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)