Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-27MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CMC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET. HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 5:15 P.M. - ROOM B-8 (CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL) CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood AGENDA APPROVAL — APPROVED 6-0 A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.03-01 (Through Lot Fencing) — Paul Da Veiga Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, provided an outline of the legislative draft provided by Commissioner Scandura, identified three late communication items opposing the text amendment, and two late communication items supporting it. Staff discussed wall height and setback requirements, what types of requests require a conditional use permit (CUP), a zoning text amendment in 1988, and existing, non- conforming walls. Commissioner Dingwall asked about retaining wall standards and the process of natural erosion and backfilling activity. He questioned if Code Enforcement is responsible for responding to complaints about substandard walls, construction, etc. Staff responded that if Code Enforcement receives a complaint, it is investigated. Staff also discussed related code and building permit requirements. Commissioner Scandura asked about options for slope enhancements through terracing features, stairs, decorative fencing, etc. Staff responded that options are available, although anything built in the rear 15 feet o_f the property line is limited to 42 inches in height. If exceeded, a CUP is required. Vice Chair Ray stated that 10 to 12 CUPs have been filed and heard by the Zoning Administrator (ZA), some of which have been appealed to the Planning Commission. Staff reminded the Commission that the City follows the guidelines of the zoning code, and that the City does not enforce what is outlined within the homeowners association's covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs). Discussion ensued on examples of acceptable building options within the rear yard setback and crest of slope. Discussion ensued on the intent of the City Council's direction for staff to prepare a zoning text amendment that addressed issues raised by the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee (BLT) to regulate walls and fences, accessory structures, and setback requirements for through lots. (04ag0727 Action) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Livengood suggested highlighting the issues and discussing how to draft an ordinance that allows flexibility for those wishing to develop their property and that protects neighbor's rights. He stated that the ordinance can be reworked and discussed meeting with an architect and drafting a proposal that he was prepared to distribute that provides suggestions for a compromise. Commissioner Dingwall voiced concerns about health and safety issues and handed out copies of district maps, stressing the importance of slope modification and/or wall construction being approved by a licensed engineer. The following points were discussed relating to Commissioner Scandura's recommended changes to the 11 amendments recommended by the BLT and noted in the legislative draft: • Definition of "hardscape" and striking language "no visible hardscape" (Item 4, Attachment 1.14) • Setback requirements measured from the "crest of slope" (item (W), Attachment 1.15) • Prohibiting accessory structures within the rear yard setback area on through lots backing up to a local street- (Item B, Attachment 1.7) • Deck extension within the crest of slope (Item F; Attachment 1.7) • Permitted Fences and Walls (Items Al and A3, Attachment 1.9) • Retaining.Walls (Item 7c, Attachment 1.10 and Item 11, Attachment 1.11) 2. AGENDA REVIEW - Herb Fauland, Principal Planner, outlined items on the 7:00 p.m. agenda and identified late communication received on public hearing items. B. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS — None. C. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Restardin_g Study Session portion of Meeting Shawn Holluh, Melville Circle, spoke in opposition_ to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). Randy Furhman, Roundhill Drive, spoke in support of Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). Thomas Kiesewetter, Melville Circle, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot fencing). Peter Holluh, Melville Circle, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing), . Scott Dowds, Melville Circle, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). June Ascolest, Concord Lane, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). Rick Taylor, Wellington Circle, -spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). (00=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 3 Mike Palikan, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). Heide Palikan, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). . Jean Nagy, Wellington Circle, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). Don Grounds, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). Jackie Satterthwaite, Mariana Circle, spoke in opposition to Study Session Item No. A-1 (Through Lot Fencing). 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA DATED JULY 27, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Randy Furhman, Roundhill Drive, provided comments on ZTA 03-01 (through lot fencing), and asked that all project related materials be available to the public. (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 4 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1: Applicant: Brandy Yamamoto, Spear Design Associates Appellant: Ron Davis, Planning Commission Chairperson: Request: CUP:, To permit the development of a 11,838 square foot Walgreen's Pharmacy with a drive thru, located in the CG (Commercial General) zone. The proposal includes installation of new landscape planters and new surface parking. Location: 19001 Brookhurst Street. (Southwest comer of Brookhurst St. and Garfield Ave.) Proiect Planner: Paul Da Volga, Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 03- 62 with findings." The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Thomas spoke with the applicant's representatives; Vice Chair Ray spoke with Richard Harlow and Bernie Mermilstein, visited the project site and visited alternate Walgreen's locations at Yorktown and Beach and Slater and Beach; Commissioner Dingwall spoke with Richard Harlow and visited the project site; Commissioner Livengood spoke with Richard Harlow and visited the project site; Chain Davis -spoke with - - staff, Richard Harlow and the applicant's representatives, and visited an alternate Walgreen's location at Yorktown and Beach; Commissioner Scandura visited the project site, visited the Walgreen's located at Yorktown and Beach, and spoke with Richard Harlow. Paul DaVeiga, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and made a PowerPoint presentation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: - John Glikbarg, Village Properties (applicant) spoke in support of the item, informing the Commission that the request represents the third Walgreen's location within the City. He discussed issues related to siting and elevations and, stated that the request has the support of surrounding businesses. He discussed meeting with the Zoning Administrator (ZA) on June 2, 2004, and that alternative site plans were presented to the ZA on June 9, 2004. He mentioned that . Walgreen's does not approve of staffs site plan drawing depicting the store on the comer of the site facing the street at a heavy traffic intersection: He also_ , .. discussed the importance of the internal layout and called the proposal a pedestrian friendly site plan that will provide increased property/sales tax to the community. Brandy Yamamoto, Spear Design Associates, Walgreen's Architect, spoke in support of the item calling the Huntington Beach Walgreen's locations exclusive. She stated that Walgreen's is willing to work with staff for different elevations, change in colors and/or materials, but feels it is important to retain identity, and therefore does not approve of staffs site plan. She provided examples of other locations discussed with increased roof pitch and slate tile. She stated that the preferences and offsets suggested by staff had been met, and that the store height could not be reduced much because of the store layout with a 13-foot (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 5 interior ceiling height. She also stated that if called for, the landscaping would be enhanced. Richard Harlow, representing Walgreen's, spoke in support of the item and stated that the staff report doesn't completely represent action taken by the ZA. He noted a correction to the vicinity map and explained that the site would be upgraded, the car wash would be demolished, and that two parcels would be combined. He reminded the Commission that all standards were met when the Commission approved both alternate Walgreen's sites within the City. He discussed the applicant's site plan and architectural design, commented that the Urban Design Guidelines (UDG) has no reference for setting a building on the corner, and referenced information provided in the General Plan Land Use Element. He also discussed landscape elements and building setbacks. Randy Fuhrman, spoke in opposition of the applicant's request, supporting staffs recommendation for the building pad being placed at the comer of the site. WITH NO ON ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the UDG are mandatory or discretionary. Staff stated that the UDG were established as a tool for recommending good design principals. Staff further identified the UDG as discretionary guidelines developed by staff and reviewed and approved through resolution by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff also stated that during initial meetings with the applicant, staff made it clear that a comer layout would be recommended. Commissioner Dingwall cited examples of problems with buildings on corners, including that they cater to drive-in traffic, are not pedestrian friendly and inhibit the view for emergency services that need to see all four corners simultaneously to form a plan of action. Commissioner Livengood discussed the history of UDG, stating that terms such as "should" and "encourage" are used, and that nothing dictates that a building must be built on a corner. He also identified the locations of the three buildings built on comers within the City. He urged the Commission to move forward and voiced support for the ZA's approval of the applicant's design. Commission Scandura referenced alternate Walgreen's locations at Beach and Slater and Beach and Yorktown, and discussed parking spaces being well lit in front of the building for safety purposes. Commissioner Thomas commended staffs intentions but voiced concerns about this site as a stand-alone being located on the comer. She asked why the square footage was being reduced, and whether or not the 1-2% pedestrian foot traffic relates to adjacent mobile home park residents. Brandy Yamamoto, applicant's architect, stated that the square footage was adjusted to move the building closer to Brookhurst Street and add additional landscaping. Staff responded that they were unsure of the percentage figure source. Vice Chair Ray asked about a negative declaration and addressing onsite contamination issues. Staff replied that the contamination analysis was done as (04pcm0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 6 part of the environmental review, and if remediation is necessary, that grading permits will not be issued until remediation efforts are complete. Vice Chair Ray asked staff to identify the location of the site entrance. Staff identified the location on the conceptual site plan. Vice Chair Ray asked staff to provide an explanation of what constitutes "groups of buildings;°.and "stand atones." Vice Chair Ray voiced concerns about store security and visibility if the building is built on comer with the entrance located on the side of the building. Staff stated that the site plan shows ample visibility. Staff also explained that the UDG address safety issues in many locations, identifying building areas, parking, etc. Staff also discussed sections of the building code and addressed the lack of detail provided. Vice Chair Ray asked why parking approved for the alternate Walgreen's locations at Beach and Slater and Beach and Yorktown was not being proposed for the new site. Staff read from the UDG about weakened visual elements. Vice Chair Ray stated that the site should be consistent with other stores (materials, architecture, etc.), and that unnecessary burdens should not be placed on businesses. Chair Davis commended staff for providing an educated recommendation and trying to bring best design elements to the City. He also discussed three alternate Walgreen's locations with the building located near the street, calling the look more aesthetically pleasing and providing his support of the UDG. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-62 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (APPLICANT'S REQUESTIZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: Davis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-62: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 03-62 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a 11,838 sq. ft. single story, Walgreen's Pharmacy with drive - through service will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for commercial neighborhood development under the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the permitted uses and development standards within this designation. The proposed use will be less intense than the current use of the property as a car wash and service station, and will not have any significant impacts on the adjacent mobile home park based on the limited use of the drive thru, existing to4pmo727i PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 7 block wall, difference in grade between the two land uses, and the proposed distance between the two land uses. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses. The property abuts commercial uses to the north, south and east and residential use to the west. The subject site is located approximately six to eight feet higher than the adjacent mobile home park. An existing 12-foot tall combination retaining and block wall separates the two properties and provides adequate noise attenuation from the proposed use. The applicant will be required to record an irrevocable offer for reciprocal vehicular access to the adjacent commercial property to the south to allow for future reciprocal access between commercial properties in compliance with the Zoning Code. 3. The proposed 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 subject property is identified in the General Plan as a primary entry node to the City and, as such, should provide the highest architectural quality in compliance with the General Plan, HBZSO, and Urban Design Guidelines. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: LU10.1.4. Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. LU10.1.12. Require that Commercial uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development including consideration of: a. siting and design of structures to facilitate and encourage pedestrian activity; b. siting of buildings to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks; c. architectural treatment of buildings to minimize visual bulk and mass, using techniques such as the modulation of building volumes and articulation of all elevations. UD 1.2 Consider establishing, at each significant node, a local center that serves its neighborhood constituency and provides a strong and distinct focal image focal image for the district. The proposed development is in substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines. The siting and design of the proposed structure allows for pedestrian connections between sidewalks and the Walgreen's Pharmacy across driveway/parking areas. The proposed architecture provides a prominent entry and incorporates quality materials in its design. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-62: 1. The site plan dated June 9, 2004, and floor plans and elevations received and dated February 12, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 8 a. The design, colors, and materials for the subject building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) following approval by the Planning Commission. The following design standards shall be incorporated into proposed building architecture:. 1) Elevations shall incorporate multiple roof planes and/or a variety of roof slopes to reduce the overall mass and bulk of the building and comply with the Urban Design Guidelines. 2) The overall architectural theme shall be unique to the site and surroundings. .3) In order to minimize the overall bulk of the building at the minimum setback line, the building shall incorporate additional offsets and roof elements shall be set back from the fagade of the building in certain locations along the north and east elevations. b. All surplus -parking stalls shall be eliminated and additional landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the building and within the parking area. c. Pedestrian walkways consistent with the original site plan dated February 12, 2004 shall be provided for on the revised site plan dated June 9, 2004. d. Prior to submittal for building permits. The applicant shall submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department and submit 8.5 inch by 10 inch colored elevations, materials board, and renderings to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed, as required: a. The site plan received and. dated -June 9, 2004 shall be the approved layout except for the following: (PW) i) The Brookhurst Street driveway shall be located at least 10 feet northerly of the southerly property line, and provide a minimum 10-foot sight distance triangle consistent with the HBZSO Section 230.88. 2) A minimum 10-foot sight triangle must be provided for vehicles at the southwesterly comer of the building. 3) A truck -tracking exhibit, utilizing a WB-50 design vehicle, must be provided to demonstrate that delivery trucks can be accommodated. This truck tracking exhibit must illustrate a truck entering the site, accessing the loading docks and egressing the site. It must be demonstrated that - the truck movements will -not encroach into opposite directions of roadway traffic nor impact the parking spaces shown. A truck -tracking exhibit for garbage truck,accessing the trash enclosure must also be provided. 3. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and'utilities cannot be released for commencement of use and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein are accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. (04pan0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 9 4. The applicant shall recorder an offer for reciprocal vehicular access to the adjacent commercial property. to the south, with the Office of the County Recorder. The location and width of the accessway shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. The subject property owner shall be responsible for making necessary improvements to implement the reciprocal driveway. The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The property owner or designated representative shall provide written acknowledgement agreeing to schedule semi-annual "landscaping maintenance walks" with the City Landscape architect to review the quality of the approved landscaping. The first walk shall occur six (6) months after final inspection and approval given at the time of initial occupancy, and shall continue at six (6) month intervals for a period of five (5) years. The quality of continuing maintenance, or lack thereof, will determine whether or not CUP revocation proceedings will begin. If the level of maintenance is inappropriate, but not adequate enough to warrant CUP revocation, the five (5) year time period and semi-annual walks will be extended. 6. 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 Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 7. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 10 B-2. APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-51 (CLEVELY ADDITION): Applicant/Property Owner: Alise Clevely Appellant: Tom Livengood, Planning Commissioner' Request: To permit the construction of a new 518 square foot third floor within the confines of the second story roof volume and construct a 133 square foot third floor balcony in -conjunction with the partial reconstruction and expansion of an existing.two-story single-family dwelling. The dwelling will have an overall building height of 35 feet. -The request includes a review and analysis for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/ privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout. Location: 9151 Bermuda Drive (north side of Bermuda Drive and east of Magnolia Street) Project Planner: Rami Talleh - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 03-51 with findings and suggested conditions of approval." T_he Commission made the following disclosures: Vice Chair Ray visited the site; Commissioner Scandura visited the site, walked the neighborhood and met with staff; Commissioner Dingwall walked the neighborhood; Chair Davis walked the neighborhood;' Commissioner Livengood walked the neighborhood. Ram! Talleh, Assistant Planner provided a staff report and made a PowerPoint presentation. Commission questions/comments included: • Number of 2 and 3-story_ homes in the neighborhood • Legality of the appeal • Proper noticing (minimum requirements met) • 5-foot setback'on the eastside property line (confirmed with a 2-foot projection for fireplace) • Site coverage (proposed at 41 %) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Richard Loy, Kahului Drive, spoke in opposition to the item, and brought a display of the Newport West Tract (one and two story homes). He discussed how the proposal would change the neighborhood's character and make up, and establish precedence for future 3rd story construction. He voiced concerns, about privacy and blocking the sun and ocean breezes. He stated that the City approved the project before neighboring opinions were known, and presented a petition with over 100 signatures in opposition to the proposal. Jim Gill, Bahama Lane, spoke in opposition to the item and provided a sketch of the tract depicting 1 and 2-story homes. He informed the Commission of receiving a notice of public hearing and contacting the City Council. He stated that the proposed structure is not compatible with surrounding homes and voiced concerns about the methodology of conditional use permits and public notification. He also pointed out how the request affects 300 to 500 homeowners, and is architecturally different than the surrounding "Craftsman" style dwellings. (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 11 Jim Young; Niguel Circle in the Fashion Shores area, spoke in opposition to the item, stating that 3rd story homes are not compatible for the area. Randy Fuhrman; Roundhill Drive, spoke in opposition to the item, stating that homes 35 feet in height are not compatible. He suggested that the applicant consider a maximum height of 30 feet, further explaining that the request would change the character and make up of neighborhood and set precedence. He also discussed improved public notification. Rob Norquist, Rhodesia Drive, spoke in opposition to the item, referencing compatibility information discussed in the General Plan Land Use Element. He voiced concerns about third -story windows and privacy and compatibility. He encouraged the Commission to consider a roof height of no greater than 30 feet, and consistency among remodels. Susan Demirjian, Rhodesia Drive, spoke in opposition to the item and height of the building. She stated that a majority of homes in the tract are 1 and 2-story, and voiced concerns related to privacy, and to blockage of sun and ocean breezes. Kurt Suhr, Bermuda Drive, spoke in support of the item and private property owners building rights. He discussed how the applicant was collaborative with neighbors and shared their building plans. He also stated that other area 3-story dwellings were stacked, not like what the applicant is proposing, and how he appreciated the applicant's consideration to neighbors. Betty Parkovich, Kahului Drive, spoke in opposition of the item, discussing wide streets, setbacks and incompatibility. She also informed the Commission that neighbors who previously wished to build 3rd stories in the past were not approved, and how 11 of the 12 homes canvassed signed a petition opposing the request. Bev Garnett, Kahului Drive, spoke in opposition to the item and voiced concerns about late notification to the neighborhood: She referenced a home at Magnolia and Bermuda as an example of mansionization that is not compatible. She also discussed prior 3rd story proposals that were denied and voiced concerns related to privacy, open air and sun exposure. Howard Geoghegan, Kahului Drive, spoke in opposition to the item and discussed the percentage of 1 and 2-story dwellings in the tract. He voiced concerns about compatibility and stated that the request is detrimental both economically and visually to the neighborhood. Kevin Coleman, Bermuda, spoke in support of the item, mentioning that the applicant has kept neighbors involved in their remodel plans. He referenced Nimbyism and called the proposed structure beautiful and pleasing to the eye. He also stated that the proposal could not be compared to the earlier mentioned home at Magnolia and Bermuda. Alise Clevely, applicant, spoke in support of the item and stated that the 35-foot roof height was designed to conform to height requirements identified in Section 210 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,(ZSO). She also stated that all building standards had been met, that the design beautifies the neighborhood (04pern0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 12 and is consistent with the General Plan, and conforms to privacy standards set forth in the ZSO. She addressed neighbors concerns about windows being placed in an appropriate location to ensure privacy. She also addressed concerns related to setting precedence and discussed the existing RL districts identified in the staff report. She stated that neighbors have-not voiced opposition -to the request until the last minute, and that alternative designs without a Td story may increase lot coverage and not be appealing. She also referenced page 8, paragraph 5 of the staff report that discusses provisions for construction of three story homes that exhibit two-story character, and how the proposal will meet the criteria and raise property values. Chris Clevely, applicant,. spoke in support of the item and addressed the neighborhood petition, voicing concerns and confusion: He discussed the addition of a porch, and that the proposed design with white windows and trim were compatible with the area. He explained the aesthetic reasons for a 35-foot high home and the proposed roof pitch and the roof style of the remodeled home. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Scandura asked about the actual height as seen by the City. Staff replied 35 feet from the ground, 33 feet from the building slab. - Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns regarding no windows proposed on the west side of the house, and asked if features could be added. The applicant responded that windows were not included to maintain privacy, and that existing and proposed landscaping will add an attractive element along the side of the home.. The applicant also stated that they would consider opaque (frosted) windows if required. Commissioner Scandura commented that he was impressed by the design and "Craftsman' style look, covering 41 % of the lot with an angled roof. He also voiced concerns about denying the request and the applicant redesigning the house for increased lot coverage without the City's review and _approval. -Commissioner Uvengood asked for the height of the lower portion of the roof. Staff responded 34 feet from top of curb. Commissioner Uvengood complimented the staff report, and stated that according to the law, the request must be approved. He called the design one of the best he has -seen for a 3'd story addition, and that by code and design, the request should be approved. Commissioner Thomas discussed the number of 2-story homes on Bermuda Drive, and asked about fireplace setback requirements. Commissioner Dingwall asked for the number of e. story dwellings in the Newport West Tract only. - Staff answered none. Commissioner Dingwall asked for the number of dwellings with a roof height of 30 to 35 feet in the same tract only. Staff answered none. Commissioner. Dingwall .voiced opposition to the request and discussed the community's overwhelming opposition and concerns that the proposal would inhibit sea breezes, sunlight, and heating/cooling ventilation. (Up=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 13 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-51 WITH FINDINGS. Discussion ensued and staff explained the history behind the project, including that the code would allow a larger home without a CUP. Staff also addressed comments made regarding public notification, stating that all ZSO and state noticing requirements have been met. Vice Chair Ray expressed his conflict between the rights of neighbors and property owners. He stated that the applicant should have addressed neighbors concerns. He also discussed the ZSO allowing residents to build up to 35 feet through the CUP process, but voiced opposition to the request. Chair Davis stated that he would not support the motion, discussing property owner's rights and the ZSO allowing for 35 feet in height. He also stated that the design was compatible with surrounding structures, and spoke in support of the applicant. Commissioner Thomas called the design attractive, but supports the opposing view shared by the applicant's neighbors. Commissioner Scandura asked about the approval process if the applicant were to redesign the structure below 30 feet in height. Staff explained that the CUP may be appealable to the City Council. However, if the applicant should choose to redesign the structure below 30 feet but maintain a Td story, it would be brought before Zoning Administrator (ZA) with a CUP. Staff also explained that the home could be designed in a manner without the need for a CUP (no 3`d story) but be larger in size, increase the lot coverage, reduce setbacks, and have a flatter roof. Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns about the applicant's possible redesign resulting in increased lot coverage. Commissioner Livengood shared Commissioner Scandura's concerns, and stated that if the Commission denies the request, findings for denial must be established. Vice Chair Ray suggested that a finding for denial is that the proposal is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Dingwall asked about dormers and if the request was similar to a recent variance request for a 3`d story structure in the Huntington Harbor. Staff responded that the design he mentioned was completely different and included a large 3'd story addition with a very large dormer window making up most of the 3`d story addition. (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 14 THE MOTION WAS RESTATED TO INCLUDE A FINDING FOR DENIAL AS "NOT WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD." A VOTE WAS TAKEN AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall NOES: Scandura, Davis, Livengood ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION FAILS A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-51 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES: Scandura, Davis, Livengood NOES: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION FAILS A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-51 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ROOF PITCH REDESIGNED AT A MAXIMUM 30 FEET IN HEIGHT). Staff read requirements included within the General Plan regarding use of building heights. Commissioner Thomas asked if the roof pitch could be changed to reduce the overall height. Staff replied that redesigning the structure to change height results in loss of square footage on the third level and changes the overall design of the home. THE MOTION WAS RESTATED, AND ACTION TAKEN AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall NOES:, Scandura, Davis, Livengood ABSTAIN: None A13SENT: None MOTION FAILS (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 15 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-51 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall NOES: Scandura, Davis, Livengood ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION FAILS A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-51 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Davis, Livengood NOES: Ray, Dingwall ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-51 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administer 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 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the replacement of an existing structure and facilities where the new structure will have substantially the same purpose and capacity are exempt. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-51: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-51 for the construction of a new 518 sq. ft. third floor and 133 sq. ft. third floor balcony in conjunction with the partial reconstruction and expansion of an existing two-story single-family dwelling with an overall height of 35 ft. 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 third story addition is concealed within the second story roof volume and setback 5 ft. from the first and second story facade to minimite building mass and bulk. In addition, the third story windows are oriented away from the adjacent residences to preserve their privacy. The third story deck is oriented toward the public right-of-ways only and screened from abutting residences. Access to the third story deck is provided from within the dwelling. The second and third story addition will maintain a 31 ft. front yard setback consistent with existing homes in the neighborhood and twice the setback required by code. In addition, the proposed site coverage will be approximately 10% less then the code allowed maximum of 50%. (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 16 2. The conditional use permit to construct a third story addition to a single family home will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed three story home is designed to appear as a two-story home with dormer windows: Furthermore, the third story addition is similar in design, materials, and massing -as other dwellings existing in the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, several other single-family homes with similar designs have been constructed within the neighborhood. Furthermore, the third story deck is setback five feet from the building exterior and is located below the highest point of the second story roof. 3. The proposed conditional use permit 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, including parking requirements, maximum building'height,-maximum lot coverage, -minimum yard setbacks, and third -story design'criteria. 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 RL (Residential Low Density) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: LU 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the:. LU 9.2.1 b: Use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with, surrounding development; LU 9.2.1c: Maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. The proposed dwelling will comply with maximum building height permitted in the RL zone with a conditional use permit. The proposed third -story and third -story deck will be setback from the first and second -story fagade as required by the HBZSO, thus minimizing the building massing, and is designed in compliance with the City's third - story design standards. No third -story windows or deck areas are oriented toward adjoining properties. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.03-51: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated May 20, 2004, shall be - the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The elevations shall be revised to depict a dimension line measuring the height of the structure from top of curb to the highest point of the structure. The height of the structure shall not exceed 35 ft. 0 in. b. The floor plans shall be revised, to depict the interior dimensions of the existing .,garage. The minimum interior dimensions shall be 18 ft. by 19 ft. 2.. Prior to submittal for building permits, zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, -mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. (04pCm0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 17 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MAY 11, 2004 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the May 11, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DATED MAY 11, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1. 2004 FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN ANNUAL REVIEW: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Request: Annual review of the Flood Management Plan to demonstrate that the City is actively pursuing implementation of the Flood Management Plan. Location: City-wide/Floodplain, Project Planner: Ricky Ramos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Accept the annual review of the Flood Management Plan as adequate and complete and forward to the City Council for their review." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner was available for questions. (04pcm0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 18 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL REVIEW'OF THE FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLANT AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR - THEIR REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis,-Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSTAIN: - -None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED D-2. Proiects : Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Request: To determine whether the new capital improvement projects are in compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Location: City-wide, Project Planner: Ricky Ramos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Adopt Resolution No. 1592, approving General Plan Conformance No. 04-02." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner provided a brief staff 'report. and was available for questions. Commissioner Dingwall voiced concerns about approving the request for General Plan conformance without possessing a copy of the General Plan. Vice Chair Ray asked if the new capital improvement projects are prioritized. Staff explained that the request involves additions to the 2-year plan previously approved by the Commission, and that new projects are not prioritized because they typically depend on grant funding opportunities and timelines, citing the Bluff Top improvement as an example of a priority project with strict grant funding timelines. Discussion ensued about one-year versus multi -year projects, and carryover projects _'such as the Michael Drive Storm Drain project and factors that have slowed the project's completion. Staff identified other funding sources such as traffic impact fees and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds, and explained that certain design -level projects are requested by the City Council, and that the Council often establishes priority on certain improvements. Commissioner Thomas asked about the financial source for the Gun Range Cleanup (occupant, park acquisition funds?) Staff explained that the park acquisition fund would cover the immediate costs associated with remediation, but that sources to reimburse the fund had not yet been determined. Staff also discussed the remedial action plan and environmental impact report currently in process. Commissioner Scandura asked if Safe Routes to School improvements would be funded through grant monies or the General Fund. Staff confirmed that grant funding would provide pedestrian improvements for routes to Mesa, Golden and Marine View Schools. Commissioner Scandura mentioned that the Community Services Commission has discussed the possibility of relocating the dog park to the gun range site, and (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 19 voiced his concerns about approving the item for General Plan compliance when the funding to remediate the gun range site has not yet been determined. Staff reminded the Commission that the request addresses the general concept of land use, and that funding sources are provided for information purposes and is not part of the request. Commissioner Dingwall asked why Disc Golf Design was' necessary. Staff explained that the item relates to maintenance and staffing of a pro shop feature for the existing course that is expected to generate additional revenue. Commissioner Dingwall voiced concerns about vendor contracts and concessionaires and provided opposition to the use of funds for Gun Range Cleanup and Disc Golf Course improvements. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.1592, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO.04-02, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION APPROVED E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS — NONE. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas — None. Commissioner Scandura — informed the Commission of his absence at the August 10, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Ray — bestowed birthday sentiments to his children, and reminded the Commission and public that the deadline to submit applications for Environmental Board Award recipients (individuals, businesses, organizations) is July 31, 2004 with Ricky Ramos in the Planning Department as a contact for information. Commissioner Davis — None. Commissioner Dingwall — asked staff when the request for Allocation of Speakers time would be presented to the City Council. Staff replied that the item is tentatively scheduled for the September 7, 2004 City Council meeting. Commissioner Dingwall inquired about the status of staffs investigation of reported barbed wire fencing at 16642 Somerset Drive on Gilbert Island. Commissioner Livengood — asked about the status of lengthy construction activity at 16642 Somerset Drive on Gilbert Island. Staff replied that (04p=0727) PC Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 20 representatives from Planning, Code Enforcement and Building & Safety have met to discuss issues related to lengthy construction and compliance with code and building permit restrictions.- F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported on the Planning Department items heard before the City Council on July 19, 2004.- Mr. Hess also reported that on July 14, 2004 the California Coastal Commission found that the Pacific City project is not located within the appealable area of the coastal zone. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager :--reported on the Planning Department items scheduled before the CityCouncil on August 2, 2004: F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland. Principal Planner — reviewed items for the next regularly scheduled meeting of August 10, 2004. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 10:46 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of August 10, 2004, Huntington Beach Civic Center. APPR VED BY: and Zelefsky, Secretary Ro avis, Chair (04p=0727)