Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-08MINUTES I 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2000 STUDY SESSION - 5:00 PM (Room B-8) BLOCKS 104/105 CONCEPT —Jane James MAJOR PROJECTS UPDATE — Herb Fauland PC WORKSHOP AGENDA — Herb Fauland AGENDA REVIEW — Herb Fauland PUBLIC COMMENTS - None REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California P P A P A P P ROLL CALL: Laird, Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless the item is agendized. Any one wishing to speak on items not on tonight's agenda or on non-public hearing items may do so during ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Speakers on items scheduled for PUBLIC HEARING will be invited to speak during the public hearing. (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-31/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.99- 11 (ELLIS AVENUE SRO) (CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2000 MEETING): APPLICANT: Dr. James Lu, Amwest Environmental, Inc. LOCATION: 8102 Ellis Avenue (south side of Ellis approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard) PROJECT PLANNER: Jane James On January 25, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Negative Declaration No. 99-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31. These applications represent a request by Mr. Charles Tsang and Dr. James Lu on behalf of Amwest Environmental Group, Inc., to accommodate the development of a new three-story, Single Room Occupancy project with 106 efficiency apartment units and one manager's unit. The proposed development also includes installation of landscaping and hardscape improvements on the project site. After close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission's motion to deny the project failed on a 3-2 vote. Planning Commissioners Mandic and Laird were absent. The motion to deny the project failed because Planning Commission by-laws require four affirmative votes for any motion when only five members are present. Due to the lack of four affirmative votes, the project was automatically continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 8, 2000. On February 1, 2000 staff received a request for continuance from the applicant. The applicant's continuance request indicates that they intend to revise the site plan and management plan in order to respond to issues raised by the community and members of the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends continuance of the project at the applicant's request to March 14, 2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO CONTINUE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.99-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-31 TO MARCH 14, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-51NARIANCE NO. 99-15 BENT RESIDENCE) (CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2000 MEETING): APPLICANT: Miles Folsom, Architect LOCATION: 6742 Shetland Circle (terminus of Shetland Circle cul-de-sac approximately 350 feet east of Quarterhorse Lane) PROJECT PLANNER: Amy Wolfe Conditional Use Permit No. 99-51 represents a request by Mr. Miles Folsom (project architect) on behalf of Mr. Bruce C. Bent and Mrs. Deborah L. Bent (property owner), to construct an 11,947 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling on a vacant lot within the Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan area. The request also includes development on a lot that currently has a grade differential greater than 3 ft. between the high and low point of the site. Associated site PC Minutes—1/25/00 2 (OOPCM208) [1 improvements include a tennis court, pool/spa, construction of retaining walls (max. height 4'- 6") and improvements within the open space corridor traversing the site. The proposed development of a single family dwelling is subject to the residential infill lot development requirements. Variance No. 99-15 is a request to permit grading of the project site involving 5'- 3" maximum cut (6'-6" from existing grade) and 9'-6" maximum fill (4'-6" from existing grade), based on the 1982 topography contour map, in lieu of maximum 2 ft. cut and 2 ft. fill. ' On January 11, 2000, the project was presented to the Planning Commission as a study session item. Subsequently, the applicant requested continuance of the previously scheduled January 25, 2000 public hearing. The item was continued to the February 8, 2000 meeting in order to address drainage issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff has evaluated the project and has determined that the proposed development, as submitted by the applicant will be inconsistent with the following; 1) Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan grading goals and regulations that limit cut and fill to a maximum of 2 ft.; 2) Residential infill policies relative to pad height and noise considerations; 3) Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan goals that limit the open space corridor area to recreational trails, appropriate fencing, public works facilities, and utilities; 4) conditional use permit (CUP No. 82-3) conditions that limit construction of retaining walls; and 5) General Plan goals limiting the amount of paving for driveway and garage access. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests modifications to the proposed project to bring it in greater conformance with the intent of applicable General Plan and Ellis-Goldenwest goals and policies; HBZSO infill development standards; and minimize deviations from pertinent CUP No. 82-3 conditions. Staff recommends conditional approval of the modified plan for the following reasons: • The project will be consistent with the intent of General Plan policies and Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan grading goals and regulations. • The project will be consistent with General Plan policies that encourage minimizing the amount of paving for driveway and garage access and Ellis-Goldenwest land use limitation for the open space corridor area. • Project grading will minimize proposed fill and retaining wall height and will improve project conformance with the existing land form. • The proposed architectural design and pad height will be compatible with existing development in the area. The project will not have any adverse visual, noise, lighting or privacy impacts on adjacent properties. • The project site is encumbered by an open space easement and topographical limitations which deprive the subject property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. • Exceeding the cut and fill grading restriction will allow for proper drainage, without negatively impacting the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Chapman stated that he would be abstaining from taking action on the proposed request as he owned property in the area of the proposed project site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. PC Minutes—1/25/00 (00PCM208) Debbie Bent, 6482 Doral Drive, property owner, gave a brief explanation of their site selection and the design review process. She stated that they have taken the proper steps with the" homeowners association and architectural commission and submitted a letter reflecting their approval. Miles Folsom, 1440-3G State College Boulevard, Anaheim, project architect and applicant, stated concern with certain conditions of approval as outlined in a letter submitted dated February 8, 2000 from Mr. And Mrs. Bruce Bent. Curtis Woolsey, 16531 Bolsa Chica Road, #302, representing applicant, stated that he had researched adjacent properties and found that a number of them along the drainage area corridor exceed the two (2) foot cut and fill requirements of the Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan. He does not, however, know if these projects were built prior to the implementation of the Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan. Nfike Adams, 19721 Sea Canyon, representing Gerald Chapman, stated that the plan needs to further address a sensitivity towards the existing topography. Although the site contouring is not consistent with the maximum cut provision in the Specific Plan it does comply with the intent. The concern with the proposed site contouring is in respect to the amount of fill proposed for the properties northern boundary. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. - The Commission discussed the owner's recommended changes to conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LAIRD, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-51 AND VARIANCE NO.99-15 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: Chapman MOTION FAILED LACK OF MAJORITY VOTE A MOTION WAS MADE BY LTVENGOOD, SECONDED BY LAIRD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-51 AND VARIANCE NO.99-15 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Kerins, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: Chapman MOTION PASSED PC Minutes—1/25/00 4 (OOPCM208) FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, such as a single family dwelling, will not have an adverse effect on the environment and no further environmental analysis is required. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-51: Conditional Use Permit No. 99-51 to a) construct an 11, 947 sq. ft. single family dwelling and associated site improvements; b) develop a site with an existing grade differential greater than 3 ft. between the high and low point of the site (17 ft. existing grade differential); c) construct retaining walls up to 4'-6" in height, based on the 1982 topography contour map; and d) assess compliance with Residential Infill Lot development standards, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The design of the proposed development, as conditioned, will minimize visual, privacy, noise and lighting impacts to adjacent properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The proposed pad height and architectural design will be complementary to adjacent estate residential development. The proposed window location and living area orientation will not adversely impact the privacy of existing residences in the area. The project, as conditioned, will minimize noise impacts from the tennis court and pool/spa equipment and will prevent lighting fixture glare spillover onto adjacent properties. 3. The proposed residential development will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, and specific conditions applicable to the site (CUP No. 82-3 and CUP No. 85- 11) except for the variance request to maximum cut and fill and deviation from CUP No. 82- 3 (condition No. 2) which prohibits construction of retaining walls, due to topographic constrains and easements affecting the site. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential, 3 units per acre, Specific Plan Overlay, on the subject property. The proposed building architecture conveys a high level of quality. The proposed amount of fill and paving for garage access and vehicle maneuvering within the open space corridor area will be minimized to improve the quality of the development and its compatibility with adjacent properties. The development, as conditioned, will be consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: LU 9.1.2 Require that single family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character considering the following guidelines: a. Modulate and articulate building elevation, facades and masses (avoiding undifferentiated "box -like" structures). b. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. PC Minutes—1/25/00 5 (OOPCM208) c. Minimize the amount of width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. e. Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. LU9.2.1 Require that all residential development within existing neighborhood (i.e. infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the: b. use of building heights, grade elevation, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development; c. use of complimentary building material, colors and forms, while allowing flexibility for unique design solutions; d. maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO.99-15: 1. The granting of Variance No. 99-15 to allow 5'-3" maximum cut and 9'6" maximum fill, based on the 1982 topography contour map in lieu of the maximum 2 ft. cut and fill grading provisions of the Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed development will not contrast with the character of the existing neighborhood that has been developed to generally retain the land for of the natural terrain. Deviations to cut and fill have been granted in the immediate area. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including topography, drainage considerations and easement encumbrances, 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 ideritical'zone classification. The proposed site grading has been designed to comply, to the extend possible, with the intent of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan goal relative to land form preservation and associated grading limitations while allowing for proper site drainage. 3. The granting of Variance No. 99-15 is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The proposed deviation to the cut and fill depth limit, as conditioned, will allow development of the site with a project which will be compatible with adjacent residential development. 4. The granting of Variance No. 99-15 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. With the imposed conditions, increased cut and fill will not reduce the privacy, or negatively impact the value of adjacent properties or neighborhoods. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99-51/ VARIANCE NO.99-15• 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated November 4, 1999, and grading plan received and dated January 25, 2000, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed PC Minutes—1/25/00 6 (OOPCM208) b. No retaining walls shall be constructed within the 100 ft. open space corridor area. All other retaining walls shall be limited to those indicated on the preliminary grading plan.. c. The motor -court and "promenade" paved areas shall not encroach within the 100 ft. open space corridor area. d. The landscaping concept/ planting materials adjacent to the motor -court and "promenade" shall be designed to provide maximum screening of paved areas. e. The pool/spa equipment shall be setback a minimum 8 ft. from the northerly property line and 25 ft. from the easterly property line. f. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. Installation of tennis court lighting fixtures is prohibited. All plans shall be revised to delete all references to tennis court lighting fixtures. The Planning Commission shall consider any future requests for installation of tennis court light fixtures. g. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with building architecture, materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). h. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non -obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. L Plot the abandoned oil well "SMYTH 1" on the site plan. (FD) Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights -of -way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) 2. Prior to submittal for grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The Planning Department shall review and approve revised project plans as modified pursuant to Condition No. 1. The revised plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. 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 for grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. (PW) PC Minutes—1/25/00 7 (OOPCM208) b. A grading plan and erosion control plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval. Final grades shall not vary more than one foot from the approved site plan. (PW) c. A hydrology and hydraulic report shall be submitted that reviews and verifies that the existing drainage course and culvert can accommodate design storm flows. The hydrology study should include analysis of the upstream culvert under blockage condition to ascertain water surface elevation, due to its close proximity to the building. (PW) d. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 ft. of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) e. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, in developing a truck haul route if the import or export material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (PW) f. The name and phone number of a field supervisor who is on -site shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site indicating who to contact for information regarding this development and any construction/ grading activity. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. g. Site plans and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 4. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the index. b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) PC Minutes—1/25/00 8 (OOPCM208) c. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department; and submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample board, to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect, developer or contractor, which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy -of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) c. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) d. A grading permit shall be issued. (PW) 6. During grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks shall be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soils damp enough to prevent dust raised by the operations from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m., or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent d and noise from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) d. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) e. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) f. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; g. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment; PC Minutes—1/25/00 9 (OOPCM208) h. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); i. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. j. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/ grading activity. 7. Prior to final building permit inspection and approval, the following shall be completed: a. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein, including: 1) Landscaping. 2) All utilities shall be installed underground. (PW) 3) A new separate domestic/ irrigation water meter and service, sized to meet the minimum requirements set per the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), if applicable, for the proposed building. Minimum water service lateral shall be one -inch. Meters shall be sized per building code and a touch read - type. (PW) 4) The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification 422, Well Abandonment. (FD) 5) The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 17.04.085 and the City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) 6) Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. Subject property access bridge must support 18,000 PSI point load or must be posted "NOT A FIRE LANE". (FD) 7) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be sized a minimum of six (6) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half (1-1/2) inches. (FD) 8) Security gates shall be designed to comply with City Specification 403. (FD) 9) An automatic fire sprinkler and alarm system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) 10) Provide evidence of soil contamination status. All soil must meet the City cleanup standard., City Specification 431-92. (FD) b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. PC Minutes—1/25/00 10 (OOPCM208) 1 c. 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. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-51 and Variance No. 99-15 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-51 and Variance No. 99-15 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 99-51 and Variance No. 99-15 , pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 7. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 8. The traffic Impact Fees shall be paid prior to final inspection. (PW) 9. A Public Works construction permit shall be required for all work within the City right-of- way. (PW) PC Minutes—1/25/00 11 (OOPCM208) B-3 VARIANCE NO.99-19 (APPEAL) (SAWAYA ADDITION): APPELLANT: Robert Kaitz APPLICANT: D'Ambra Inc. LOCATION: 6621 Pageant Drive (east of Dearborn). PROJECT PLANNER: Ricky Ramos Variance No. 99-19 represents a request by Gene and Lana Sawaya to construct a new 220 square foot family room extension to their existing single family dwelling which will result in a reduced rear yard setback of approximately 13 feet in lieu of the minimum 20-foot rear yard setback. On November 3, 1999, the Zoning Administrator approved the request with conditions. APPEAL: During the ten-day appeal period, the City received a letter from Robert Kaitz, the abutting property owner to the west, appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Kaitz's appeal is based on the. following: ♦ The granting of this variance causes the same effect as placing an easement on his property, thereby drastically reducing the current property value. ♦ The addition as proposed will completely close in the area and will give the effect of living in a condominium development. ♦ Due to the configuration of the Sawaya's lot, the proposed addition could be relocated to the other side of the yard without needing a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 99-19 based on the following: ♦ The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Variances have been granted for reduced year yard setbacks for other properties in the immediate vicinity and under the identical zone classification. ♦ The irregular shape of the property will deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification because an addition that meets the 20 feet rear setback would have to parallel the rear property line and would result in an irregularly shaped addition in order to maximize the buildable area. ♦ The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights because it will allow the addition to occur which will afford the property owner an increased living area. The property will have a site coverage of 38 percent with the addition which is still far below the intensity and building bulk that the code allows the property owner to construct. PC Minutes—1/25/00 12 (00PCM208) ♦ The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification because only approximately 95 square feet of the 220 square feet addition encroaches into the rear setback. Adequate building separation will be provided to the surrounding properties. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval including a covenant prohibiting a 2nd story over the proposed family room extension so as not be detrimental to the area and is consistent with previous variances granted within subdivision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Gene Sawaya, 6621 Pageant Drive, property owner, stated that the appellant of the request is a member of the Architectural Committee and was present during the review of the proposed expansion which awarded him unfair access to the remaining members of the Committee, allowing him to present his case formally or informally. Mr. Sawaya feels this constitutes a conflict of interest and should hold any negative decision by the Committee null and void. James Wilson, 19582 Cloverwood Circle, spoke in support of the proposed request. Robert Kaitz, 6611 Pageant Drive, appellant, stated that the Zoning Administrator hearing was heard and approval granted prior to the Homeowners Association reviewing the project. Mr. Kaitz urged denial of the proposed request as the proposed request will create a closed in area, giving the effect of a condominium project, and the proposed addition could be relocated to the other side of the yard without needing a variance. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The majority of the Commission felt that there was not a hardship on the property to warrant a variance and it would set a precedent for the area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY VARIANCE NO. 99-19 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Laird ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - VARIANCE NO.99-19: 1. The granting of Variance No. 99-19 to construct a 220 square foot addition in the rear yard of an existing single family home resulting in a reduced rear yard setback of approximately 13 feet in lieu of the code required 20 foot setback (a reduction of seven feet) will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Variances have not been granted to allow an addition to an existing single family dwelling at a reduced year yard setback for properties in the immediate vicinity and under the identical zone classification. PC Minutes—1/25/00 13 (00PCM208) 2. The subject site does not have a special circumstance such that 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 classification. The subject site is of sufficient size and depth to allow an addition of a different configuration that complies with the zoning ordinance. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. An addition to the single family dwelling could be built that complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, including setbacks. 4. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The variance will impact the adjacent properties by allowing an addition that is located close to the rear property line, thereby reducing the open space separation between the properties. B-4 ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE HOLLY SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (NO.90-1) 1999 COMPLIANCE REPORT: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Approximately 450 acres located between Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington Street on the east, Edwards Street on the west and the Seacliff Golf Course on the south. PROJECT PLANNER: Mary Beth Broeren The Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 requires the Developer to prepare an annual monitoring report and requires staff to prepare a compliance report. The purpose of these reports is to ascertain good faith compliance by the Developer and the City with the terms of the Agreement and evaluate the annual progress associated with required improvements in the Holly Seacliff area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is the ninth consecutive review of Development Agreement Compliance. Staff has reviewed the 1999 annual monitoring report prepared by PLC and the actions of the other owners and has determined that the developers are in compliance with the requirements of the Development Agreement. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the developers are in compliance and forward the report to the City Council for review and approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, #250, Newport Beach, representing PLC, recapped the progress made in the 1999 and stated that he was available for questions. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - InNO 14 (OOPCM208) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LTVENGOOD, SECONDED BY LAIRD TO DETERMINE THAT THE DEVELOPER IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HOLLY SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, APPROVE THE 1999 COMPLIANCE REPORT AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Kerins, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Chapman ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 00-1 (CHIMAYO'S ENTERTAINMENT): APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROJECT PLANNER: David Wilhelm 315 Pacific Coast Highway (Oceanside, south of Main Street). Wayne Carvalho Conditional Use Permit No. 00-1 represents a request by David Wilhelm to establish live entertainment in conjunction with the existing Chimayo's at the Beach Restaurant. The live entertainment will compliment the restaurant by providing Latin/Salsa music to patrons and visitors. The live entertainment is proposed between 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday/Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday. No dancing is proposed in conjunction with the proposed live entertainment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed entertainment will be compatible with the existing and surrounding commercial and beach related uses at the Pier Plaza, including the Duke's Surf City Restaurant located directly upstairs. The use will comply with all City codes and conditions, as well as all conditions imposed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC). Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 00-1 with findings and suggested conditions of approval for the following reasons: The live entertainment will not be detrimental to the surrounding land uses because the entertainment will be restricted to specific hours and will be separated from residential uses by a substantial distance. • The live entertainment will be compatible with existing uses in the area because the noise associated with the live entertainment will primarily be contained within the restaurant area or be directed toward the beach. The proposed use complies with the Downtown Specific Plan, District No. 10 and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed use complies with the provisions of the Commercial Visitor designation of the General Plan by complimenting the downtown and expanding the type of commercial activities available to the public. PC Minutes—1/25/00 15 (OOPCM208) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 14, 1999 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 14,1999, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 11, 2000 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 11, 2000, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None PC Minutes—1/25/00 16 (OOPCM208) C I E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS None E-2 PLANNING COMMISSION INOUIRIES/COMMENTS Commissioner Laird — stated that this was his last meeting as he is resigning his position as Planning Commissioner. He noted that it has been a pleasure serving as Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Sneaker — read a letter from Howard Zelefsky congratulating Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, for providing excellent customer service. F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Principal Planner — restated actions taken at the previous City Council meeting. F-2 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Senior Planner — reviewed items for the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission workshop and the February 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. G. ADJOURNMENT —Adjourn to the Wednesday, February 16, 2000 Planning Commission Workshop at 12: 00 noon and then to the regularly scheduled February 23, 2000 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO ADJOURN TO 12:00 NOON ON FEBRUARY 16, 2000 FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AND THEN TO A 5:00 PM STUDY SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2000, AND THEN TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Mandic, Biddle ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kjl APP 7 BY: r Howard Zele , Secretary lammng Co ion Chairperson PC Minutes—1/25/00 17 (00PCM208)