Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-07APPROVED MARCH 7, 19B9 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1989 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega P P Mountford, Leipzig Newly appointed Commissioner, Ed Mountford, was welcomed by the Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION/PLAQUE FOR FRANK HIGGINS FOR HIS 11 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A. CONSENT CALENDAR A-_1_ MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1988, AND JANUARY 4, 1989 COMMISSION MEETINGS A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY SLATES, TO CONTINUE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 1988, AND APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 1989, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mountford MOTION PASSED A-2 A-3 B. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 89-1 - Vacation of alley in the 200 block of Main Street between Main and Third Streets. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 89-2 - Acquisition of Oceanview Mushroom Farm for Mobilehome Park and Public Golf Course purposes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 89-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Larry Elstead, 20711 Goshawk Lane, expressed his concern with an apparent illegal addition being completed in his R1 neighborhood. He gave the address as 20701 Goshawk Lane and requested follow-up by the Planning Commission. J [1 I PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -2- (2116d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-56 APPLICANT: PEGASUS SCHOOL Conditional Use Permit No. 88-56 is a request to establish a Pegasus School (private pre-school through grade 8) in the vacant Arevalos Elementary School site pursuant to Section 9630.c of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental_ Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-56 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mark Sigler, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. He said the adjoining park will be maintained and opened during non -school hours. He asked if there would be any problems with signage for the school. Robert Kimball, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the request. He said traffic is bad in the neighborhood, especially at the end of the day and the tract is not made for extra traffic. He feels stop signs are needed in the area. He feels traffic will be dangerous when the school is opened. Cheryl Norton, Fountain Valley School District, stated the use would have positive effects on the neighborhood because it would cut down on valdalism. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Slates expressed his concerns with the added vehicle trips into the neighborhood. He feels the corner of Lexington and Adams Avenue is a bad intersection and would be impacted by the added traffic. He does not feel a commercial type use is proper for a residential neighborhood. The other commissioners expressed concern regarding the traffic however were more concerned with alternatives for the site. It was felt that the use would cut down on valdalism. A one year review of the use was suggested. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY SLATES, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-56 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -3- (2116d) AYES: Slates, Williams NOES: Leipzig, Mountford, Ortega, Bourguignon, Kirkland ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-56 FOR 300 STUDENTS, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SLATES, TO THE MOTION FOR A ONE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE USE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams NOES: Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AMENDMENT MOTION FAILED THE MOTION TO APPROVE WAS VOTED ON, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: Williams, Slates ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the Pegasus School will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit"for the Pegasus School will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed Pegasus School is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map because the property was originally developed as a school site. 4. The access to and parking for the proposed use does not create an undue traffic problem because adequate parking and drop-off areas are provided on site, and no excessive traffic will be generated. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -4- (2116d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated January 19, 1989, shall be the approved layout. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 AM and 6:00 (school hours: 8:45 AM to 2:45 PM; extended day care: 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM) except for occasional special night time school -related events. 3. The total combined preschool and daycare enrollment shall not exceed 300 students per day. The pre-school shall be limited to two classrooms. Any expansion in number shall require approval of the Planning Commission. 4. Any additional uses (i.e. schools, organizations) shall require a new conditional use permit with completed traffic and parking analyses for each specific use. 5. Prior to operation, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. Applicant shall file with the Department of Community Development a copy of the license issued by the Social Services Department within 90 days of approval. If the applicant fails to obtain license from Orange County Social Services Department this conditional use permit shall be revoked with all monies spent at applicant's risk. 6. Applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach prior to operation. 7. The Pegasus School shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code including Section 9634.3, Building Division, and Fire Department. 8. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 9. A fire alarm system shall be required pursuant to Fire Department Standards. 10. Requirements of the Department of Public Works include: a. Construct wheelchair ramps at corners. b. Install street lights, if required. c. Remove and replace damaged or deteriorated Public Works improvements. 11. Prior to future use of buses or vanpools, approval shall be required by the Planning Director. 12. 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. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -5- (2116d) C-2 APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT N0, 88-60 APPLICANT: ROBERT J. FRYE APPELLANT: MR. MRS. WILLARD E. TOLLES Use Permit No. 88-60 is a request for an eight (8) foot high lattice work privacy fence along the rear and side property lines of a single family dwelling. Deviation from the maximum wall height of six (6) feet is permitted subject to the granting of a Use Permit pursuant to Section 9771(j) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. On December 7, 1988, the Zoning Administrator approved Use Permit No. 88-60 with findings. Submitted for your consideration is an appeal from Mr. and Mrs. Willard E. Tolles (adjacent property owner to the rear) to the action taken by the Zoning Administrator. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of -the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The subject property is located within the categorical exclusion area of the Coastal Zone; therefore, no Coastal Development Permit is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit No. 88-60 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Robert J. Frye, 9081 Mahalo Drive, applicant, urged the Commission to deny the appeal and approve his request. Fred Brandt, 724 Via De La Valle, Solano Beach, urged the Commission to approve the fence. He said it is aesthetically pleasing and unobtrusive. Robert Hulbert, 13019 Volunteer Avenue, Norwalk, said he helped build the fence and the plans were drawn by an engineer. He said the vine that was on the old fence was offensive. Beverly Dudas, 665 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the request. She feels the fence enhances the property. She said the appellant is constantly harassing the applicant. Jean McGuire, 82 Clearbrook, Irvine, spoke in support of the request. She said it took over two years to complete the fence and feels it is very appealing. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -6- (2116d) u Eric Tolles, 10 Bisquine, Laguna Niguel, said an 8 foot fence is not allowed in a residential neighborhood and this will set a precedent. He feels the City failed to uphold the codes and that the findings for approval were vague and not sufficient. Willard Tolles, 9082 Kahului Drive, appellant, presented photos of the fence in question. He said this is the only fence in the neighborhood over 6 feet high. He said the fence creates shade and he cannot grow any plants or flowers. He urged the Commission to deny the request. Lois Tolles, 9082 Kahului Drive, said the 8 foot fence is detrimental to her health and welfare and urged the Commissin to deny. She said there are no other homes in the neighborhood that have fences higher than 6 feet and that this is setting a precedent. She does not feel a homeowner should be granted a higher fence just because they are located behind a two-story home. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Ortega and Leipzig felt that granting the 8 foot fence was a compromise and was not a good finding for allowing the variance. They favored natural screening (i.e. trees, shrubs). The other commissioners felt the fence was aesthetically pleasing and did not cause any detrimental effects on safety, health or welfare. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY SLATES, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 88-60 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Mountford NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment of the eight (8) foot fence will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. No safety concerns are present that could prove detrimental to those in close proximity to the fence. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -7- (2116d) b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of the subject fence. The fence is set back 7 inches from the block wall, 10 inches from the property line, and angles away from the adjacent properties, thus minimizing the impact of the subject lattice work fence. The subject fence is constructed of redwood and has been stained to make it as attractive as possible. The additional shade created by the additional two (2) feet over the six (6) foot maximum height for fences is minimal. 2. The granting of a use permit for an increased fence height is necessary in order to provide privacy within the subject property's rear yard. The adjacent properties to the rear of the subject lot have two story structures. 3. The granting of Use Permit No. 88-60 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevation dated January 25, 1989, shall be the approved layout; the fence shall not exceed 8 feet in height. 2. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department (structure shall be engineered to Building Division Standards). 3. Building permits shall be obtained within 30 days from date of approval. 4. The stained fence shall be continuously maintained in a near and clean manner. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Use Permit No. 88-60 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-3 USE PERMIT NO. 88-57 APPLICANT: RICHARD C. STACEY - GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANTS INC. Use Permit No. 88-57 is a request by General Mills Restaurants to expand the existing 7,147 square foot Olive Garden Restaurant. Plans include a 913 square foot dining room addition, a 530 square foot outdoor patio waiting area, and a reconfiguration of the parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces to meet code. Restaurant uses are listed as requiring a use permit in the C4 (Highway Commercial) District; by policy all projects located on Beach Boulevard require Planning Commission approval. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -8- (2116d) 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Use Permit No. 88-57 with findings and conditions of approval. The Fire Department added conditions regarding central station monitoring of fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard Stacey, representing General Mills, spoke in support of the request and said he agreed with all conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Williams said he would be voting against the request because of the compact parking spaces. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 88-57, WITH FINDINGS AND ADDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, NOES: Williams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed restaurant 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. 2. The granting of Use Permit No. 88-57 to establish a 913 square foot dining room expansion and a 350 square foot outdoor patio waiting area will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 IRE (2116d) 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The revised parking.and circulation layout for the proposed expansion will not create an undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated January 31, 1989, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a•. Reduce central drive aisle from 25 feet to 21 feet and increase depth of compact spaces to 17 feet. 2. The floor plan and elevations dated received January 18, 1989, shall be the approved layout. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall: a. Submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval. b. Restripe the parkig lot -so that it conforms to provisions of Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 5. Provide central station monitoring of fire sprinkler system. 6. Provide a Class IV, -Type A, Fire Alarm System. 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. 9. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 10. All building spoils; such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 11. The expansion shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division and Fire Department. 12. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -10- (2116d) C-4 USE PERMIT NO 88-64/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-3/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 88-33 APPLICANT: MARK TOMA Use Permit No. 88-64 is a request to establish a 1,638 square foot japanese food restaurant in an existing retail center located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue. The request also includes joint use of parking during evening hours. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-3 is a request for a 21 parking space reduction during daytime hours. The retail center is located in the coastal zone, therefore a coastal development permit must be processed concurrently pursuant to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: This project is located in the non -appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Commission has certified the area and permits the City to process Coastal Development Permits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Use Permit No. 88-64, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-3 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-33 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mark Toma, applicant, was present to answer any questions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissoner Williams stated he would voting against the request because it included compact parking. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 88-64, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-3 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-33, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, NOES: Williams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/7/89 Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig -11- (21i6d) FINDINGS -FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO, 88-64: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 1,650 square foot japanese food restaurant properly -adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another in terms of off -set hours of operation during evening hours on a site are properly integrated and conform to the intent of joint use of parking. 3. The access to and parking for the proposed japanese food restaurant does not -create an undue traffic problem. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 89-3: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, -buildings or premises involved that,do•not-apply generally to other property or uses in the district. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-3 for a reduction of 21 parking spaces during the daytime hours will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming property -in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed reduction of 21 parking spaces during the daytime hours -for the 1,638 square foot japanese restaurant will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working.in the vicinity; and property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-3 for reduction of 21 spaces during the daytime hours for the 1,638 square foot japanese restaurant use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 88-33: 1. The proposed establishment of the japanese food restaurant conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the'Huntington Beach-Coastal_Element of the General Plan. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 88-33 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix,'the C4-CZ zone -as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach-Ordinance=Code�applicable to the property. - _ 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed japanese food restaurant can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 1 PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -12- (2116d) �7 4. The proposed Japanese food restaurant conforms 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 plan received and dated January 31, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Joint use parking shall require that a Joint Use Parking Agreement be recorded with the property owner prior to issuance of building permits. 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 prior to occupancy. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. The agreement shall assure that certain businesses close after 5:00 or 6:00 PM. b. Submit a Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department which contains parking space designations for tenants/employees. The Parking Management Plan must be approved by the property owner. 3. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. b. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. c. 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. d. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 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. PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -13- (2116d) 6. Prior -to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall restripe the parking lot so that it conforms to provisions of Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance -Code. b. Compliance with.all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 7. A review of the use shall be conducted within six (6) months of the issuance of -Certificate of Occupancy or final building permit approval to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and analyze the parking usage. If a parking deficiency is observed, the Planning Commission may conduct a public hearing to remedy the situation by either restricting business hours, reducing available dining room space during noontime/nighttime hours, and/or require personnel to monitor the parking area.- - , - 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Use Permit No. 88-64 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-3 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs.- C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO, 88-15/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 88-49 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 18, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 88-15 was continued from the January 18, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to allow the inclusion of definitions of terms used within the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance has been amended to also include a regulation to measure fence height from highest adjacent street level when proposed in a front or exterior side yard adjacent to an arterial highway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 88-49 and Code Amendment No. 88-15 and forward the proposed ordinance to the City Council for adoption based on the findings outlined in the staff report dated January 18, 1989. There was a discussion regarding the definition of grade. -The Commission felt this item should be continued and a meeting scheduled with the Subdivision Committee, local architects, landowners, contractors and other interested parties to discuss the positive and negative impacts of such a proposed ordinance. 11 1 PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -14- (2116d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-15 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-49 TO THE MARCH 7, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AFTER A SCHEDULED MEETING WITH THE SUB DIVISION COMMITTEE, LOCAL ARCHITECTS, LANDOWNERS, CONTRACTORS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO 88-3 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 4, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: L. CLYDE WAMPLER Site Plan Review No. 88-3 was continued from the January 4, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant requested this continuance to allow consideration of Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 88-3, which affects this project. The precise plan of street of alignment, proposed to reduce the ultimate right-of-way from 80 feet to 60 feet minimum, was denied by the Planning Commission. Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 86-3 was reaffirmed by the Planning Commission; implementation of this plan requires substantial dedication from the corner lot. The applicant has decided not to pursue this project and has submitted a request for withdrawal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of Site Plan Review No. 88-3. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY SLATES, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 88-3, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -15- (2116d) D-2 REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-30 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-77 APPLICANT: D. F. FOSTER - EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH D. F. Foster, a representative of the Evangelical Free Church, is requesting a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-30, in conjunction with Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-77, which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 2, 1988. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-37 is a request to remodel and expand its existing facility (Evangelical Free Church) and to develop a 117 space off -site auxiliary parking lot to accommodate the additional parking demand. The proposed expansion of the existing facility will include additional classrooms, offices and sanctuary seating. Conditional Exception the church addition to the required 15 feet, church facility. The proposal to construct auxiliary parking lot interior side yards. in lieu of providing a (Variance) No. 87-77 is a request to permit have a 10 foot front yard setback in lieu of which would be consistent with the existing conditional exception request also includes a a bus garage in the southeast corner of the with a zero foot setback along the rear and The zero foot bus garage setback is proposed 5 foot setback. The applicant is requesting the one-year extension of time based upon numerous delays in preparing an earthquake fault study as a result of the project being located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone. The applicant also states that the church has experienced a significant turnover in pastoral staff since the inception of the planning process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-37 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-77 to February 12, 1990, with all previous conditions of approval remain in effect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-30 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-77 WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -16- (2116d) D-3 REVIEW OF PERIMETER WALLS - OCEAN VIEW ESTATES MOBILEHOME PARK APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The Planning Commission, on December 13, 1988, approved Negative Declaration No. 88-41 and Conditional Use Permit No. 88-53 for the expansion of Ocean View Estates Mobilehome Park. As a condition of approval on the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission required that, "Perimeter wall designs along exterior property boundaries shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and brought back to the Planning Commission for final review." The conditional use permit was also conditioned to require completion of an acoustical analysis and mitigation of all interior noise levels to the California Insulation Standards of 45 dBA CNEL. This is the City's standard condition placed upon residential projects that abut arterial streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Option B for the perimeter wall as presented in the drawings (6 foot high wall and 2 foot high berm). The public was allowed to speak to this item. They were as follows: Dean Painter, 21462 Pacific Coast Highway #109, addressed his concerns with the wall around the park. He said each paid would be 75 feet long but with a 20 foot berm, as shown, the 75 feet would be reduced and would violate previous agreements. H. McClain, 21462 Pacific Coast Highway #83, said the agreement stated a 25 foot landscape buffer (20 feet between the right of way and the wall and 5 feet on the inside (75 foot x 45 foot pad). He feels if there isn't a minimum of 10 feet between the wall and coach there would be considerable drainage problems. Dan Keeney, 21462 Pacific Coast Highway, stated he agreed with the two previous speakers. The Commission felt all of the options presented were acceptable and felt approval of all options would suffice. They requested the final design recommendation from the Design Review Board to come back to them for approval. They urged that the concerns expressed by the Driftwood representatives be considered. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE ALL OPTIONS PRESENTED WITH THE FINAL DESIGN TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -17- (2116d) E. DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT NO 88-12 - REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 960 - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LANDSCAPING - Postponed to the February 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. E-2 SUBCOMMITTEE LIST - UPDATE AND APPOINT TO THE OIL COMMITTEE - Chairman Bourguinon requested postponement to the February 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting so that he could contact each member to discuss subcommittees. F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Williams asked for an update on the General Plan. Staff said an approximate timetable would be provided. H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams was congratulated on his appointment to Community Development Director. I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE AT 9:55 PM, BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO ADJOURN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1989, 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Livengood, Bourguignon, Slates NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED_ s APPROVED BY: pl� Lo. Mike dam , Secretary Leipzig, Ortega, Higgins, Planning C ission C a'rma PC Minutes - 2/7/89 -18- (2116d)