HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-24MINUTES
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648
5:16 P.M. - ROOM B-8 (CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL)
CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER
P P A P P P P
ROLL CALL: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnettt, Fuhnnan
AGENDA APPROVAL
A MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA OF MAY 24, 2005, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Fuhrman, Burnett
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dingwall
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION APPROVED
A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
A-1. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PROCESS)
Scott Hess, Planning Manager, presented an overview of the EPA process,and
Zoning Code provisions.
Discussion ensued concerning criteria for an EPA, the appeal process, and fees:
Chair Ray introduced two UCI students in the audience on assignment as
observers of the Planning Commission meeting.
A-2. PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS FOR'STUDY SESSION
Discussion ensued about the level of review necessary for small and mid -level
projects in advance of the public hearing.,
Chair Ray suggested that perhaps staff present a project report when an
application is deemed complete, or prior to the project's proposed study session
date.
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 2
There was discussion about the purpose of holding a study session, who should
present (staff and/or applicant), mandatory deadlines, and public notification.
Chair Ray indicated that he would provide a written outline of a proposed
process based on Commission comments for a subsequent meeting.
AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS)
Staff presented late communications regarding items on the agenda for this evening as
well as any corrections to the staff reports.
B.-• PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS -
Commissioner Scandura and Commissioner Fuhrman reported on the School District's
quarterly meeting with the City.
Commissioner Burnett announced that she is expecting her second child.
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS = Regarding Study Session portion,of Meeting — None.
6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER
7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Commissioner Livengood
P _. P- A 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 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA OF MAY 24, 2005, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Fuhrman, Burnett
NOES: None
ABSENT: - Dingwall
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION APPROVED '
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Steve Stafford, Estate Circle (Crystal Island), voiced concerns related to reproduction fees for
City documents, obtaining plans from the Planning and Building & Safety Departments, and
annoying false burglar alarms that sound off on the Huntington Beach High School campus.
John Scott, Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, voiced concerns about on-
going street repairs, and the potential damage to homes that could be caused by Poseidon
Resource's proposed desalination plant if it is approved.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 3
Eileen Murphy, Residents 4 Responsible Desalination, voiced concerns about the public
comment period for the recirculated draft Environmental Impact Report for Poseidon
Resource's proposed desalination plant closing on May 27, 2005.
B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
B-1. APPEAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.04-
09/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-31 (TOYOTA OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH :.Applicant: Studio IV Architects Appellant: Planning Commissioner
John Scandura Request: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CUP: To permit a
new Toyota vehicle sales and service facility consisting of an approximately
39,500 sq.,ft. sales, office, showroom and service building and an attached multi-
level parking structure (inventory, storage and customer parking), a service
canopy and grade level parking for display and customers. The existing Toyota
vehicle sales and service facility will be demolished. Location: 18881 Beach
Boulevard (west side of Beach Boulevard, north of Garfield Avenue) Prole
Planner: Ron Santos
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Approve Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 04-09 with suggested findings and mitigation measures;" and B)
"Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 04-31-with suggested findings and
conditions of approval."
The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Scandura
spoke with Council Members Coerper and Bohr, City staff, Commissioner
Livengood, the applicant Bob Miller and his architects, visited the site and other
Beach Blvd. dealerships, and drove by similar dealerships in Garden Grove,
Costa Mesa, Cerritos, Buena Park; Commissioner Livengood visited the site and
a similar project in Garden Grove, and attended the Design Review Board
meeting on the project; Commissioner Burnett attended a community meeting
held by Toyota; Commissioner Fuhrman met with applicant and toured the site;
Chair Ray met with the applicant Bob Miller, visited the site, spoke with Casey
Griffin and staff, and drove by similar dealerships in Garden Grove and Irvine.
Ron Santos, Associate Planner, gave a staff report that provided information on
the location, surroundings and zoning of the proposed project. He explained the
applicant's proposal to demo the existing facility and construct a new 39,500
square foot vehicle sales and service facility with multi -level and at -grade
customer parking. He discussed building heights, features and accent
treatments, landscaping, a sign/gate at the service entry, and a 2-phase
construction plan. He indicated that an environmental assessment was prepared
that concluded that the proposal does not pose any significant environmental
impacts. He informed the Commission that the City received no opposing
comments on the proposal, and that it complies with the goals and objectives of
the Urban Design Guidelines. He described the parking structure to have an
office -like appearance with windows, and explained how the design screens the
cars housed inside the building from public view. He identified communication
received from the Environmental Board dated April 8, 2005, and informed the
Commission of project -related meetings including a community meeting
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 4
sponsored by Toyota on February 9, 2005, Design Review Board on February
10, 2005, and the Zoning Administrator on April 13, 2005. He did state that one
call was received from a Toyota customer to relay a positive experience at the
dealership, and explained reasons for the project appeal filed by Commissioner
Scandura on April 24, 2005.
Commission questions/comments included:
• Zoning of surrounding uses and General Plan consistency
• Building height request of 51.5 feet when Zoning Code Section 211 has
identifies a 50 ft. height limit (Section 230.72 provides an exception of 48" to
height limits for certain architectural features — project is consistent with that)
• Explanation for line of site exhibit . -
• Discussion on parapet wall and roof top deck screening of vehicles
• Discussion on the State Transportation Division's April 21, 2005 letter
indicating that additional traffic impact analysis will be required; applicant
required to submit a traffic impact report to the State; staffs analysis
determining that the City and Caltrans thresholds are being met by the
project
• Discussion on the Design Review Board's recommendation for a red stripe
on the rear of the building -
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED:
Steve Stafford, Estate Circle, voiced concerns on car carriers making deliveries
on Beach Blvd. He suggested that loading and unloading of vehicles take place
on -site. He also voiced concerns about the inflatable statues displayed near the
street, and possible dangers of illegal extension cord use.
Franz Nalezny, Studio 4 Architects, addressed concerns about car carriers by
explaining that the site has a new design to accept car carriers on -site with
adequate turning radius on the main service driveway.
Commissioner Scandura asked if the car carriers would need to back up onto
Beach Blvd. Mr. Nalezny replied no, and added that all vehicle deliveries take
place during off-peak hours, not during mid -day, high -volume traffic.
Commissioner Fuhrman asked if the applicant would be amenable to using a
color scheme on the west -facing portion of the building for articulation purposes
to create less of a box affect for the apartment residents who face the building.
Bob Miller, Toyota Dealer, would not be opposed to considering more color.
Commissioner Burnett asked about the concerns raised on the electrical source
for the inflatable statues. Mr. Miller explained that the redesign takes care of the
electrical concerns.
Commissioner Fuhrman suggested that high profile vehicles not be parked at the
parapet wall facing east. He also asked if the on -site location for car carrier
deliveries would be used for other purposes. Mr. Miller said that the area would
also serve as public parking during normal business hours, reminding the
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 5
Commission that all vehicle deliveries will be performed between 12:00 a.m. and
4:00 a.m.
Chair Ray asked about palm trees depicted on the landscape plan along Beach
Blvd. Mr. Miller responded that the palms provide compatibility along Beach
Blvd.
Commissioner Fuhrman asked about landscaping on the southern portion of the
property near the car wash. - Mr. Nalenzy described the 10-foot wide landscaped
area with canopy trees to create a visual break between the car wash and auto
dealership.
Chair Ray asked for the outer perimeter of the canopy trees, and their height at
maturity. - Mr. Nalenzy answered that the. canopy trees are planted in a 24" box,
and will be 12 to 14 feet in height, doubling in size within 7-10 years.
WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CLOSED,
Commissioner Scandura explained that the basis for appeal dealt with land use
issues. He complimented the work done by staff, but felt that such a highly
visible project with significant land use intensification of 203,000 square feet
warranted a public hearing. He also voiced concerns related to a 50-foot high
parking garage and wall being located near an apartment complex and visible
from Garfield Avenue and Beach Blvd. • He discussed his concerns about the
proposal setting a precedent for other dealerships located on smaller lots who
eventually wish to expand. He stated that after researching the City's Design
Guidelines, he -discovered inadequacies for this type of development and
recommended exterior modifications along the south elevations. He proposed a
minute action for developing design guidelines that adequately. address issues
related to parking structures.
Commissioner Livengood was prepared to make a motion.
Chair Ray voiced concerns about the parapet wall on the front of the structure,
and the building's office -like appearance suggesting that the Commission
consider a condition of -approval stating that the parapet wall height be increased
to screen cars stored on the roof top deck. He also discussed the need for a
traffic study for potential, unidentified. impacts that may later require an
Entitlement Plan Amendment (EPA). Mr. Santos explained that although it is
possible that an EPA may be required based on the requirements of an
amended traffic study, it is unlikely. He also stated that Caltrans would conduct
the review of the amended traffic study, not the City. Mr. Santos explained that
CalTrans did not state opposition to the project, and that the applicant is working
with Caltrans and will comply with any requirements imposed.
Discussion ensued on encroachment permits.,. Chair Ray asked if the zoning
code allows for on street loading of vehicles. Mr. Santos advised that many of
the auto dealers on Beach Blvd. currently unload on the street, but explained that
unloading on Beach Blvd. will be restricted in the future when the travel way is
widened, and that the issue should not be conditioned for one dealership.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 6
Commissioner Burnett voiced support for the project, and for vehicles being in
public view on the roof top deck. She complimented the applicant on a great
project that addressed residents concerns and included great landscaping
features.
Commissioner Scandura complimented the project's facade along Beach Blvd,
but had a problem with the lack of windows on the back of the building,
suggesting they add windows to the south and west elevations. He asked if the
applicant would entertain adding windows and raising the parapet wall. Mr. Miller
was agreeable to adding windows. Mr. Nalenzy spoke against raising the
parapet wall, explaining the importance of line of site.
Commissioner Fuhrman voiced concerns about light spillage onto Beach Blvd.
as discussed in a communication received by the Environmental Board. Mr.
Nalenzy explained that all fixtures direct light downwards, and that the issue was
addressed during the study session. He also stated that light restrictions do not
exist within the guidelines, and that added lighting during the evening and early
morning hours offers security and adds safety.
Commissioner Dwyer voiced support for the project and complimented the
applicant.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO
APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.04-09 WITH
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, AND APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-31 WITH SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND
MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY REQUIRING CAR CARRIERS
TO UNLOAD VEHICLES ON SITE, AND REVISE THE SITE PLAN TO
INCLUDE TWO WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE
BUILDING.
Mr. Hess recommended that the Commission not restrict car carriers to unload
vehicles on site until a citywide requirement has been established. Chair Ray
asked legal counsel to respond. Ms. Mulvihill agreed with staff, categorizing it as
unfair because the restriction does not yet apply to other dealerships within the
City. Commissioner Livengood asked if the motion second would agree to delete
the added condition. Commissioner Scandura agreed.
Commissioner Scandura also asked about protocol in proposing a minute action
to the City Council about review of the Design Guidelines in relation to auto
dealerships. Chair Ray requested that the proposal be made after voting on the
motion.
Commissioner Fuhrman asked if the project proposal should be returned to the
Design Review Board for reconsideration of adding windows and articulations,
including use of color. Chair Ray directed Commissioner Fuhrman to condition 1
that states, "An alternative architectural treatment may be substituted, subject to
review and approval from the Department of Planning."
(05pr-m0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 7
THE MOTION WAS RESTATED BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-09 WITH SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES, AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE -PERMIT NO.
04-31 WITH SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,
AND REVISE THE SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH AND
WEST SIDES OF THE BUILDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood; Fuhrman, Burnett
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Dingwall
ABSTAIN: -
None
MOTION APPROVED
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 04-09: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-31
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-09:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 04-09 has-been prepared in compliance with
Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was
advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments
received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission
prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-31.
2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment will occur.
3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning
Commission that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the
environment.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-31:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-31 to permit a new Toyota vehicle sales and service
facility consisting of an approximately 39,500 sq. ft. sales, office, showroom and
service building and a 162,650 sq. ft. multi -level parking structure (inventory, storage
and customer parking), a service canopy and grade level parking for display and
customers 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 proposed projects potential to negatively impact the
surrounding neighborhood was analyzed in conjunction with Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 04-09, which concluded that no significant impacts will result with
incorporation of appropriate mitigation. MND No. 04-09 considered a noise analysis,
traffic generation analysis, geotechnical reports, conceptual water quality
management plan, storm water pollution prevention plan, the project design and
architecture, pedestrian and vehicular access, circulation and safety, surrounding
land uses, and the City of Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines.
2. The conditional use permit will,be compatible with surrounding uses because the
project site is currently developed with a vehicle sales and service center and the
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 8
proposed project provides for demolition of existing improvements and construction
of a new vehicle sales and service center in conformance with applicable land use
regulations and development standards. The project site is located along the City`s
principal commercial corridor, is surrounded on three sides by commercial uses and
is in close proximity to other automobile -oriented uses, including other vehicle sales
and service facilities, a car wash and a variety of businesses providing drive -through
service (bank, pharmacy, fast food). Existing two-story multi -family dwellings to the
west of the subject property are located approximately 120 feet away from the
proposed parking structure, which is setback ten feet from the west property line.
The conceptual landscape plan provides for a row of trees to be planted in the
landscaped setback area between the parking structure and the west property line,
thus providing a visual buffer between the proposed buildings and the existing
residential property. In addition, the proposed parking structure is designed with a
maximum height of 18 feet within 45 feet of the west property line. Consequently,
the proposed structure will not exceed the height of the existing apartment buildings
within a spacing of 155 feet.
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 minimum building setbacks, parking
and landscape requirements and maximum building height. No variance(s) to
applicable development standards is requested or required.
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 CG-F1 (Commercial
General — 0.35 maximum floor area ratio) on the subject property. The project site is
also located within a General Plan sub -area (6G), which specifically identifies
automobile sales as a desired use. In addition, it is consistent with the following
goals and policies of the General Plan:
LU 10.1 Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a
diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local
residences, serve the surrounding region, serve visitors to the City, and capitalize on
Huntington Beach's recreational resources.
LU 10.1.7 - - Require that parking structures located on commercial parcels
abutting residential uses (a) be designed to prevent adverse noise and air emission
impacts and (b) incorporate architectural design elements, such as fagade
articulation, offset planes, and landscape, to provide visual interest and compatibility
with the residences.
LU 10.1.12 Require that Commercial General uses be designed and
developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility
with existing uses and development including the consideration of incorporation of
site landscape, particularly along street frontages and in parking lots.
ED 2.4 Revitalize, renovate and expand the existing Huntington Beach
commercial facilities while attracting new commercial uses.
ED 2.4.1 Encourage and assist existing and potential commercial owners to
modernize and expand their commercial properties.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 9
The requested conditional use permit will provide for the continuation and expansion
of an existing_ commercial use serving both the needs of local residents (vehicle
service and sales) and the surrounding region (vehicle sales). The proposed
parking structure is fully enclosed (excepting the top level), thereby providing for the
screening of stored/parked vehicles, and features varied roof lines, setbacks and
massing offsets. The proposed parking structure also features facade glazing and
other attributes consistent with office building architecture as well as a ten foot wide,
tree -lined landscape setback along the perimeter. The proposed, project features
quality site planning, architectural design and a unique character:
MITIGATION MEASURE:
The service drive aisle proposed along the southerly property line shall be gated to
prevent public access via Beach Boulevard. Use of the drive aisle shall'be limited to
Toyota personnel authorized to access the service bay via the roll -up doors on the south
side of the service building. Signs shall be installed at the drive aisle entrance,
indicating that use of the drive aisle is restricted. The design and location of the gate
and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Departments of Fire, Planning and
Public Works prior to installation.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-31:
The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 27, 2005, shall
be the conceptually approved design with the following modification:
a. A red band, matching that proposed along the front of the building, shall be
painted along the rear of the parking structure. An altemative'architectural
treatment may be substituted, subject to review and approval of the Department
of Planning. (DRB)
b. Two additional windows shall be incorporated into the south and west exterior
building walls. The precise location of the (four) additional windows shall be
subject to review and approval by the Planning Department.
2. Recyclable scrap construction -material and demolition debris shall be recycled to the
greatest extent feasible. Prior to issuance of demolition permit(s), the applicant shall
submit a plan for identifying recyclable material, a means of recycling and a method
of documenting recycling efforts to the Department of Planning, for review and
approval by the Departments of Planning, Building & Safety and Public Works.
(Environmental Board)
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.
(05pcm0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 10
B-2. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-03 (DOO RETAINING
WALL): Applicant: Shirley Doo Appellant: Planning Commissioner Randy
Fuhrman Request: To permit the construction of a combination retaining
wall/Wood fence within the rear yard setback of a through lot. The proposed
retaining wall measures five feet in height and will be topped with a wood fence
measuring six feet in height for a maximum height of eleven feet. The
combination retaining wall/wood fence is proposed with a meandering setback
ranging from three feet to five feet eight inches measured from the rear property
line. Location: 17041 Westport Drive (south side of Westport Drive, west of
Blair Lane) Proiect Planner: Paul Da Veiga
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: -Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No.
05-03 with suggested findings and conditions of approval."
The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Dwyer visited
the site and spoke with neighbor Carole Garrett and a property rights attorney;
Commissioner Fuhrman recused himself from action on the item to avoid any
possible conflict of interest due to bias or impartiality; Commissioner Scandura
described his past participation on Planning Commission action related to
through -lot development, spoke with staff and drove by the site; Commissioner
Burnett met with Carole Garrett and visited the site; Commissioner Livengood
described his past participation on Planning Commission action related to
through -lot development, spoke with the applicant, Carole Garrett and Nora
Gibbs, and walked the property; Chair Ray described his past participation on
Planning Commission action related to through -lot development, spoke with
applicant, Carole Garrett and Norma Gibbs and visited the site.
Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, provided a staff report that outlined the
project's location and surroundings, described existing through -lots fronting
Westport and Roundhill Drives, described elements proposed in the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP), indicated that the request was approved by the Zoning
Administrator on April 20, 2005, identified the number of individuals who spoke in
support and opposition to the project, identified the reasons for appeal as land
use compatibility and a detriment to the general welfare of the persons residing
in the vicinity, addressed concerns related to the project's visual impacts,
massing, landscape setbacks and wall materials, and provided staffs
recommendation to approve the request.
Commission questions/comments included:
• Proposed and existing.wall heights and measurement criteria, including
permit approval dates
• Correction to the number of through lots identified in the staff report on
Westport Drive
• Explanation of RL Zoning (Residential Low Density)_
• Discussion on whether surrounding domes were built in accordance with the
development plans and/or standards existing at the time they were built
(Confirmed)
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 11
Does the current code include standards or guidelines pertaining to earth
movement or slippage.affecting retaining walls? (explanation of applicable
code requirements, and the retaining wall inspection process)
Discussion on, Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards and guidelines
relating to the project's location and how it traverses the Inglewood
earthquake fault line
Explanation of the 2 to 1 tree replacement condition placed on the property,
and the applicants proposal to increase the front setback area and add 3 new
trees
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED:
Norma Gibbs, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item, discussed her
past activity in providing support for through -lot development, and voiced
concerns about why the property owner has faced such difficulty in developing
her own property when the Zoning Administrator (ZA) approved her request.
Adrienne Parks, Westport Drive, spoke in support of the item, calling the wall
proposal well designed, both -aesthetically and structurally. She also discussed
Commissioner Fuhrman's participation on previous through -lot discussions and
criticized certain Roundhill Drive residents for trying to govem the property rights
of others.
Richard Batistelli, President of the HHPOA, spoke in opposition to the item, legal
misconceptions about enforcing the HHPOA CC&R's, referenced late
communication submitted by the HHPOA's attorney regarding membership and
CC&R enforcement, and stated that variance approvals of this type are
detrimental to older communities.
Chair Ray informed the public of late communication mentioned by Mr. Batistelli
as being received by Attorney Stanley Feldsott, Law Offices of Feldsott, Lee,
Iger & Lew.
Shirley Heras, Westport Drive, spoke in opposition to the item. A 40-year
resident of Huntington Beach, she discussed the different types of walls and
embankments within the Harbor, urging residents to abide by the HHPOA
CC&R's and described the request as cutting edge, but stated that it was
incompatible with the neighborhood.
Carole Garrett, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item and in favor of
the 51 property owners who face lots with similar retaining walls. She discussed
documentation related to slope enhancement and -retaining wall activity occurring
during the past 40 years, the City Council's recent decision to deny a similar
request, and that the proposal is detrimental to the tract and community. She
urged the Commission to deny the request.
Mike Palikan, Huntington Beach; spoke in support if the item. � He disagreed with
information provided by Mr. Batistelli on HHPOA membership and opinion. He
also described the ZA as qualified to approve the request, and addressed the
reasons for the appeal itself; including land use compatibility and the positive
impacts the project brings to the neighborhood through a responsible, well-
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 12
planned development for an older community, and detrimental, because it makes
homeowners take notice of their dilapidated properties.
Jackie Satterthwaite, Mariana Circle and Gilbert Island resident for 40 years,
spoke in support of the item and described the various looks of walls, decks,
trees and landscaping throughout the community, the 27 through -lots on Gilbert
Island and stated that the HHPOA does not enforce the CC&Rs, and described
the request as a way to improve safety for children and inhibit erosion.
Dave Lake, Concord Lane, spoke in support of the item. As a through -lot owner,
he expressed his disappointment with ice planted slopes that fail to rejuvenate
themselves, and others infested with weeds. He also discussed his review of the
HHPOA's CC&Rs and how he could not find any information indicating that the
applicant was in violation. He described the proposal as an attractive
improvement to the neighborhood and stated that those opposing the project will
say no to anything other than iceplant=covered slopes.
Shirley Doo, Westport Drive, spoke in support of the item and thanked the
Commission for their time. She wanted to clarify she is not violating the
HHPOA's CC&Rs as stated by Mr. Batistelli or Ms. Garrett because the HHPOA
does not represent 1200 homeowners and does not have an architectural
committee to review such a request. She explained how she was unaware that
the HHPOA would not support her plans for property improvement when she
purchased her property in June 2004, and expected to be able to build similar to
other walls within the neighborhood. She described herself as artistic, and that
her proposal will make the slope attractive. She also described the automatic
water system in place for landscaping and voiced concerns about whether or not
the request involved arguing over a wall or the view, asking if she has the ability
to request that Roundhill neighbors change their property frontage. She stated
that too much time had been spent on this request, and that everyone should
take care of his or her own property.
Carrie Thomas, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor property owner rights, and
explained her experience as a past Planning Commission Member with through -
lot development. She described the presence of both attractive and ugly walls
within the community and suggested that the applicant consider a compromise to
build the retaining wall at a height of 8 feet, voicing concerns about 11 to 12-foot
walls being too massive. She also discussed the importance of considering the
rights of all homeowners, suggesting that the Commission not take any action at
all, and allow property owners to handle their own business in court, if necessary.
WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CLOSED
Commissioner Livengood described the City Council's action on through -lot
development as "status quo", in other words, do what has been done in history.
He also agreed with a statement made by a resident who described the area as
"hodge podge", stating that no wall uniformity exists within the harbor and that
anything would work to improve the area. He stated that CC&R's are not
enforceable by the City and voiced concerns about "tilt -up" style walls. He
voiced support for the project because of the setbacks (minimum 3 feet and 5
feet), and for the applicant including a built-in water system for landscaping.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 13
Commissioner Dwyer asked about how CC&R's or. HHPOA restrictions effect
City code requirements. Leonie Mulvihill, Commission Counsel, responded that
the CC&R's are not enforceable by the City, only by their respective homeowners
and homeowner's associations.
Commissioner Scandura stated that the applicant is well within her rights to file
for a CUP that allows for development within the 15-foot setback given the City
Council's recent decision for "status quo" on through -lot development. He also
stated that the City will not enforce CC&Rs because it would greatly effect City
development standards, and that through -lots are not easements or right-of-
ways, they belong to the property owner. He described the project as a well -
designed enhancement to the area, and stated that concerns about screening
the slope have been addressed with quality material and a tree replacement
policy: He also complimented the landscaping features and voiced support for
the project.
Commissioner Burnett described the issue as difficult. She stated that she
viewed videotape of previous public hearings on through -lot development,
including comments made by several public speakers. She also discussed the
time she spent time with resident Carole Garrett and how her visit to the area
revealed walls in disrepair, overgrown with unattractive vegetation, or massive
walls with a zero lot line that she found to be appalling. She explained how
Roundhill Drive is narrow at 36 feet wide, while the average street is 50 feet
wide. She also voiced concerns about the sidewalk width on Roundhill being 24
inches. She mentioned the City Council's decision to remain "status quo" on
through -lot development, and explained how each request must be decided on
its own merits, not what is stated within the CC&R's. She complimented the
applicant for the extraordinary measures for setbacks to maintain lot line
integrity, beautiful drawings and pleasing landscaping, all for which she is in
support of.
Commissioner Dwyer informed the public that audio speakers are provided in the
Caucus Room area so that Commission Members and staff can -hear the
meeting while they temporarily leave the Council Chambers.
Chair Ray thanked Norma Gibbs and Mike Pallikan for their comments. He
commented on the properties that have pleasing rear yards with very nice walls
and landscaping. He also mentioned some properties that are ok, and some that
need great attention to bring them up to City standards. He described the
"status quo" decision by City Council and property owner's rights through the
CUP/public hearing process. He discussed two issues including what is the
impact of the improvement on the property itself, and it's effect on surrounding
properties. He described some area walls as prison -like (too tall and massive
with gray block material) that do riot enhance surrounding properties. However,
he stated that the applicant's proposal provided artistic value with quality
landscaping and tree replacement. He voiced support for the proposal and he
concurred with former Commissioner Thomas about reducing the height of the
retaining wall, wondering if the Commission would consider action to reduce the
wall height to 8 or 9 feet.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 14
Commissioner Scandura disagreed with Chair Ray's request to reduce wall
height because of the applicant's dedication to maintain 3 to 5 foot setbacks. He
also asked staff if the setbacks identified in January 2005 are what will be
approved with the request. Mr. DaVeiga confirmed and also explained that the
wall height varies certain areas with reduced sections of 9.5 feet
Chair Ray asked if the applicant needed to provide an irrigation plan. Mr. Da
Veiga responded that condition of approval no. 2, on Attachment 1.2 describes
irrigation plans that will be submitted during plan check.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO
APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
Commissioner Livengood asked about condition of approval no. 2 on Attachment
1.2 and whether or not to include an irrigation plan within the setback areas.
Scott Hess, Planning Manager, referred to the code requirement listed under
condition no. 1.a. on Attachment 6.2.
Commissioner Burnett asked if it were possible to condition the project that no
future plans for a swimming pool would be allowed without City approval. Mr. Da
Veiga explained that a request for a swimming pool would require the applicant
to submit plans through the Building Department plan check process.
Chair Ray asked if the motion maker and second would consider amending the
motion by reducing the retaining wall in each section by 1 foot?
Commissioner Scandura explained that the varying heights, along with mature
trees that will provide a wall screen in the future make the request unnecessary
so he denied the amendment request.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO
APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-03 WITH SUGGESTED
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Burnett
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dingwall
ABSTAIN: Fuhrman
MOTION APPROVED
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-
03
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 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the
establishment and maintenance of a combination retaining walltwood fence involves
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, therefore no further
environmental review is necessary.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 15
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-03:
Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 for the establishment and maintenance of a
combination retaining wall/wood fence with a maximum height of 11 feet at a
staggered setback of three feet to five feet eight inches in lieu of the maximum
height of 42 inches allowed within the rear 15-foot setback of a through lot 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
wall is proposed with quality materials including split face concrete block and a
decorative wood fence design which will be aesthetically appealing when viewed
from the street. Several of the through lots along Westport Drive have been
developed with similar walls.
2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses that consist of
properties developed with similar walls within the rear yard setback. - The adjacent
property to the west consists of a 10-foot high combination retaining/block wall at the
rear property line. The subject wall will have setbacks that vary between 3 feet to
five feet eight inches based on the staggered wall design. Landscaping is proposed
within the setback, which will soften the appearance of the wall when viewed from
Roundhill Drive.
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 (HBZSO). The HBZSO allows for a deviation to
the maximum height requirements within required setbacks with the 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 Residential Low Density on
the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies
of the General Plan:
a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate
their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood (LU
9.1.2.b).
b. Include an adequate landscape setback along the street frontage that is
integrated with abutting sidewalks and provides continuity throughout the
neighborhood. (LU 9.2.1.e)
The project will be developed with a landscape setback ranging from three feet to
five feet eight inches, which will improve the aesthetics along the frontage of the
property and soften the appearance of the proposed wall. In addition the use of
split -face block combined with a decorative wood fence will break up the massing of
the proposed wall.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.05-03:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 25, 2005 shall
be the conceptually approved design.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 16
2. Prior to issuance of block wall permits a planting and irrigation plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the departments of Planning and Public Works.
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-3, VARIANCE NO.04-08 (DUBAR RESIDENCE): Applicant: Patrick Dubar
Request: To exceed the maximum two foot cut and fill grading limitation for the
construction of a 2,064 square foot pool cabana and a 1,657 square foot
subterranean theatre/wine room with a cut in grade of approximately seven feet
six inches and a swimming pool with a cut in grade of approximately eleven feet.
Location: 6741 Shire Circle (Terminus of Shire Cir., east of Quarterhorse Lane)
Protect Planner: Paul Da Veiga
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Variance No. 04-08 with
suggested findings and conditions of approval."
Commission disclosures: Commissioner Dwyer had none; Commissioner
Scandura visited the site, spoke with staff and homeowner to the east of the
proposed project; Commissioner Livengood visited the site and spoke with the
applicant Tony Valentine and neighbors Gerald Chapman and Carrie Thomas;
Commissioner Burnett walked the property with Taylor Von Drake;
Commissioner Fuhrman spoke with staff and Gerald Chapman; Chair Ray visited
the site, received a communication from Carrie Thomas, met with Tony Valentine
and, Taylor Von Drake and spoke to Gerald Chapman.
Paul DaVeiga, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and identified changes
,to the conditions of approval (condition 1 on Attachment 1.2 — add additional
language that would identify the exact components on the site plan that are
being received or are under the purview of this variance, and identify the final
plans as those submitted on November 8, 2004.
Mr. DaVeiga provided information on the proposal including location,
surroundings and land use designation. - He provided a front view of the existing
home and discussed the open space corridor, location of the pool cabana and
issues related to topography (steep slope grade, limited developable area in
open corridor, height and amount of cutting). He also discussed the project's
compatible design features (rock formations and landscaping; semi -
subterranean cabana), and stated staffs recommendation to approve the
request was based on topography, land -related hardships and past approvals of
similar variance requests in the area.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 17
Commission questions/comments included:
• Retaining wall visibility (explanation of how the rock formations and mask the
presence of a retaining wall)
• Sprinkler system requirements (parameters are determined during the plan
check process)
• Estimated timing for completion of the equestrian trail in the open corridor
that will exit at Ellis Avenue (could not be identified until the applicant
consolidates the encyclopedia lots, subject to title and ownership issues)
• Swimming pool lots (must be consolidated prior to final inspection)
• Consequences behind the encyclopedia lots not being regulated by the
Homeowners Association (HOA), and the City's lack of involvement
• Fencing and consistency requirements related to the existing view and solid
fence types on opposite sides of the property that were approved under
separate permits
• Plans to remove a large mound of dirt on the northern portion of the property
• Explanation of the 2-foot cut -and -fill provision within the Ellis/Goldenwest
Specific Plan (written to maintain topography)
• Discussion on the open space corridor with a 100-foot wide easement and
how the location of, existing residences inhibit the opportunity to terrace a
swimming pool in the area
• Discussion on the possibility of the proposal setting a precedence for future
development and variance requests
• . Explanation on why the proposal is not affected by building provisions within
the Specific Plan that address limited use related to encyclopedia lots
• Future plans by the property owner to subdivide the property
• Explanation of provisions within the Specific Plan that allow for single-family
residences, accessory units and pools
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED:
Gordon Watson, HOA Architect and Committee Member, spoke in support of the
item. He explained that his residence has a complete view of the proposed pool
and cabana, and that he is most impacted by the construction work. As a
member of the HOA's architectural committee and HOA president for the past 3
years, he was in charge of the Dubar residence and discussed the project's
extreme topography and limited property value unless you allow the owner to cut
into the grade. He stated that there was no cause for erosion or visual impacts,
and that the request would not set a precedence of any significance, being that
only one lot remains unbuilt in the area. He explained that grading change is
reasonable and brings value to property and the HOA, and adds beauty to the
area.
Bob Thorton, Architect for the applicant, spoke in support of the item and
discussed the factors behind constructing a cabana within an existing slope. He
provided drawings and described how the project would look if the applicant
complied with the 2-foot grade differential, and why a step structure is preferred.
He explained how the request requires that a retaining wall be provided, and how
the limited amount of buildable area on site creates a unique situation. He
identified his project team and was available for questions.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 18
Carrie Thomas, Huntington Beach, voiced concerns about the project's
encyclopedia lots not being regulated by the HOA, and that no other
development exists on these lots in the quarter section. She discussed annexing
lots into the HOA but was cautious about setting a precedent by allowing the
owner to build on them. She stated that the equestrian improvements should be
made first, and that the fencing should replicate what already exists, a split -rail
(open) type for consistency purposes. She described the proposal as a beautiful
project but had concerns about cutting and filling.
Micheal Leifer, Attorney for the Applicant, spoke in support of the item. He
discussed the number of neighborhood variances granted by staff and stated
that the purpose of historic variances apply to tonight's request. He discussed
the"cut and fill restrictions within the Specific Plan that refer to a variance
requirement for planting trees 2 feet or greater in height. He cited similar
examples of variance requests, and discussed policies that support existing
variances, explaining that they are the same policies that apply to this request.
He described the project as first class, and presented to the Commission a
number of letters in support of the project by the surrounding property owners
who are most affected.
WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CLOSED
Commissioner Scandura asked if current restrictions exist for building on
encyclopedia lots. Mr. Da Veiga responded that any restrictions or limitations
were included as part of the Land Use section of the old zoning code which no
longer applies.
Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns about dirt hauling and requested that
Mr. Valentine, Project Manager, respond to the number of cubic yards of dirt
excavated to date. Mr. Valentine responded that approximately`1000 cubic yards
have been removed. Commissioner Scandura asked for the number of
truckloads of fill that will be removed. Mr. Valentine responded approximately
250 truckloads hauled out through the property "and onto Ellis Street.
Commissioner Scandura provided support for staffs recommendation, and
discussed the standard construction hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. provided on
Attachment 4.4, suggesting they be modified to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Commissioner Livengood was prepared to make a motion.
Commissioner Fuhrman asked Mr. Watson, HOA Architect, if the project has
received approval from the HOA's Architectural Committee. Mr. Watson
responded that the Committee hadn't voted yet due the encyclopedia lots and
the question -of ownership.
Commissioner Fuhrman asked Mr. Watson if the topography of the area by the
pool would be maintained or camouflaged, given that the grade is at least 20 to
23 feet from the west to the east. Mr. Watson responded that the rockwork built
into the hill makes it the most non -intrusive of fenced pools built in the area and
will enhance the open space area.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 20
Commissioner Livengood asked staff to address Commissioner Fuhrman's
concerns related to the swimming pool location. Mr. Da Veiga provided an
explanation of how the swimming pool is being cut into the grade of the hill on
the property.
Commissioner Livengood amended his motion to include the restricted hours of
construction as 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Commissioner Scandura seconded the amendment.
Commissioner Dwyer stated that a code amendment would be the appropriate
method to change hours of construction in residential districts, not including them
as part of the conditions of approval. - He also stated that restrictions of this type
could not be fairly policed.
Chair Ray commented that the Commission has imposed similar conditions on
other projects in the past.
Ms. Elliott stated that the building permits allow for construction hours of 7:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and that the hours the Commission is considering is similar to
the hours allowed for hauling.
Chair Ray suggested that the Commissioners Livengood and Scandura consider
keeping the hours of construction as recommended by staff, but restrict the
hours of dirt hauling activity:
Ms. Elliott explained that a haul route must be obtained from the- Public Works
Department.
Commissioner Livengood withdrew his motion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DIRECT
THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR A TRUCK HAUL ROUTE PERMIT WITH
HOURS OF ACTIVITY RESTRICTED TO 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M., MONDAY
THROUGH FRIDAY, WITH HAULING NOT PERMITTED ON SATURDAYS,
SUNDAYS AND FEDERAL HOLIDAYS. -
Commissioner Burnett questioned the need for a hauling permit that would
cause the applicant to pay additional costs when no complaints have been
received because they are already respectful of the neighbors. Ms. Elliott
explained that a truck -hauling permit is free and can be obtained, over the
counter in the Public Works Department. Commissioner Fuhrman asked if the
applicant would be required to obtain such a permit if the Commission did not
add such a condition. Ms -Elliott responded no, because such a permit is
typically required for trucks hauling over 5000 cubic feet of dirt. .
ACTION ON THE MOTION WAS AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Fuhrman
NOES:
Burnett
ABSENT:
Dingwall
ABSTAIN:
None
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 19
Commissioner Burnett discussed the expense of cutting and filling, and
described the applicant's request as reasonable and appropriate.
Chair Ray asked for the code requirements related to loads of dirt hauled by
trucks, voicing concerns about the dirt road leading to Ellis Avenue that may
produce fugitive dust. Mr. Da Veiga responded that the Public Works
department will review a precise grading plan submitted by the applicant. Terri
Elliott, Civil Engineer, further explained that hauling of more than 5000 cubic
yards of dirt requires a truck route, and in this case the amount of dirt is less.
She also explained measures to control fugitive dust can be included as part of
the clean up requirements, and that the California Vehicle Code allows for trucks
to haul dirt without being covered.
Mr. Da Veiga asked the applicant if they would accept changing the
recommended construction hours to those suggested by Commissioner
Scandura. Mr. Valentine responded that preferable hours would be 7:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., and also addressed dirt -hauling concerns by explaining that the site
has a meter on it for water to mitigate fugitive dust. Commissioner Livengood
suggested that Saturday construction hours be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Valentine agreed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BURNETT, TO
APPROVE VARIANCE NO.04-08 WITH SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND
MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITION 1.2, ITEM 1— SITE
PLANS, FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS PERTAINING TO THE POOL AND
CABANA STRUCTURE ONLY DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2004 TO BE THE
CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED LAYOUT; ITEM 4.4 — CHANGE HOURS OF
CONSTRUCTION TO 7:30 AM TO 5:30 PM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY,
AND 8:00 AM TO 3:00 PM ON SATURDAY.
Mr. Hess stated that staff does not support placing a restriction on construction
hours,- explaining that such action is not typical for a large, buffered lot area.
Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns that the hours of construction conflict
with daily school activity.
Commissioner Fuhrman voiced concerns about the lack of a qualified reason for
the applicant to request a swimming pool with a cut in grade of approximately
eleven feet when 'the building limitations were present within the Specific Plan at
the time the applicant purchased the property.
Commissioner Dwyer stated that although he supports the project, he opposed
the motion because of the modified hours for construction. He discussed
fairness in relation to other projects approved by the City, and,the difficulty in
enforcing construction hours_ that deviate from the standard hours identified in
the zoning code. =
Commissioner Livengood amended his motion by removing restrictions on the
hours of construction. Commissioner Scandura seconded the amendment.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 21
MOTION APPROVED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY BURNETT, TO APPROVE
VARIANCE NO.04-08 WITH SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITION 1.2, ITEM 1 — SITE PLANS,
FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS PERTAINING TO THE POOL AND
CABANA STRUCTURE ONLY DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2004 TO BE THE
CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED LAYOUT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Burnett
NOES:
Fuhnman
ABSENT:
Dingwall
ABSTAIN:
None
MOTION APPROVED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO. 04-08:
The granting of Variance No. 04-08 to exceed the two -foot cut and fill limitation for
the construction of a 2,064 square foot pool cabana, a 1,657 square foot
subterranean theater/wine room, and a swimming pool will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
under an identical zone classification. The slope gradient on the subject property is
more severe than other similar properties within the quarter section, which sets the
property apart from others with relatively flat grades. Variances for similar requests
have been granted on properties with similar constraints including slope gradient
and open space corridor. A variance to allow a six-foot cut into the existing grade for
a swimming pool was approved for the subject site under Conditional Exception No.
86-48 on August 5, 1986. The former swimming pool was located in the general
area of the newly proposed pool cabana and was issued based on the land -related
hardships regarding the existing slope gradient and location of the open space
corridor. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not be a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and under an identical
zoning classification.
2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including the
topography of the site and location of existing improvements, the strict application of
the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The
property is encumbered by a 100-foot wide open space corridor that traverses the
entire site and renders approximately 40 percent of the site undevelopable. The
existing residence and paved surfaces occupy the remaining portion of flat land.
The remainder of the site contains a substantial slope gradient that results in the
need for a variance. The special circumstances of the site including the topography
and existing improvements necessitates the variance to building a level swimming
pool and pool cabana within the remainder of the site. The strict application of the
zoning ordinance in this case, would deprive the property owner of a privilege
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 22
3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more
substantial property rights. In order to develop the remaining portion of the subject
property with a swimming pool and cabana structure, portions of the existing slopes
will necessitate a cut that exceeds the two -foot cut/fill limitation, The need for the
variance is based on.the lack of flat land on the site coupled with the topography of
the site.
4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental.to the public welfare or
injurious to property in the same zone classification. The pool and cabana structure
will be substantially integrated into the existing topography and will be located at a
lower grade level than adjacent properties. The area surrounding the pool will
include lush landscaping, several trees, and rock formations to allow for a design
that has been integrated into the topography and provides a visual buffer to
neighboring residences. The pool cabana is predominately below grade at its
closest point to adjacent residential property and the roof peak is lower than the
adjacent property line wall. Therefore, there will be no detriment to the public
welfare in the same zoning classification as a result of the development.
5. The granting of the variance will'not adversely affect the General Plan. It is
consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density on the
subject property, which prescribes the orderly development of a residential area. It
is consistent with the following policies:
a. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate
their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood.
LU9.1.2
b. Require that all new residential development within existing residential
neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the:
use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are
compatible with the surrounding development and maintenance of privacy on
abutting residences. -LU9.2.1
The location of the proposed structures maximizes the use of the natural
topography as they are integrated into the existing topography, below the fence
line of adjacent single-family homes located to the east. Design features such
as rock formations and landscaping around the perimeter of the swimming pool
act as a visual buffer and result in negligible impacts to views from adjacent
residences. Neither the swimming pool nor pool cabana will contrast with the
character of the neighborhood that has been developed to retain the natural
topography. The project does not reduce the privacy of the adjacent properties
by the proposed cut into the grade, building siting, or height of the proposed pool
cabana.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO.04-08:
1. The site plans, floor plans, and elevations pertaining to the swimming pool and
cabana structure only, received and dated November 8, 2004, shall be the
conceptually approved layout.
(05pcm0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 23
2. Prior to final inspection of the swimming pool, a recorded copy of the final parcel
map for the consolidation of Lot 4 of Tract No. 11473 plus Lots 53-58, Fairview
Addition to Huntington Beach shall be provided to the Planning Department.
3. Prior to any further grading on -site and removal of dirt, a truck haul plan shall be
approved, and a permit shall be issued by the Department of Public Works. In
addition, a grading permit from the Department of Public Works is required for all
grading activities on the subject site.
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 MARCH 8, 2005
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the March 8, 2005 Planning
Commission Minutes as submitted."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY FUHRMAN, TO APPROVE
THE MARCH 8, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS SUBMITTED,
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:'-'
AYES:
Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Fuhrman
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Dingwall, Burnett (out of room)
ABSTAIN:
None
MOTION PASSED
C-2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 12, 2005
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the April 12, 2005 Planning
Commission Minutes as submitted."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO
APPROVE THE APRIL 12, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS
MODIFIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
(05pr-m0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 24
AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dingwall
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None.
E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS - None.
E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Dwyer - voiced concern about changing construction hours as a
condition of approval; recommended minute action to the City Council to change
the code.
Commissioner Scandura - complimented Terri Elliott on her suggestion to the
Commission to incorporate a condition requiring a truck haul plan and permit.
Commissioner Dingwall - Absent.
Commissioner Ray:- extended continued good health to Commissioner
Fuhrman's mother; wished Commissioner Dingwall a speedy recovery; and
thanked the secretary for sitting -in for Robin Lugar at this meeting.
Commissioner Livengood - complimented the Planning Commissioners for the
efficient manner in which tonight's meeting was conducted.
Commissioner Burnett - stated that she attended a Design Review Board
(DRB) meeting, found the DRB to be efficient, positive and respectful, and she
encouraged the Commissioners to also attend.
Commissioner Fuhrman - thanked the Commission for their support during a
recent family members health crisis and thanked Debbie Cook for. her faith in him
when she appointed him as a Planning Commissioner.
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 May 16, 2005
F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT -MEETING -
Scott Hess, Planning Manager - reported on the Planning Department items
scheduled before the City Council on June 6, 2005.
(05p=0524)
PC Minutes
May 24, 2005
Page 25
F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reviewed items for the regularly scheduled
meeting of June 14, 2005.
G. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the next tentatively scheduled meeting of
June 14, 2005.
SH:HF:rl
(05pcm0524)