Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-08MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC 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 P ROLL CALL: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA OF MARCH 8, 2005 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS A-1. MAJOR PROJECTS UPDATE — Herb Fauland Herb Fauland, Principal Planner, was available to hear comments or respond to questions on the Planning Department Major Projects Priority List handout provided to the Commission. Scott Hess, Planning Manager, provided a PowerPoint presentation of the major projects. Discussion ensued between staff and the Commission on the following major project priority items: ■ Mills Land & Water (GPA/ZMA/DA — PCH & Beach) ■ Cenco Residential (GPA/ZMA/EIR — 204 Units) ■ Flood Management Program ■ ZTA — Permit Streamlining Phase II ■ AES Plant CUP and Monitoring ■ ZTA — 3nd Story/Floor Area Ratio ■ Hamilton Street Removal (GPA/LCPA/EIR) ■ Boeing/McDonnell Douglas Expansion ■ Landscape Ordinance ■ Home Depot @ Kmart ■ Condo Conversions ■ ZTA — Edinger Corridor Specific Plan ■ PCH & 11 th Condos (3 units) ■ ZTA — Pacifica Community Specific Plan ■ Annual Parking Master Plan Review (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 2 ■ 5th Street Mixed -Use (214 5th Street) ■ Delaware Senior Condos (86 Units) ■ Park Avenue Marina (CUP/CDP) ■ Census Review ■ Td Street Mixed -Use (307 Td) ■ Seabreeze Church (Gothard) ■ St. Peter's Church Master Plan ■ Former Gun Ranch EIR ■ Beach & Atlanta Center Concept Plans ■ Water Quality Master Plan ■ White Hole — Enhancement Plan (USCOE) ■ Police Department Expansion ■ Picarreli Property (Oil Drilling) ■ Hamilton Apartments (GPA/ZMA/EA) ■ McCallen Park (GPA/ZMA/EA) ■ Vacant School Sites Monitoring ■ Heil Fire Station ■ Parkside/Shea LCPA (171 SFR) ■ Toyota Demo & Rebuild ■ Poseidon Desalination Plant (CUP/EIR) ■ ZTA — Huntington Harbor Bay Club Specific Plan ■ Harbor Cove Condos (Green Street — 14 units) ■ The Studios at Center (240 unit SRO) ■ Gothard Street Town Homes (18 units) ■ Bella Terra (former HB Mall) ■ Pacific City Commercial/Residential/Soil Remediation ■ CIM Mixed -Use (Blocks 104/105) ■ Waterfront Residential (184 units) ■ SRO @ Ellis Avenue (107 units) A-2. STUDY SESSION PRIORITY LIST — Herb Fauland Chair Ray requested that the Commission submit topics for possible discussion at future study sessions be submitted to him prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. B. AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS) — Herb Fauland Herb Fauland reported on late communication received from Wendy Weber regarding a hawk's nest located on the subject property for Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Roosevelt Lane Condominiums.) C. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS — None. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting — None. 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 3 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Commissioner Dwyer CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray,' Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA OF MARCH 8, 2005 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: None -- ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 (ROOSEVELT LANE CONDOMINIUMS): Applicant: Hank Jong, EGL Associates Request: TTM: To subdivide a 41,054 sq. ft. parcel into one lot for condominium purposes; CUP: To permit (a) construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot; and (b) patio fencing -exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches) within the required front yard setback. Location: 16811 Roosevelt Lane (west side of Roosevelt Lane, north of Warner Avenue, south of Pearce Drive) Project Planner: Ron Santos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with recommended findings and conditions of approval." Ron Santos, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and made a PowerPoint presentation to the Commission that highlighted the following points of information: ■ Surrounding properties ■ Project site suitability • • Land Use Compatibility ■ Project Design Mr. Santos identified a late communication received by Wendy Weber that notified the Commission of a hawk's nest existing in a tree on the subject property. Commissioner disclosures: Commissioners Scandura and Fuhrman spoke with staff and visited the project site; Commissioners Livengood and Burnett visited the project (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 4 site; Commissioner's Ray,: Fuhrman and Dwyer participated in a Subdivision Committee meeting on the project held on February 16, 2005. Commission questions/comments included: ■ Acreage and permitted density in the RM (Residential Medium Density) zone ■ Maximum height requirements (10 foot tower, varied roof lines for massing breaks) ■ 43" wall within the 15-foot setback (code allows 42°) . ■ Code requirements for enclosing private open space (code conflicts where open space is located) ■ Affordable housing objectives (applicant proposed 2-units (10%) designated for median income housing; discussion on the goals &objectives of the General Plan Housing Element) - ' 11 ■ School district fees (negotiated with each respective district and paid at the time of - permit issuance; amount of fees mandated by state law) ■ Inadequate drainage and flooding -(current litigation discussed by Commission , Counsel; final hydraulic studies/drainage plan subject to code requirements) ■ Project gates ■ Water meters (individual versus a master unit providing sub metered water to units; roles of the City/HOA in water billing, fees and maintenance) ■ Traffic studies and impact fees (average number of daily trips generated, road ' conditions and fee analysis) ■ Project compatibility with surrounding uses (compliance.with the Urban Design Guidelines, height, upper story setbacks, massing, etc.) ■ Conceptual Plan discussion (landscaped areas, spa location) - ■ Fire Department access (discussion on the westerly drive aisle having a 28' wide turnaround for Fire accessibility while the easterly. drive aisle does not), - ■ . Lengthy, discussion on the process for greater fence'height through -applying for a conditional use permit ■ Double walls (new block wall proposed along. the north property line adjacent to an existing wood fence) ■ 26' wide drive aisles (increased from .the minimum requirement 24' to allow for improved. access to garages) ■ Late communication regarding the presence. of a hawk's nest in a eucalyptus tree proposed to be removed THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Rob Tyler, applicant and architect, thanked staff for their guidance and invaluable input. He stated -that the proposed project entirely,conforms to zoning code regulations and is pedestrian -oriented. He described project depth and elevations, and the use of high quality materials. He addressed comments on fence appearance and security, and removing the eucalyptus tree that may pose a threat to an existing hawks nest. He also discussed drive aisles and his support for meeting the minimum fire lane standard width of 24', school district mitigation, primary and secondary drainage systems, tower elements and varied rooflines. Eva Weisz, Pearce Drive, welcomed the project and inquired about price arrangements for the 2 units proposed to be affordable. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Scandura proposed a condition of approval for individual water meters, and for uniform landscaping near the two identified cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Dingwall voiced support for individual water meters and asked staff to explain why they recommend a master unit. Terri Elliott, Pubic Works, explained the issues related to providing water in a multi -unit development including water conservation, meter reading and billing, maintenance and meter locations. She discussed the City's minimal involvement in controlling water fees imposed by an HOA and made comparisons to individual trash collection versus multi -unit trash enclosures and collection. Commissioner Dingwall voiced concerns related to urban runoff and described the project's westerly drive aisle as unacceptable because it's narrow width does not allow turnaround accessibility for Fire Department vehicles. Commissioner Livengood voiced support for the Fire Departments acceptance of the 25' wide easterly drive aisle width. He suggested adding a condition of approval that assures collection of school impact fees and voiced support for separate water meters for individual units and landscaping. Commissioner Burnett stated that a separate meter is necessary for landscaping, and that her experience with common water meters has not been problematic. She also asked for the distance between the dwellings to the eucalyptus tree where a hawk's nest supposedly exists. Commissioner Dwyer asked about water heater design. The applicant explained the design and voiced support for individual water meters. Commissioner Fuhrman voiced concerns about dual use of private open space between building one and the street. He discussed the City's 15' setback requirement and mandated area for open space, stating that the patios should be built outside the setback. He also voiced concerns about traffic impacts and differences between the project's density and what is identified in the Meadowlark Specific Plan. He discussed compatibility issues related to building frontages and the surrounding area, and suggested relocating the spa between buildings 2 and 3 to prevent potential noise problems. Chair Ray called the project design excellent. He provided support for the Fire Department's recommendations on the drive aisles but voiced concerns about the existing fence and proposed block wall creating double walls, the landscaping lacking native, drought -tolerant vegetation, and disturbing the hawk's nest identified in late communication. He suggested adding a condition of approval for HOA establishment and hiring a qualified ornithologist to determine the consequences of disturbing the hawk's nest. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the attics contain sprinklers. Eric Engberg, Division Chief/Fire Marshall, answered yes, and that the wall material is fire -rated. Commissioner Fuhrman asked for background on single -master water meters and why the City has made such a recommendation. Ms. Elliott repeated staffs position by explaining the benefits of a master water meter, including that the City owns everything up to the meter while separate meters mean public -owned water lines on private property or 14 meters versus 2. She also discussed conservation measures and the (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 6 uniform plumbing code, and how meters are sized per the number of sinks, showers, water connections, etc. Mr. Santos addressed Commissioner Fuhrman's concerns related to dual use of private open space, stating that the project's designated open space requirements are in full compliance with code. He also explained how the code allows for balconies to be credited as open space. Mr. Santos'addressed concerns related to traffic impacts by explaining the one-time traffic impact fee paid by the developer and referencing a summary made by the Public Works Transportation Department that identified the number of vehicular trips. He explained that the number of trips is based on the number of units, etc., and that the number of driveways has no bearing on trip generation. Mr. Santos informed the Commission that the applicant was sent a letter identifying code requirements, including a provision that addresses double -wall concerns and use of drought -tolerant plants. Discussion ensued on where the applicant would like water meters to be located. Ms. Elliott explained that the applicant would work with Public Works on appropriate meter location and discussed backflow devices and laterals that may effect the location. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO REVISE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO.1.d. FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.16682 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 TO READ "THE PROJECT SHALL BE SERVED BY INDIVIDUAL WATER METERS WITH THEIR LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the motion could be amended to include a separate meter for common areas. Ms. Elliott discussed the extra expense incurred by -the City, and how the developer pays for installation and monthly rental on meters. She also discussed sidewalk vaults for meter placement. Both the applicant and Commissioner Scandura accepted Commissioner Dingwall's amendment. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett NOES: - Fuhnnan - - - ABSENT: - None., ABSTAIN: - None MOTION APPROVED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DWYER, TO DELETE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO.1.d. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.0416 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 THAT INCREASES -DRIVE AISLE WIDTH TO 26 FEET BETWEEN BUILDING NOS.1 AND 2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 7 AYES: Dwyer, Ray, Livengood NOES: Scandura, Dingwall, Burnett, Fuhrman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO REVISE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1.d. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04- 1E ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 BY INCREASING THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH TO 28 FEET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ray, Dingwall NOES: Dwyer, Scandura, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Commissioner Fuhrman asked if the Public Works traffic study identified 118 vehicular trips per day. Ms. Elliott answered yes and mentioned that staff would provide back-up detail to the Commission. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO ADD CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO.1.g. TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 THAT REQUIRES BUILDING ONE TO BE A 2-STORY BUILDING. . The applicant spoke in opposition to the motion and used the project model to show that the 3rd story articulation is already setback from the building frontage. Commissioner Livengood spoke in opposition to the motion stating that it would destroy a great project that meets code requirements. Scott Hess, Planning Manager, explained that upper story setbacks have been provided and design guidelines for massing have been met. He also discussed how the 3rd level elements are on other modules as well, directing the Commissions attention to the project plans and model. Commissioners Dwyer and Burnett voiced opposition to the motion. Commissioner Fuhrman explained that his motion does not affect buildings 2, 3 and 4 with deeper 3rd story setbacks. He discussed compatibility with surrounding structures and asked if Commissioner Dingwall consider an amendment to increase the 3`d story setback in building one by 50%, rather than 2-story. Commissioner Dingwall concurred. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 8 AYES: Dingwall, Fuhrman NOES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood; Burnett ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RELOCATE THE SPA FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF.THE PROPERTY TO THE COMMON AREA BETWEEN -PARKING UNITS 7 AND 8. The applicant voiced opposition to the motion, stating they would rather omit the spa than relocate it. Commissioners Scandura and Burnett voiced opposition to the motion. Commissioner Livengood asked for the standard setback requirement for a spa from the property line. Staff responded that no setback is required, and that it applies to pools as well. Commissioner Livengood was opposed to the request and voiced concerns related to potential problems in the parking area. Chair Ray asked for staffs position on no spa versus a spa in the common area. Mr. Santos stated that staff was pleased with the applicant's selection for spa location. COMMISSIONER FUHRMAN WITHDREW HIS STRAW VOTE MOTION.%. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RESTRICT HOURS OF SPA USE TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CCR'S) FROM 7:00 AM TO 10:00 PM DAILY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: Dwyer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO ADD A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-16 THAT REQUIRES PAYMENT OF RESPECTIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT FEES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Discussion ensued about open space requirements within the 15-foot setback. Commissioner Fuhrman voiced concerns about private open space encroaching into the common open space and being counted twice to meet code requirements. Chair Ray (05pern0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 9 asked if findings were provided to explain the encroachment. Mr. Santos discussed findings within the CUP that address private open space requirements within the 15-foot setback. He also explained that the developer must provide private open space somewhere else on the property if the 43" wall request is denied. Herb Fauland, Principal Planner, provided support for the applicant's proposal and staffs recommendation for approval. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-16 AND THE REQUEST FOR A 43" WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. Commissioner Dwyer voiced opposition to the motion, stating that changing the proposal will ruin the design of the project. Commissioner Burnett voiced opposition to the motion, calling the front elevations attractive. Commissioner Scandura asked how many 43" fences has the City approved. Mr. Santos answered many, approved by the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Scandura voiced opposition to the motion. Mr. Hess stated that the private space encroaches into less than 50% of the front setback area, and that buildings could have faced inward for a less pleasing development. He also stated that private open space could not be used in the back of the development because of the' location of the garages. Commissioner Livengood voiced strong opposition to the motion and discussed the importance of aesthetics. Chair Ray voiced opposition to the motion. Commissioner Fuhrman discussed withdrawing his motion if the conditions of approval state that the fence height would not exceed 43", and would not be built closer to the street than it is now. COMMISSIONER FUHRMAN WITHDREW HIS STRAW VOTE MOTION. Commissioner Livengood discussed revising condition of approval no. 1.a. on - Attachment 1.4 for CUP No. 04-16 to prohibit additional fencing within the required front yard setback. -Mr. Santos explained that such a condition would prevent future fence redesign. - Mr. Hess added that the applicant could otherwise construct a 42" fence along the entire front property line. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY FUHRMAN, TO REVISE CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL NO. 1.a. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-16 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 BY ADDING A SENTENCE THAT PROHIBITS ANY ADDITIONAL FENCING OR WALLS WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 10 AYES: Dwyer, Scandura; Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: --None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Chair Ray asked if it would be appropriate to condition the project to require the applicant to reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner.that no double walls will be created. Commissioner Livengood commented that the applicant should make a reasonable attempt to reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner that no double walls will exist on the adjoining properties. -The applicant commented that the existing fence lies entirely on adjacent property owner's property. Mr. Santos stated that staff does not recommend keeping the -existing fence: A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY FUHRMAN, TO INCLUDE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT REQUIRES FORMATION OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA): Mr. Hess referenced a section of the zoning code that addresses HOA's. Ms. Mulvihill discussed the specific conditions that require HOA's to maintain public improvements, including common areas. ACTION ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE.MOTION WAS TAKEN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman- NOES: Dwyer, Scandura ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO HIRE A -QUALIFIED ORNITHOLOGIST TO - EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE OF A HAWK'S NEST WITHIN A EUCALYPTUS TREE SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL. Commissioner Fuhrman asked who is responsible for the expenses associated with such a request. Staff replied that the�applicant would be financially responsible_ Commissioner Scandura voiced opposition to the motion and discussed how the request would cause delays for a situation that may not exist.' He described the hawk as a common -bird, not endangered, that can easily relocate to a number of nearby areas. . Commissioner Dingwall asked the applicant when groundbreaking would occur on the property: - The -applicant replied that working drawings ate ready -to be submitted. Mr. Santos reminded the Commission that the final tract map would have to be approved by the City Council, along with the affordable housing agreement. He also voiced caution about providing a time estimate when so many variables exist. Mr. Hess commented that the timeline could be 60-90 days. (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Livengood asked about nesting areas in the immediate vicinity and called for the question. Commissioner Scandura seconded the call. Commissioner Fuhrman called for a point of order and explained that Robert's Rules of Order allow for comments prior to taking action on a motion. Commissioner Dwyer asked that Ms. Mulvihill respond as to whether or not the Chair should call for the vote. Chair Ray overruled Commissioner Dwyer's request, explaining why it was inappropriate to defer to Commission Counsel for an opinion when the Chair had the floor. Ms. Mulvihill concurred with Chair Ray but noted the importance of moving the process along. Chair Ray repeated his motion and asked to amend it- by.adding a delay -in construction through the 2005 nesting season: Commissioner Dingwall seconded the amendment. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: Dingwall, Ray, Fuhrman NOES: Dwyer, Scandura, Livengood, Burnett ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DWYER, TO ADD A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL -USE PERMIT-NO.04-16 THAT CALLS FOR CONSISTENT LANDSCAPING WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT. Chair Ray voiced opposition to the motion. Mr. Hess stated that the present sidewalk separates the areas. Commissioner Fuhrman asked if the added condition would take precedence over what is identified in the code requirements letter. Discussion ensued on landscaping the area between building one and the sidewalk. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Dingwall NOES: Dwyer, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhnnan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Dingwall voiced opposition to the project and discussed related drainage issues. Commissioner Livengood voiced support for the project and recommendations made by the Fire Department. Commissioner Dwyer voiced support for the project. Commissioner Fuhrman voiced support for the project but voiced concerns related to drainage issues, double counting private open space and 26' wide drive aisles. Chair Ray supported the project but voiced concerns related to the 26' drive aisles, double walls and potential disturbance of a hawks nest. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-16 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15332 — In -fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 to subdivide a 41,054 square foot parcel into one (1) lot for condominium purposes (13 units) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density) on the subject (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 13 property and applicable provisions of the zoning code. The RM designation provides for residential development at a maximum density of 15 units per acre: The project proposes residential development at a density of 13.76 units per acre. In addition the project complies with all applicable development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including minimum lot size and width, minimum on -site parking, landscaping, setbacks and open space, and maximum building heights. 2. The site is physically suitable'for the type and density of development. The project site is regular in shape, has no unique"topographical or other constraints to development and can accommodate the proposed development in accordance with all applicable codes and development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project consists of residential development on a previously developed lot in an urbanized area. The project site does not serve as habitat for fish or wildlife, is not identified as a hazardous waste site and contains no known environmental hazards. The project will comply with all Code requirements applicable to the subject site. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, -property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements acquired by the public at large exist within the proposed subdivision and all necessary easements will be'provided'pursuant to conditions of approval. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-16: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 to permit (a) construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot within the RM (Residential Medium Density) Zone; and (b) patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches) within the required front yard setback, 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 City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems can adequately service the proposed development without significantly impacting.the overall service or system. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes, school enrollments or recreational resources. Adequate on -site parking is provided (in conformance with code requirements) and no significant noise; air pollution or other impacts will be generated on -site. The project will provide 11 market -rate units and two affordable housing units, thus serving to maintain a proper balance of housing opportunities in the City. The proposed project features quality architectural design, site layout and building materials that will ensure no detrimental impact to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed 43-inch tall patio fencing will have no detrimental impacts since the one -inch increase"in height over the basic requirement is minimal, the fencing will extend across less than 30 percent of the lot width and the top 12-inches (approximately) of the fence is designed as "view fencing" 2. - The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed multi -family residential use will be established on a site designated by the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map for the type and density of (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 14 development proposed. In addition, the project design is consistent with and complementary to existing multi -family and single-family residential uses in the vicinity, including the project site grade elevation, building scale, architecture, -massing, building colors and materials. 3. The proposed 13 unit condominium project 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 maximum density and building height; and minimum building setbacks, landscaping, open space and on -site parking requirements. The HBZSO authorizes fences exceeding 42 inches in height with approval of a conditional use permit. 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 RM-15 (Residential Medium Density —15 units/acre) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A:- Land Use Element Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Obiective LU 9.5: Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens, the -physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low and moderate -income families. Policy LU 9. ?.3: Require that multi -family residential projects be designed to convey a high level of quality and distinctive neighborhood character as discussed below: a. Design building elevations treatment to convey the visual character of individual units rather than a singular building mass and volumes. b. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit, which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards, and for common areas. c. Site and design parking areas and facilities that are integrated with but do not dominate the architectural character of the structure. The proposed, project is consistent with the goal to achieve development of a diverse range of housing types by providing for the development of 13 housing units consistent with the design and density standard established for the corresponding zoning designation. Moreover, the project provides for a mixture of two and three bedroom dwelling units, and unit sizes ranging between 1,609 sq. ft. and 2,145 square -feet. In addition, two units would be designated as affordable housing. The project is designed as a townhouse -style development whereby each unit has well defined, ground -floor entries, as well as distinct massing elements and other design features which serve to define the individual units within each building. Moreover, variations in the facades and rooflines of each of the four buildings are incorporated while maintaining consistency with the overall design theme. The project also includes an interior landscaped courtyard as well as a separate common area amenity (spa). All 13 units are designed with the garages at the rear of the dwellings, thus minimizing the impact of the parking areas on the architectural character -of the building. Open parking spaces are separated in groupings of three (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 15 and four parking stalls with adjacent landscape planters such the parking area does not appear as a singular dominant feature of the site. Policy LU 9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The project provides for a multitude of rooflines, building offsets, massing elements and upper story setbacks that serve to maintain compatibility with surrounding single and multi -family residential development. All four units proposed along the street frontage are oriented toward the street, consistent with existing single-family development located directly east of the site, across Roosevelt Lane. Upper story setbacks incorporated into the design provide for an appropriate transition between the two-story single-family dwellings (30 ft. height limit) existing to the west and the proposed dwellings. B. Housing Element Obiective HE 1.1.5: Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified_ reuse of residential land on existing residential development. Obiective HE 5.1.3: Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes. The project incorporates several design features that serve to maintain compatibility with existing residential development surrounding the project site. In addition, the project proposes development at a density that is practical for the site and just under the maximum density allowed, thus providing adequate numbers of housing units, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Housing Element policies. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. The tentative map tract map received and dated December 16, 2004 shall be the conditionally approved layout with the following modifications: a. A 26-foot wide public street easement dedication shall be required and depicted westerly from the existing centerline along the entire Roosevelt Lane frontage terminating at the southerly end with a 46-foot radius arc dedication for public street right-of-way purposes. b. A 2-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) dedication shall be required and depicted along the westerly side of Roosevelt Lane. c. A 20-foot half roadway width westerly of the existing centerline and full parkway width (6-foot) sidewalk shall be required and depicted along the Roosevelt Lane frontage. d. A separate water meter shall serve each dwelling unit. e. The right-of-way line along the Roosevelt Lane frontage of the adjacent property to the north shall be correctly depicted. f. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association for the project. g. The project CC&Rs shall restrict use of the spa to the hours between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. h. State mandated school impact fees shall be paid to all applicable school districts. (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2004, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The height of patio fencing proposed within the front yard setback shall be 43 inches. Any request to increase the height shall be subject to approval of an entitlement plan amendment. No fencing or walls other that that depicted on the approved plans shall be permitted within the required front yard setback. b. _ The 10-foot sight visibility triangle required at the northwest comer of Unit 1 shall be delineated with six-inch curb and landscaped. c. The site plans shall be revised to depict a new six-foot tall block a long the north property line, consistent with the tentative tract map. d. The width of the drive aisle between Bldg No. 1 and Bldg No. 2 shall be increased to 26 feet. e. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach`Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. f. 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. B-2. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT — DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Request: Annual review of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, documenting building activity and land use changes between June 1, 2003 and June 1, 2004 Location: Downtown Specific Plan area (generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Acacia Avenue and Second Street) Protect Planner: Ron Santos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: - Motion to: "Accept as adequate and complete the annual review and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master Plan and forward to the City Council for their review." (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 17 AT 11:40 P.M. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY BURNETT, TO CONSIDER OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NO. B-2. Discussion ensued about continuing the item to a later date because of the late hour. A SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2005, OR NO LATER THAT APRIL 12, 2005, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Burnett, Fuhrrnan NOES: 'Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2004 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2005 AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Dwyer, Burnett, Fuhnnan MOTION APPROVED C-2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 11, 2005 RECOMMENDED ACTION: - Motion to: "Approve_ the January 11, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2005 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None. (05pan0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 18 E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS — None. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Dwyer = informed the Commission that he would be donating his monthly City stipend to the -Shipley Nature Center. Commissioner Scandura = requested that in the future, letters on code requirements sent to applicants prior to public hearings be included.in the agenda packet sent to the Commission. Commissioner Dingwall — None. Commissioner Ray — reminded the Commission of the Planner's Institute Conference that will be held in Pasadena on April 13, 2005.- - He also discussed the importance of completing the 700 — Statement of Economic Interests form and turning in the Acknowledgement of Receipt form for the Code of Ethics. He thanked Commissioners Dwyer and Burnett for donating their City stipend to charitable organizations: Commissioner Livengood — informed the Commission that he would not be present at the April 2612005 meeting." Commissioner Burnett — echoed Commissioner Dwyer's statement about donating her monthly City stipend to various charitable organizations. Commissioner Fuhrman — asked about a meeting being held by the City Attorney on how to complete the 700 - Statement of Economic Interests form. Leonie Mulvihill stated that the meeting will be held on March 23rd, and that notices will be sent to the Commission. 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 March 7, 2005. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported on the Planning Department items scheduled before the City Council on March 21, 2005. F-3.- _PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reminded the Commission that the regular meeting of March 22, 2005 has been cancelled. (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT: AT 12:10 A.M. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BURNETT, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO ADJOURN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OR NOT LATER THAN APRIL 12, 2005, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Dingwall, Livengood, Burnett NOES: Scandura, Ray, Fuhrman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED The meeting of March 22, 2005, has been cancelled. APPROVED BY: H and Zelefsky, Secretary (05Pcm0308)