retail expansion will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -11- (0974d) 2. The granting of Use Permit No. 88-26 for a 3,200 square foot restaurant pad and 5,400 square foot retail expansion 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-. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed-3,200 square foot restaurant pad and 5,400 square foot retail expansion properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on a site are properly integrated. 6. The access -to and parking for the proposed 3,200 square foot restaurant pad and 5,400 square foot retail expansion does not create an undue traffic problem. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-22 FOR A 96-FOOT COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT DEPTH AND FOR ONE REDUCED DRIVEAISLE WIDTH (SOUTHERLY DRIVEAISLE): 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the modified commercial entrance and one reduced driveaisle width (20 feet) as shown on plan will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of'Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-22 for a modified commercial entrance and one reduced driveaisle width (20 feet) as shown on plan 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. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including right -turn -in and right -turn -out only from the center for the commercial entrance and for the northerly driveaisle, that it is not a fire lane, it currently exists at 20 feet, enlarging the drive would require a reduction of landscaping and that the 20 foot driveaisle is adequate to handle the expected volume of traffic, 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. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -12- (0974d) 5. The granting of•a conditional exception (variance) is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 6. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-22 for a modified commercial entrance and one reduced driveaisle width (20 feet) as shown on plan will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -.CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) N0. 88-22 FOR A REDUCED DRIVEAISLE WIDTH (NORTHERLY DRIVEAISLE): 1. Since the northerly driveaisle shown on the plan as 20 feet in width can be fully developed within regular established dimensions, such a conditional exception is of necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 2. Granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-22 for the northerly driveaisle shown on the plan as 20 feet in width would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties within the vicinity. 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply to the northerly driveaisle shown on the plan as 20 feet in width that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. 4. The southerly driveaisle shown on the plan as 20 feet in width is inadequate and has the potential of creating a circulation hazard. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. . A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Compact stalls shall have a minimum depth of 15.feet free and clear with no credit for overhang. Staff will work with the applicant to maximize the landscaping in this area. b. The northerly driveaisle shown on the plan as 20 feet in width shall be modified to show a minimum dimension of 24 feet in width. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Community' Development 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. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -13- (0974d) c. The Design Review Board shall review and approve elevations as to materials, architecture and color. Proposed structure and additions shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. . i- , d. Prior to issuance of building permits, the subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement between the subject site and the 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. e. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject property shall make an irrevocable offer to grant reciprocal driveway and parking easement to the property to the north. 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. f. All applicable Public�Works fees shall be paid. g. 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. 3. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection.. 4. Planned Sign Program No. 85-8 shall be amended to include all signing. Said amended program shall be approved prior to the first sign request. 5. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 6. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed in building "A" pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 7. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 8. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -14- (0974d) 9. Applicant shall pursue CalTrans approval of radius type driveways on Beach Boulevard. 10. Northerly driveway on Beach Boulevard shall have a minimum width of thirty feet (30'). 11. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 12. 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. 13. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 14. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 15. 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. 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 S.960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 19. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall restripe the parking lot so that it conforms to provisions of Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 20.. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this use permit and conditional exception (variance) if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-15 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-12 APPLICANT: JAMES W. MOSICH Conditional Use Permit No. 88-15 is a request to construct two (2) single family homes at 112 and 114 Eighth Street in the Downtown Specific Plan area. The homes will share a zero lot line. As proposed, Unit 112 requires special permits for increased site coverage, reduced exterior side yard setback, reduced parcel frontage and reduced hallway passage width requirements. Unit 114 requires special permits for increased site coverage, reduced front yard setback and reduced hallway passage width requirements. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -15- (0974d) Coastal Development Permit No. 88-12 is required to permit developme within the Downtown Specific -Plan area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS': the proposed project is exempt Class 3 Section 15303 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is located within the Coastal Zone, in a non -appealable jurisdiction. SPECIFIC PLAN: The project site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan District #2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-15 with Special Permits and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-12 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James Mosich, applicant, spoke in support of the request and stated agreed with all of the conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak -for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood requested that any future alley dedications come before the Planning Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENMGOOD, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-15 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-12 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Kirkland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-1: a - 1. The development of two single family homes at 112 and 114 Eighth Street will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -16- (0974d) b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-15, Site Plan Review No. 88-1 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-12 for development two single family homes 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, as well as the Downtown Specific Plan. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the two single family units properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The proposed development with the requested special permits for Unit 112 for reduced parcel frontage from 25 feet to 22.5 feet; reduced exterior side yard setback of 2.5 feet versus required 5 feet; increased site coverage of 57 percent versus 50 percent; and reduced hallway width of 4 feet versus the required 7 feet, and for Unit 114 for a reduced front yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet; for increased site coverage of 53 percent versus 50 percent, and for a reduced hallway width of 4 feet versus the required 7 feet provides the following benefits: a. Promotes a better living environment. b. Provides better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing architecture, landscaping, site layout and design. 2. The special permits are not detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. 3. The special permits are consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a -development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. 4. The special permits are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. .t PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -17- (0974d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL.- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-12: 1. The proposed two single family dwelling units at 112 and 114 Eighth Street, with the requested special permits noted below, conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. 4 Special Permits: Unit 112 Unit 114 1) Reduced parcel frontage 1) Reduced front yard setback from minimum requirement from minimum requirement of 25 feet to 22.5 feet. of 15 feet to 12 feet. 2) Reduced exterior side 2) Increased site coverage yard setback of 2.5 feet of 57 percent versus versus required 5 feet. maximum standard of 50 percent. 3) Increased site coverage. of 53 percent versus 3) Reduced hallway width maximum standard of of 4 feet versus required 50 percent. 7 feet. 4) Reduced hallway width passage of 4 feet versus required 7 feet. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 88-12 is consistent with the CZ suffix and the•Downtown Specific Plan as well,as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed two single family dwelling units can -be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element nd Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4. The proposed two single family dwelling units conform with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans, received and dated June 9, 1988, shall be the approved layout. 2. A revised elevation shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. All windows shall be small, paned glass. b. Exterior colors and roof tiling shall be subject to the approval of the Design Review Board. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -18- (0974d) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall perform the following:. a. Submit landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and shall be approved. b. The property owner shall construct street and alley improvements per Public Works standards and reconstruct curb and gutter at 29.5 feet from street centerline. c. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a "Letter of Agreement" assuring that the single family residence will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. d. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. e. 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. f. Submit grading plan for Public Works approval. g. The applicant shall file a parcel map subdividing the subject property (A.P. No. 024-124-03) into two legal lots. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection of the project, and a copy of that map shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. 4. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner shall dedicate 2.5 feet on both alleys adjacent to site. 6. Prior to the issuance of final certificate of occupancy, all required street lights shall be constructed per City Electrician requirements. 7. 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. 8. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance*Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -19- (0974d) 17. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 18. The structures on the.subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical'engineering, with the application for building permit(s). 19. Landscaping shall comply with 5.4.2.13 of the Downtown Specific Plan. 20. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 88-15, Site Plan Review No. 88-1 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-12 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-5 APPEAL TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO.•88-14 APPLICANT:, MR. & MRS. LOUIS M.., ROMANO Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-14 is a request to add square feet to a single-family: residence located at 15551 Placid Circle which results in a reduction in the required minimum open space dimension from 25 feet to as little as 12 feet-6 inches. On May 4, 1988, the applicant's request to deviate from the required minimum dimensions for open space was denied by the Zoning Administrator. The��'appl-icants have initiated the appeal because they feel that the open 'space requirement imposes a hardship on' their ability to add a 252 square foot addition to their living room. The plans submitted also depict a new 972 square foot second story addition, but this portion of the plan does not impact the provision of open space and is unrelated to.the variance request before the Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Uphold Zoning Administrator's decision and deny Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-14 with findings. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -20- (0974d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Louis M. Romano, 15551 Placid Circle, applicant, spoke in support of the request and presented letters of support from his neighbors. He believes that the addition will.be an improvement to the neighborhood and feels that he does meet all of the open space requirements. Bonnie Elerding, 15531 Oakshire, spoke in support of the request. She stated that the addition would not be visible from the front of the house and believes that it will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood.' Morton Wedner, 15581 Placid Circle, urged the Commission to approve the request. He feels it is a reasonable request and feels that it will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. 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 ORTEGA, TO OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-14, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Kirkland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, 1. The construction of the living room addition with reduced open space dimension will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The granting of the variance request for minimum open space dimensions will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Granting of a reduction in the minimum open space dimension will not reduce the required total open space area. 1. The site plan, floor plan and elevations received and dated May 20, 1988, shall be the approved layout, except as required to be revised herein: a. The floor plan shall be revised to show correct location of new slumpstone wall on property line. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -21- (0974d) 2. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code,"Building Division and Fire Department. F11. ITEMS NOT PUBLIC HEARING D-1 REQUEST FOR A ONE 'ENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL US,� PERMIT NO, 85-11AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 85-2 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7. 1988PLANNING •M.V • MEETING) APPLICANT: HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY & RACQUET CLUB F. Ahadpour, owner of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club, is requesting a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2. Both entitlements were approved on June 4, 1985, by the Planning Commission. In addition to Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2, Tentative Tract 11881 was approved by the Planning Commission. A final map was recorded on December 31, 1987, therefore an extension of time is not necessary for Tentative Tract 11881. On June 7, 1988, the Planning Commission continued this item based on a number of land use concerns. Approve a one-year extension of.time for•Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2 to June 14, 1989, with all previous conditions of approval remaining in effect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE REQUEST (SCHEDULED AS NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM), BY THE FOLLOWING'VOTE:; AYES: Slates, Livengood, Kirkland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Mike Cavallo, representing 27 adjacent neighbors, spoke in opposition to the request. He questioned the creditibility of the Bay Club and voiced his concerns regarding the deterioration of the property. Dick Harlow, representing the applicant, stated that without the extension of time that the owner could not clean up the property and that it was the intention of the owner to be a good neighbor. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -22- (0974d) [1 1 1 The Commission felt that the owner had been alerted to the Concerns and that a review every 60 days would be appropriate with revocation of the extension of time if requirements were not complied with. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-15 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-2 WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REMAINING IN EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Leipzig, Higgins, Kirkland NOES: Ortega, Silva, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO REVIEW AND MONITOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME EVERY 60 DAYS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Kirkland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, E'l RESOLUTION SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY PRESEMTION AD HOC COMMITTEE A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1401 SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE, AS WRITTEN, AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kirkland MOTION PASSED F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES The following items were added to the Inquiries list: Huntington Bay and Racquet Club - 60 day review - follow-up scheduled for first meeting in September. PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -23- (0974d) Policies/Standards on Alley Dedications Community Preservation Ad Hoc Committee - Review of recommendations in six months. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY SILVA, TO INITIATE AN AWARDS COMMITTEE HEADED BY COMMISSIONER SLATES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO RECOGNIZE OUTSTANDING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Kirkland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS - None I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE AT 11:30 PM TO ADJOURN BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SILVA, TO A 5:30 PM STUDY SESSION ON WATERFRONT,' WEDNESDAY,- JUNE 22, 1988, AND THEN TO THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 7:00 PM, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 1988, AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 PM, WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1988, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Livengood, Kirkland NOES: None MOTION PASSED MINUTES APPROVED: L I kA � Mike Adams, ecretary Silva, Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Victor Leipzig, a m PC Minutes - 6/21/88 -24- (0974d)