Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional use permit 85-19 - Conditional exception 85-25 -
r A t of aU kinds ,nck,d� public tr9�OF f Authorized to Pubtrsh dveri twrmen s �9 notices by Decree of the Super+or Court of Orange County, Cat1101:114, Number A-8Z1e. Caled 29 September. 1941. and A•24831, doted 11 Jur+e, 1963 r 1 IMa t ` STATE OF CALIFORNIA g"ff'104 County of Orange wo.. r+cr�c. ►+r•++t •r tI4NM � r Or rw oftiml to 60 Aft r Doom ^� V C�ak�eiCr :,; ' in 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of j; ilia . =31M ,•�ti '� the Countyaforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen P.M.,-eaiww'atlNt�ttAettrvr sill O� 9 9 P.M.,�a M .� tie- . . ears, and not a art to or Interested in the below �� ' 0e ;� Y party �dw tae� �tet'tw�; �cv'�' entitled matter. t am a principal clerk of the Orange j111! Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the G NEWS-PRESS. a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, ttf1 r 11 County of Orange. State of California, and that a NotlCt:- of Public Ilear. ing �y *Q .44 won $640 w- of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy was printed and published in the Costs Mesa, 0- Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, ._*w,Wry A ti.-7ft Irvine, the South Coast communities and w t_i�enm t 00prooertNo&d i Beach issues of said newspaper for 01"too INt+wt AawtNte W prk - s tttiMt No of coneommtive xa #Am-to wit the Issue(s) of 0: f t tt 1. wif Wii June 20 19 a 5 tAc+s re Mr+rl . hi�wte�tt�l1*tet 19 El ' t�xtn�,Dew""">reMN tit#. t�wpm* r�� tree cif on.-�Sy�► :C�"1uy'e . ��','k'.. tW t�1 tow. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that file ft wogoln9 is true and correct. Executed on Jun, 20 , 1 se `.5. at Coma , CallfornhL -44 signatufs L � .J I U IDf , I Pucli�.h Jane 410, 1985 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING CCMI5SION'S DENIAL Of CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT NO 85--19 b CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 85-25 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be he14 by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council. Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntingtons Beach, at the hour of 7 :30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible an Monday the l.t day of July, 1985, for the purpose of considering an appeal by the applicant , G. P. Building Enterprises, Inc. , to the Planning Commission 's denial of Conditlonal Use Pemlt- 085-19 dnd Conditional Exception 45-25, a request tt permit e, 14 unit apartment complex with a variance to allow a 39 feet high building in lieu of the 35 feet height requirer:ent, two exterior lobby wIngvalls to encroach 2 feet , 6 inches into the required 15 feet front setback, and inclusion of four compact-size parking stalls. The subject property is located on the south side of Yorktown Avenue apptgx:mately 340 feet east if Beach Soulevard and is zoned fQ) K3, (Qualified) Multi Family Residential. A legal description and develo;.cent plan are nn flle in the Department o: Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions :or or against said appeal . Further information may ba obtained from Gtie Office of the: City Clerk, 3000 Magr Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - ( 714) 336- .�227. Dated : Ji .ne 17, 1985 CITY Or HUNTIYG?ON BEArli By: Altcia H. Wentworth Ct'y Clerk Publish NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING coNivniowAl-, u-so I_M��N� 4�;�-*rtoR --#= 10TICE I5 HEREnY GIVEN that a public hearing --nil ; be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , in the Coun,:i 1 Chamber of the Civic Center , Huntington Beach , at the hour of P.M. , nr as soon thereafter as pass i b !e on a the day of 9' tor the purpose of considering avi apple—NI4y' I I el 6, e9f A9 6�tiri" AWJ'� ( &Or' 0- ) ' J Or _t___F at, it m Vt�-, .I 46 permit a 24-unit apartment complex witi: a variance to allow a 39 feet high building in lieu of the 35 feet height requirement, two exterior lobby wingwalls to en- croach 2 feet, 6 inches into the required z ; feet front setback, and inclusion of four compact-4ize parking stall.s . The subject property is lccated o,: the south side of Yorktown Avenue approximately 340 feet east of Beach Boule- vard anal is zoned (Q) R3 , (Qualified) Multiple Family Resi- dential. A legal description and development plan are on file in the Department of Development Services . All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said ��* �' .. Further -information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 lain Street.. Huntington Beach, California . 92548 - (714) 536-5227 ; OATEO, CiYY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentmorth Ci ty Clerk hOr10E TO CLERK 'iO�SC)HEOULE PUBLIC HERi�lG STEM_ TO: CITY CLERK' S OFFICE DATE: FRAM: .. - PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF ['lr 1983F -r- AP' s a:•e attached AP' s will follow No AP' s Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) Has City Attorneys Office been YES NO informed of forthcoming public hearing? � Refer to ''7 Planning ng Department - Extension inn 4 �� �' � a�~ for additir,nal information. * If appeal , please transmit exact wording t,o be required sn the iegai . fIq Barid S . Gill *G.P. Building Enz. T-C Marilyn S. Holt 10. 451 `Norchester Ln a 7256 �dirzer Av. Suite 3 :HLr7 �1:� ton Beach a �132 Nenlock Cir , y + Huntington Beach Ca92540' Huntington Beach , ^a?2547 '�?545 g , !P 15 -+034'"20 11 ARarl53-032-43 22 APp�153-031•»C�2 Site 1 sus G . ^oufos - G p Building En; , Inc Hiroshi David Hr�nada �• .. 1141 'No: ^pester Ln 2;031 Sausalito St 725o Edinger Av; Sc��'.:e•' �iuntin3ynn Beach , C^925•�7 .ua. una Bills, Ca92553 Huntington Be , ,a925,17 aP. 153-03A-19 12 A-�, �153-0?2-3� G3 APr1 91-03 Site 2 Andrew J . Sha z• _-i;,iung 'c Chien Lin Sneng G.P. Building Ent . , In- 1 ?4�1 �NoTcheater Lr. 19a�2 aeach 91-rd 720o Edinger Av; Sui , Hunti.ngt�on Beach, Ca925d^ �• �, � - Hunti n tan 3eac .a' 2Ed , Huntington Beach, ,,a921644 g A.PP 5 3-034-1 3 11 A+� 153-051 -11 ?d aP, 1 5� 1-04 Site 3 Alvin J . 'Ne:.s'orod N.T. Newland Estate Al-fred P . Ba.Millaro , 94.21 `Norchester Ln Signal Land.�nar Pro- Tnc 19542 Beach Bi vd Iin�ton Beac:. , Ca:1251 F 179090 Sk�j Park Cir - �iultizgton Beach , Ca32543 A113,t1 5 3-0 14--17 1 .1 ?z^rine , Ca'927 1 d A-a,z153-091-"_) 25 AD7153-091-r5 a Carl I,. Fredericks Beverly A. Baier W.T. ;ie�Nlszld Estate � 9 y ,• Sim al Landmark Pro_e me Carl Karcher ..n uerprises Huntin -:on Beach, Ca:26,15 17390 S Park Blvd P.O. Box 4349Q . IMrine, Ca 92714 Anaheim, Ca92903 Awe 1 5 3..ra 32- 34 1 A� �$_32_x p ,.25 A.p, 15 3--091--C}r 7 u Z'u 57 y5y Hcavard 1. 1Neiske Raymond L . Hastey Spiegel r'ntei•ori.ses 3' Wenlock Cir g14? .Yenlock Cir 2050 S Bundy Dr Suite_'25 ::troy �inatori Beach, Ca92615 ;-iunuington Beach, Ca 2540" Los Angeles , Ca30021 =_�'.r 1 3-0 3�-'S 1 .� A+p 15 -0 32_4 2 1 AP#1 5 3-091 -17 5 Ell er: d. Burkitt °HST , Newland .Mate Yorktown Center LTD 3111 Vlenlor. 'c Cir T 21192 Beach Blvd Kun'-;.igton : ,%ach, Ca92545 FoQe h�T Campos A1. Huntington Beach, Ca92647 9,.2_ ..dg_wood In �,. 153-032- 17 H�Mtirgton Reach, Ca92545 �� 153w051-14 7 A.. J�38-82-05L 25 t1sisel '). Martin Jr George k Ellen H owe d 31 'N ? Newland Estate:urnhan Cir 3077 Yorktown Av Pro uuzi,ing�ton Beach, Ca�,2515 17390 S{-y Park�BlvdD Iac Huntington Beach, Ca,32545 n.:',�1 5 3--0 32-40 1 3 Ir�rin e ; Ca 92714 AP,' 15 3-0 51 -1 3 a LwNrence W. Neumeister 'Y T Newland Estate 'Halter W. Johnson 8192 Burnham Cir 3081 Yorktown Av� Huntington Beach, Ca92646 Sullivan Zee Jame] Huntington Beach, Ca92545 '19567 /agile Lr 1 Huntington Beach, Ca?2646v, 153-051 2 9 9 AP#9 38-82-061 25 Raymond L. Hast ey - Richard B Houghtaling rC Hugh R. Xac Donald 8142 � enlock Cir 5rd B Houghtalirg 1971Yorcheeter L n Huntington beach, Ca92545 1968 Yasi. e Cir Hizitin ton Beach C a �0 153-032- 3? 20 Huntington Beech, Ca92545 �254 5 AP.P38-82-060 26 AP#153-0 )4--21 �n Robert q. Michelson Planning 3 ..our'^� �' Consultants, Inc. ���a =•; .. 3823 Cassel 1 e Ave. ,,° P. 0. Box 2303 Orange, CA 42669 " I i i I . . r i 1 � r t ' S p i Nr " G.P. BUILDING ENTERPRISES. INC. SPECIAL ACCOUNT j'• _ %I 1^ % �J 11gq . SMOER AVE.. STE. rt 7298 EC 92�a7 . 1 t. .. HUN_TINGTON OEACN, CA PAY Of- '4 1 Berdt of Ceflfbro4s ;--5 14. its}� � 1 n t Id h _ j ♦ 1 S 1 f f 1�1 t M ty If 35 t , 4 'y i C•a 34 l I 4 Rf l.l.�'* a'�Pn;..t7 rfi -fit,$"x i v i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ali 200�0 MAR STREET CALIFORNIA926�8 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK July 3, 198a Mickelsan Planning Consultants, Inc. 3823 Cap a- lle Avenue P. 0. Box 2303 Orange, CA 92669 ti The City Council of tte City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday,. ,July 1, 1985 granted you approval to the denial of the Planning Ccmnissicn of Conditional Use Permit 085-19 arr3 Conditional Exception t85-25 based on findings and c*nditions. Please contact the Developrent Services I-part-nant for further infor- nation. Al 'cia M. Wantworth Cxty Clerk ANW:C3:)5 cc: G. P. Building Mterprises, Inc. 7266 Edinger Avenue Huntir,!gtot, leach, CA 92647 IT �: 71�6?27) . REQU FOR CITY OcOUNCOACTION Date (I _0/1_ t 9A 5 Submitted to: Honorr•ble Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City lidministrator ,77 W ' Prepared by: James W. Pal in , Director , Developr*ent Services Subject: APP. ..., TO PLANNING COMMISSION' S DFNIAL OF CONDI I'ON _L USE PERMIT NO. 85-19 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-25 Consistent.with C:. .ncil Policy? DQ Yes Now Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fundinq Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal to Planninj f Commission 's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-19 ana Conditional Exception No . 85-25, a request to ccnetruct a 24- unit apartment complex with a variance for the building height , front yard :setback, and the inclusion of compact parking spaces . 71he appeal was filed by the applicant G.P. Build;_ng Enterprises, Inc. RECOMMENDATIONS: Manning Commission a.tion on .rune .i , 1985 : ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHARVIR CONDITIONAL USJt PERMIT NO. 85-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NU. 85•--25 TO BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY TYE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood , Erskine , Mirjahangir NOES : Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ncne MOTION FAILED Off MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-25 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schurracher , Porter NOES: Livengood , Erskine , Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION ND. 85-25 : 1 1 . There are not exceptional circumstances applicable to the { property that do not apply 4o c+the:: properties in the vir":ni,try. wo 4M 2 . miditional Pxcepti•)n No . 85--25 is not necessary for :.he preservation and enjoyment of sub::tantial property rights . 3 . No extenuating circumstances that would warrant a conditional exception to develop this property exist . FINDXNGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIGNAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19 : 1 . The proposed 24-unit apartment project may have a detrimental effect upon the general health , welfare , safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and may be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed 24-unit apartment Froject is too intenne a development for the site and no,, compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood which include a city park , pet cemetery, retail uses , single family residences , and condominiums . 3. Site layout , huilding design and location of the proposed project may not be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of project intensity. 4 . Vehicular parking and circulation on-site may create traftic or circulation problems . PLANNING COMMTSSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the action of the Planning Commission . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Th4 staff recvrnmenda that the Ci cy council a Xorove Conditional Use Permit No. 85-19 and Conditional exception No. 85-25 based on the findings and conditions as shown in the Alternative Action section in Lhis report . ANALYSIS: Applicant : G. P. Building Enterprises , Inc. 7266 Edinger Huntington Beach , California Appellant : Same as applicant Location : Subject prope-ty is located on the south side of Yorktown approximately 340 feet east of Beach Blvd. Request : To construct a 24-unit apartment complex with a variance for the building height , front yard setback , and the inclusion of compact parking spaces . RCA June 21 , 1985 -2- ( 2731d ) J Di �cussior�: On June . .1 , 1985 , the Planning C o-iisni.ssion rcvie-,' ,:d Conditional Use Permit No. V5-19 , a request to conutruct a 24-unit apartment ; and j Conditional Exception No . C5-•25, a request to permit the following: i a ) Portions of the building to euceed the 35 foot height reo cement by 4 feet. (Sec. 9320. 5 ) ; b ) Tw-_ lobby wingwaj ;s to encroach 2 feet 6 inches into the required 15 :oot front yard setback ( Sec. 9320 . 6 ) ; and c ) Fc-;r compact size perking spaces at a ratio of 8% of all the parking spaces ; no compact spaces are permitted for residential projects with le, than 100 units ( 17.ec . 960 , 10 ) . A motion to approve the project failed because •,)f concerns regarding the building height and allowable d.sity . A subsequent motion for denial sue-ceeded based on certain ciiaings as indicated under Planning Commission action . Each of the 24 apartment units are 992 square feet in size with two bedroom. and two bathrooms . Narking is provided on the first floor } * � wit'-. ..he units stacked above. The structure ' s architectural elements, such as spanish textured stucco ti.alls , red tile roofing, and private balconies , are similar to existing devHlopajents in the vicinity. Staff feels the variance items are insignificant and will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding properties . The height deviation allows for a varied roofline which enhances the appearance of the building; allowing a minor wing*call encroachment into the front setback provides greater emphasis upon the building ' s main entrance. Four compact-size gues, parking spaces will permit more area to be devoted towards privat it y enclosed storage areas for tenants . The proposed pro,;ect conforms to the 'IQ" requirements of 'Lone Change No . 84--17 to raznne the subject property from R5 (Office-- Professicnal ) to (Q ) R3 ( Qualified, Medium-High Density Residential ) . The "Q" requ. moments were Imposed to assure that the proposed development would be architecturally compatible with surrounding developments . '7he project was reviewed by the Design j Review Board and revised to reflect their recommended changes . ENVIRCNMENTAL STATUS: I All environmental concerns were addressed in Negative Declaration No. 84 •37, which was approved by the City council in conjuncttcn with Zone Change No. 84-17 to permit a change of zone from R4 (Office-Professional ) to (Q) F3 (Qualified , Medium-High Density Residential The approved mitigatinri measures have been i RCA June 21 , 1985 -3- ( 2731d ) i incornorat.ed into the conditions of. approval of - his rE-port , No furth er erivir-onmental reiriew is recess ary . I II �IUNDYNG SOURCE: Not applicable ALTUNAi'IVE ACTION. Approve Condit - anal Use Permit No . 85-19 and Conditional Exce-pt" On Mo . 85-25 sE:b !,2ct Lo the following findinn:= and cnnditions : FINDIN:,S FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 65-::5 : 1 . There are exceptions) ci rcunisLanr.es applicable to trie property th7t do not apply to utter properties in the vicinity because the property is zoned k ? , at a nigher ele ation than the propertie:. to the east , can a slight decline t:owar. ds the east , and adjacent to a city park to the ea.it . C ►.• snecessary i f ,- 2. „onaitional. �.xceptiun �•o . 85- �5 i ., ..or ,..ti.. preservation and enjoyrr.ent of substantial property riuhtE and will allow architectural features; that Enhance the bullding ' s appearance . 3 . Granting approval of Conditional Exception No . 65-25 will not be materially detrimental to the public health , :-X�fety ;wnd welfare , or injurious to the conforrr.ing land , property . or Lmprovements in thF vicinity. 4 . The applicant is and able to carry out the pur;poses of Conditional Exception t,o . 85-25 and will do so without urinece-qa _'y delay. FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19 : 1 . The proposed 24-unft apartment project will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health , welfare , safety and convenience o: persons residing or working in the area nor be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood beca ase it is designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding residential ievelopments and conforms to the zoning codes. 2 . The proposed 24--unit apartmient project is compatible with surrounding rases in the neighborhood which include a city park , pet cer7etery , retail uses; , single family tesIdences, and condumini.ums, 3 . Site layout , building design and location of the proposed project will be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of adequate building satbaeks and intensified landscaping. RCA June 21a 19S5 ( 2731d ) 4 . The proposed 24 - unit upact.r,t,r:t pro3t. ct is ccnSiStEnt with the goa1 .G and policies of the ceneral Flan and can be found cor;: istent with the ?and :se designation dut to Lhe fact that the -ite is 1esz than one acre in ci ►? and therefore does not. require a Ceneral Plar. Moendment . 5 . Vehicular parking and circLtilaticn on-situ will not create traffic or ci rculation pA, c-,Iems . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site ;clan , floor plans , and' .elevations dated Yay 20 , 1985, shall. be the approvc!d layout . 2 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , details of tt!e oerinet.er Nall , intensified landscape plan and rear building elevation :iiall be submittvd for review and approval by the Di recto; cf. Development Ser .,i ces . 3. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed: in at the flocation of clothes dryers. 4 . Natural gar shal )_ be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities , water n�:aters and central heating units . 5 . Low volLme head.,7 seal : be used on all showers, . 6 . All huilding spoils , such as unusable lumber , wire , pipe, and other :surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an off--site facility equipped to handle them. i 7 . The strucr.ures on )e pub,,ect property, �►� � hE..ht:r attached or detached , shall hj� on7tructed in compliance with the stale acoustical standard:. set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of he property . The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba CNF.L. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis roport , prepared under the supervision or a person ekperienced in the fiend of acoustical c-ngineering , with the application for building permit (s , . All measures recomnrnded to nit.igate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporate) into the design of the project . S . If lighting is .included in the perking lot andIor recreation area energy efficient l.arrips pit-all be used (e. g . high presti i%re sodi.urr, vapor , metal, halide ) . All outride lighting shall be df a rc:r_ea co prevent 'al:il lage" onto adjacent properties . 9. A detailed roils analysis shall be prepared by ,a registered soils engineer .. This analysis shall. include on-site soil sampling and laboratory tenting of materials to provide detailed reycoma;endat ions regarding grading, chemical aril fill properties , founlations , retaining walls, streets and utilities. RCA Jun* 21 , 1.9e5 -5 ( 2731d ) 0 10 . if foil-- type insulation is to be used , a fire retardant type si:all be inctall--d as approved by the Building Department . 11 . A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project sh_T". 1 be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board staff for their review prior to the issuance of grading permits . 12 . A radius type drive approach, 27 feet in width , shall be provided . 13 . Street improvements (e . g . streets , sidewalks, clutters , etc . ) shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works Standards . a . No parkins; shall be permitted on Yorktown Avenue . 14 . The develol)ment shall meet all requirements of the Huntington ` Beach Fire Department and Public Works Department . 15 . An automatic sprinkler systen. installed throughout to comply with Pamphlet 13 of the National Fire Protection Association . 16 . The full "13" system will accommodate both the lower level parking and the apartments . 17 . An alarm system activated both ,rianua?ly and automa'_ically . I 16 . Fire extinguishers installed to comply with the regulations of. Pamphlet 10 of the National Fire Protection 1. ssociation . i 19 . A fire hydrant installed to be located within 150 feet of the I building Perimeter . 20. The elevator is to be designed large enough to accommodate an am: Manse gurney , minimum size 22 inches by 78 inches 'sorizontalIy . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Appeal letter dated .Tune 11 , 1985 . 2 . Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4 , 1985 3 . Staff Report dated June 4 , 1985 4 . City Council Minut,_s dated December 3, 1985 JWP: SH : kla RCA - June 21 , 1985 -6- ( 2731 d ) __I �-- •- Po 32(}pD I �' •-1: 1 I j' _ R' _.� jj\ ' �p / /4 =; �• ' ,+ �C7 I �I +•�•.II.r. �'1_:r, a/ Irl, � I�f, tic= Rr V. Rl R2 Ft7_ R2 _'IrC-- ,,ia ,, R1 Rt • RRiLit -. . ram. 1 I ttarr I-o l :l I ►�, i.l +' I .. �_- tt I_ ► t, 4 i 4: ' C 2 a; -CU-O r t LR ` t . R2-0 R?_ i RG 0► j �1 Rl ' p4 0 2 i I _ - - - - -- 0 !'0 01 ' i CD O• G 0 �-n Ofi a i`.a r•jr. i t - ..... •„ 4 = =� �I ' .J.M.o�• .�.._ r-0- --�I SPEC! 1c, o.I o I -,3.: ; ( I I , 0- (��-•� i� o y o a �1a t tLLow�1 - l1Li ! u �.-_,.11+,���._ —•)`J L►f0� C1ri•� t. •� ! � �- 'J NI Hf _� �t ' • 7, •� � ,11 ' 1. ,• i. _ 1 i I cu HUNTWGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION i ROBERT D. MICKELSON PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. June 10 , 1985 Vie Iionerabl e Citv Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street r. r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 = .. .� C Dear flonarable Council Members : ltf""l S:c ish to appeal the do Asion of the Planning Coruiiw�tr, O n c 4 o f!� i71 � - . _. 9 —q4- .too. 85--19 and Conditional Exception 85-25 which was rendered at their meeting of June 4 , 1985. The project was designed with a great deal of input and cooperative help from the Design tteview Board to implement the zoning approved :,y the City Council on December 3 , 1984 , and was recommnc?ed for approval by the staff . We believe it will be a definite i n to asset to the City , providing i needed housing of very high quality, and therefore , merits + your approval. 1 Respectfully submitted , f Robert D. Mickelson Agent �r f cc. G. P . Bui_l. E terpxises, Inc . , Gary Potter 3423 UAlSIVIELLE AVENUE, P. 0. BOX 2303 CIRANGE, CALIFORNIA 92669 (714) 633-4990 ON MOTION' BY PORTER AND EFC0111) BY E•RSKINY, COASTAI, PEVE I,OPMENT PERMIT NO. 85 - 4 WAS CONTINUED TO T:IF; .JUNE 111 , 1905 PLA144IIJG COMM i • 161F'1:171114C 1•1ITH INPUT F'R01•1 11I11.; C;71I1' ('OUNC' IL HY I'HI: !(; VOTE: 11YES: 11 , � i tic col 1 , .;c�Eiumifchor ,, Livi•11(lood , �r I;r .1; illo , Porter , MirjaIiancJi r NOES : Nono, A13SE:N' T!oncr C-7 (:ONDITIONAL 0SF PERMIT NO. 85 -19 CUNUITIONAI, Excu,rION NO. 85-25 Ap licant G . P building En It.erprises , Itic . l ( Conditional Use Permit tin . 85-I9 is a request to construct a 24 -unit apartment . Conditional Exception No . 85•-25 is a request to permit the following : a ) Partions of the building to exceed the 35 foot height requirement by 4 feet ( Sec . 9320 . 5 ) ; b ) Two lobby wingwalls to encroach 2 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot f rorit: yard setback ( Sec. 93.20_ 6 ) ; .• and c ) Four' compact size Parking spaces at a ratio of 8% of all the parking spaces ; no compact spaces are permitted for residential projects with less than 100 units ( Fee . 9645 . 10 ) . T11F PUBLIC f1FAPING WAS OPENED Robert Mir_kielson , representing the applicant , spoke in support of proposal stating that he concurred with staff ' s Einuings and conditions . There were no other persons to speak for o a ' s C p r against t the proposal and the public hearing was closed . The Commission expressed concern regarding the bui.1ding height exceeding the 35 foot height requirement to which the applicant stated he was willing to eliminate the conditional exception . Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was opposed to this bein5' zoned R3 to which Commissioner Porter agreed , ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECO14D BY MIRJAIIANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19/C0NDITIONAL EXCEPTION TO BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengeod, Erskine, Mirjahangir , NOES : Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Porter ABSENT: None ' ABSTAI N: None MOTION _FALL D D1W !'"�I 1���11 �' `�:•.:r�► i I�� ram.-.. i 2684d ) -14 - P .C. 6-4/85 ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIOtIAL USE PERMIT ! NO. 85 -19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOFII NG VOTE: AYES : Rowe , WincheII , Schumacher , Porter NOES : Li vengood , F'r. :.k i nv , M i r jahany i r ARSF.NT: tJono AFISTA I N : NO1)v . r IM111NCS FOR I)ENIAI, CONI) ITIONAI, f:Xt'F'I''1`IC1t: 110 . 85-75 : 1 . There are not vxc:ept ional ci rc:um.stances appl iczit,l#- t_o lhc- property that da nut: apply to other properties in the vicinity. 2 . Conditional Exception No . 85-25 is not necessary fur the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 3 . No extenuating circLimstarlces that could warrant a conditional exception to develor, this property exist . I • FINDINGS FOR DEtirAL COVDl'T IONAI. USE PERI-1IT NO. 85-19 : 1 . The . proposea 24 -unit apartment project may have a dc:trimental effect upon the general health , welfare , safety and convenience of rerr;ons residing or working ir, the area and „iay he detrinienta). to t_ hn of the property and improvements i in the nei ghhorhr od . 2 . Ti•ie. proposed 24-unit apartment project is to intense a , developmenL tor th# site and not c:ompat: ible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood which include a city park , pet ! cemetery , retail uses , single family residences , and condominiums , f 3 . Site layout , building design and location of the proposed r project may not be harrionious %!ith existing .adjacent developments because of project intensity . 4 . Vehicular parking and circulation on-site may create traffic or circulation problems . C--8 CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT NO. 85--11 (TRACT 11473, 118C5 ) Applicant : Eric Mossman Conditional Use Permit No . 85-11 is a requer _ mend previously approved Conditional Use Permit No , o alluw a- reduction of sideyard setbacks to an aggr i . of 20 feet with a. minimum of 8 feet on one sine, and low the optional use of Mock walls through ttie proje nd an 8 foot soundwall on Edwards- Street . The project is C ry view Estates ( Tracts 11473 and. 41805 ) on the Past , side of ards Street , south of Ellis Avenue which. was originally apt ed on April 7 , 1982 . •�- -� Dun ( 7684d) -15-- P. C. 6-4/85 huntington beech development services department STA f f - REPORT ��.�.rrrrrr.rr TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: June 4 , 1985 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-19 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 05-25 APPLICANT: G. P. Building DATE ACCEPTED: Enterprises , Inc. May 20 , 1985 7266 Edinger Huntington Beach , CA. MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: July 198 1985 REQUEST: To construct a 24-unit apartment complex with a ZONE: (Q ) R3 , Qualified variance for the building Medium High Residential height , font yard setback , and the inclusion of GENERAL PLAN: General compact parking spaces . Commercia._ and General Open Space LOCATION: Subject property is located on the scuth side EXISTING USE: Single of Yorktown approxinatel; Family Residential 340 ' east of Beach Blvd. ACREAGE: . 76 net acres 1 . 0 gross acre 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTIOV: Approve Conditional Use Permits No. 85-19 and Conditional Exception No. 85-25 based on the findings and conditions of approval outlined in Section 6 . 0 of this report . 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditional Use Permit No. 85-19 is a rsquesr. !,.e cor.atruct a 24-unit apartment . Conditional Exception No. 85-25 is a requeat to per► l t the following: a ) Portion, of the building to exceed the 35 foot height requirement by 4 feat (Sec. 9320 . 5 ) ; b ) Two lobby wingwalle to encroach 2 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot front yard setback (Sec. 9320. 6 ) 1 and A-Fw4sA a a c ) Four compact size parking spaces at a ratio of 8% of all the parking spaces ; no compact spaces are permitted for residential projects with less than 100 units (Sec. 9645 . 10 ) . 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL - fAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject_ Pro ert : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and General open Space ZONE: (Q ) R3 ( Qualified , Medium High Density Residential ) EXISTING LAND USE: Three single family horses North of Subject Pro,2erty: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General .:ommercial and Low Density Residential ZONE: C4 (Hwy. Commercial ) and R1 ( single family residential. ) EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial and residential East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Open Space ZONE: C2 ;Community Business Commercial ) EXISTING LAND USE : Park South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial 3nd General Open � Soace ZONE: C2 ( Community Business Commercial ) EXISTING LAND USE : Pet Cemetery West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2 ( Community Business Commercial ) EXISTING LAND USE: Pet Cemetery 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: All environmental concerns were addressed in Negative Declaration No . 84-37, which was approved by the City Council in conjunction with zone Change No. 84-17 to permit -i change of zone from R4 (Office-Professional ) to (Q ) R3 ( Qualified, Medium-High Density lesidential ) . The approved mitigating measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval of this report. No further environmental review is ;necessary. Staff Repoit 6/4/85 - Z- ( 2565d ) 5 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The proposed project consists of 24 apartment units housed within a three-story structure adjacent to Yorktown Avenue . Each unit is 992 square feet in size with two bedrooms and two bathrooms . Parking is provided on the first floor with stacked units above. Exterior building elevations indicate tan colored spanish textured stucco walls , red tile roofing , private projecting balconies , front building wall offsets , window insets and a greenhouse-style main entrance . The variance request is three-.fold : 1 ) to permit portions of the roof to exceed the 350 foot height requirement by 4 feet ; 2 ) to allow two y foot high wingwalls to encroach 2 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot front yard setback ; and 3 ) to permit the inclusion of four compact-size guest parking spaces . The first two items affect the aesthetics of the building and are necessary in order to achieve a varied roofline and to emphasize the main building entrance . There are 12 guest parking spaces provided in the complex , four if which are proposed compact--size as the third variance request. Smaller size stalls will allow more area to be devoted towards auxiliary enclosed storage areas which is necessary in apartment projects for surplus tenant storage. Staff feels the variance items are minor and will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding properties . 71he proposed project conforms to the 'Q* requirements of Zone Change No . 84 -17 , which was a request to rezone the subject property from R3 ( Office-Professi-inal ) to (Q ) R3 ( Qualified , Medium-High Density Residential ) . The *Q" requirements were imposed to assure that the proposed development would be architecturally compatible with surrounding developments . In addition , review by the Design Review Board was required. The proposed project reflects the changes recommended by the ©Gard . 6. 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-19 and Conditional Exception No . 85-25 based on the following findings and conditions : FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO . 85-25 : 1 . There are e;;ceptional circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity because the property is zoned R3, at a higher elevation than the properties to the east , on a slight decline towards the east , and adjacent to a city park to the east . 2. Conditional Exception No. 85-25 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights and will allow architectural features that enhance the building ' s appearance . Staff Report -� 6/4/r:S -J- ( 256yd ) 3 . Granting approval of Conditional Exception No. 85-25 will not be materially detrimental to the public: health , safety and welfare , or injurious to the ccnfor,ning land , property, or improvements in the vicinity . 4 . The applicant is willing and able t -^ carry out the purposes of Conditional Exception No . 85- 25 and will do so without unnecessary delay. FINDINGS FOR CONDITYONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85- 19 : 1 . The proposed 24 -unit apartment project will not have a detrimental effect upon the neneral health, welfare , safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area nor be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood because it is designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding residential developments and conforms to the zoning code . 2 . The proposed 24-unit apartment project is compatible with surroundina uses in the neighborhood which include a city park , pit cemetary , retail uses , sinc_ le family residences , and condominiums , 3 . Site layout , building design and location of the proposed project will be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of adequate building setbacks and intensified landscaping. 4 . The proposed 24 -unit apartment project is consistent with the � ovals and policies of the General Plan and can be found consistent with the land use designation due to the fact that the site is less than one acre in size and therefore does not require a General Flan Amendment . 5 . Vehicular parking and circulation on-sire will not create traffic or circulation problems . COND M ONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan , floor plans , and elevations dated May 20 , 1985 , shall he the approved layout . 2 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , details of the perimeter wall , intensified landscape plan and rear luilding elev.,ti.on shall be submitted foc re=riew and approval by the Director of Development Services . 3. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers . 4 . Natural gaa shall be snubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities , water heaters and central heating units . 3 , , Lew volume heads shall be used on all showers . Staff Report 6/6/85 -4- (2565d ) 6 . A17. building p d ' s oil- , such as unusable lumber , wire , pipe , and other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an offsite Eacility equipped to handle them. 7 . The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within, the 60 CNEI. contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba CNEt.. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering , with the application for building permit (s ) . All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project . I I 8 . If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation area energy efficient lamps shall be used (e . g. high pressure sodium vapor , metal halide ) . All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent 'spillage ' onto adjacent properties . 9 . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer . This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommencations regarding grading , chemical and fill properties , Foundations , retaining walls , streets and utilit '..es . 10 . If foil. -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as af�proved by the Building Department . 11 . A plan for silt cont-rol for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project shall be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board staff for their review prior to the issuance of grading permits . 12 . A radius type drive approach , 27 feet in width , shall be provided . 1 .1 . Street improvements ( e. g . streets , sidewalks , gutters , etc . ) shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works Standards . a . No packing shall be permitted on "orktown Avenue . 14 . The development shall meet all requirement. of the Huntington Beach Fire Department and Public Works Department . 15 . An automatic sprinkler system installed throughout to comply with Pamphlet 13 of the National Ear e Protection Asbociation. li 16. The Cull 113 ` systen Will accommodate both the lower level parking . :id the apartments. Staff Repot t - 6/4/85 -5- ( 2565d ) 0 0 17 . An alarm system activated both manually and automatically . I.S . Fire extinguishers installed to comply with the regulations of Pamphlet 16 of the National Fire Protection Associ 3t ion . 13 . A fire hydear.t installed to be located within 150 feet of th^ building perimeter . 20. The elevator is to be designed large enough to accommodate an ambulance gurney , minimum size 22 inches by 78 inches horizontally . ATTACHMENTS : Area reap 2 . "Q" requirements of Zone CranQe No . 84-17 3 . Necative Declaration No . 84--37 4 . Site plan , floor Flans and elevations dated May 20 , 1965 JWP : SH : kla I I Staff Report 6/1/85 -6- ( 2565d ) Ise) Page 6 - Council Minutes - 12/3/84 ' reading; by title and to approve Zone Case 84-17 for rezoning to Q-R3 with ' conditions and findings as follows : 1 1 . The proposed development shall be architectural carapatible with residential developments adjacent and easterly of this development in terms of building offsets , roof and wall materials and colors , window insets, and other similar features. 2 . Variations in building , setbacks and building height are required to enhance the: development . A minimurn building; offset of k ' shall be provided for every 38' of building frontage . ' 3 . A mix of one , two and three bedroom units is recommended within the development . 4. Balconies shall be reduced in size and/or recessed to complement the varied building setbacks , and product' a greater variety in building .�1?vatioc:s. 5. ^_ior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall file a parcel reap consolidating the three existing lots . Said map shall Fie recorded prior to final building inspection. 6. Intensified landscaping shall be provided in the setback areas to create a parklike atmosphere compatible with surrounding us.,s. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and .approved by the Department of Development Services .and the Department of Public Works . 7. Any proposed development shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board . 8 . A Use Permit application along with the Design 1iviaw board 's action shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission for the entire ;-roject prior to the issuance of building pz-rmits. Findings: � 1 . The zone change is consistent with the General Plan. 2. A change of zone on the subject property from R5, Office Professional, to R3, medium-high Density Residential is compatible with surrounding zoning designs' ions. 3 . The "Q'I designation wiil assure that future development will. be more compatible with the surrounding properties and neighbo:'loom. 4 . The subject property is of adequate size and shape for family residential develcpment . The motion carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : Kelly, NxcAlliater, Bailey, Finley, Green NOES : Nasnd ic. APSENt: '1'hams i 1 JJ t iTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .�+ INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION nlp+1WLT(1M p;CM To From ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SECTION Subject NMATI VE DECLARATION Date NO. 84-37 Applicant: Gary D . Pot- ter dba G. P . Building Enterprises , Inc. Renuest: Zone Change R5 to R-3 464-17 ) to construct a 3-story, 24 unit , apartment complex , Location: 950 ,• pJ82 and 6092 Yorktown ' Yorktown and Beach Background Based on the Staff' s initial study of this project a Draft Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and posted in the Office of the City Clerk for a 10-•day public review period ending _ plc ber, 15 ,E 19 Q 4 and x no comments , the attached comments were received. Recosmiendation The Envi ronmenta 1 Resources Section recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. finding that the proposed project w1lI not have a significant adverse iffect on the enyironment. Mi Ligation Measures h The attached mitigating measures will reduce potential environmental effects resuTting from the project and are recommended as conditions of approval . Respectfully submitted , r James R. Barnes � Associate Planner 'x�' �",�, Cc "`�''"''+` p �C..• �Gt�-,�-T--sue.. /� ,�/��''`''��..�'¢�' , JRS/dc i WYMMAM MITIGATING MfASUM 1 r 1: Natural gas -irO 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of cloti,es dry# �Z. Natural gas . . -il be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, arater heaters, and central heating units. Low volume heads sha!1 be used on all sho�. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle. then. The st.nictures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constrnx.•ted in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for LnUts that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwlli.ng units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba MM. Evidence of ocapliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the super-Asien of a person experienced in the field of-: acoustical engineering, with the aFplicat. :n for building permit(s) . All me-asures rac cm.--nded to mitigate noise to acceptable .levels:.shall be incorporated into the design of the project. rf lighting is included in the parking lot ardor recreation area eniprgf efficient larrps shall he used (e.g. ;ugh pressure sodium vapor, metal. halide) . All outside Lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 7. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This antalysis shall incline on-site soil sampling a,-e lakorator f te_Sting of materials to provide detailed reeamr-ndatiens regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, fcm�-idations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 8. If foil-type i. nsulatich is to he used, a fire retarrant t~f shah be installed as appmv-d by the Building Dzpar'Jtr'nt. 9. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to sui >it a report indicating the � ~" ground surface acceleration frw.. earth movement for the subject property. P11 structures res within this deve Tcpuren t sha l 1 be constructed in ccx;p Lianoe with the g-factors as indicates by the geologist' s report. Calcu.laticns for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the propenr':>° during construction and durirfg initial operaticn of the project shall be :;ukmitt3d rA the California Regional Water Quality Control Board staff for their review prior to the issuance of grading permi to. 11. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be rub fitted to the Srwth Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of Ceitificate of Occupancy for any use within the building 12. 13. CITY OF HUNTING IN BEACH rN. l- STUDY OF ENVIRONHEI`I'iAL IMP►.. ; i . BACKGROUND I v Suite It r '. Ave. ,. App I t c-�t n t Gary D. Potter Address 7266 Edinger_ Huntington E3eacttf CA 92647 �. T Eel ephone ( 41� 1'. I�r•o,je� t Lnca t ion 950_r.8082 8092 Yorktown, Yorktown an -ach. I'rnjvc t 1 + '1 e;i% �,r i li t i nn - - lone cfiange* to construct a_ 3-stony ` - W1�aparEm'ent (1.. I I's t 4, _October 15, 19A4 - _ cox F eX; V R NMENTAL IMPACTS: E:c l and t ions of a l l "Yes" and "Maybe" answers are requ i re; II . LN I U t p J on attached sheet) . I.- Physical Environment : Will the project have a significant impact on the physical environment with respect to: a) hydrology, b) air quality , c) geology, d ) flora anc fauna , e) noise, f) archaeological historical . Yes Maybe No X Other —_ 2. Impact of Environment on Project : 'dill the project be subject to impacts from the surrounding environment? i .e. , natural environment ; manmade environment. Yes Maybe No X 3, Impacts on Public S .rvices : 'Mill the project have a significant. impact upon , r'r- su t in a need for a new or altered government service in any of the following areas : fire , police , schools , Pd6.s or other governmental a(tencies . Yes Maybe No -X- 4 . Impacts on Traffic/Circulation: Will project result in substantial vehicular mo -Ie- -nent. or impact: surrounding circulation system, or increase traffic hazard: Yes Maybe x No �- ,. ;; ill the project result in a substantial alteration or have a negative after. or the existina: land use, population/housing, eneray/utili ties , natural resources, himon he? 1 tn? Yes _ _ Maybe � FIo X 1k. Other pot-:rlt. ial t!n%, 1r-nnment,tl irnnact.; not discusset-i above (see attached sheet) , I l I , OTHER RESPONSIBLE AGPICIES AND/OR PERSONS CONTACTED ( ) See Attached ( XX ) Not Applicable IV . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE : 1 . Will project degrade quality of environment? Yes Maybe No X 2, Wi 11 project achi eve short-tErm goal s to the d i sadvantage of long-tern, env i ronmenta ' � goals? Yes Maybe +lip X_ 3. Does the prajLt have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? Yes Maybe 1I0 X 4. Will the project adversely affect human beings either directly or indirectly' Yes Maybe _— Nc x_ V. DETERMINATION ( ) Negative Declaration ( XX) "legat:ive Oeclarat ion ili th Mitigation Environmental impact Report (SATE October 15 , 1984 SIGNATURE t .0� Page 5 Council Minutes - 1.1.f3/84 There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was cl sed by the Mayor. Disruision was held regarding grounds for revoke a Conditional Use Permit. A motion was made by Finley, seconded MacAllister to revoke Conditional Use Permit 84-•35, based on findin c, be drafted by the City attorney and approved later in the meteti , the findings to be based or, testimony that the rear door had been used- or other than an emergency exir.; excessive noise , trash and debris in tfie parking lot; and incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood motion carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : acAllister, Mandic , Bailey, Finley, Green Kelly ABSENT: Thomas Formal conditions were presented to Council later in the meeting and approved. PUB�LIC_HFARING - ZONE CASE 84-17 -- APPROVED REZONING TO Q-S_3 -• ND 84-37 APPROVED - ORDINANCE NO 2745 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider a request 'crops G. P. Building Enterprises to rezone 38, 280 square feet of property located on the south side of Yorktown Avenue approximately 340 feet east of Reach Boulevard from R3 (Office Profesaional) to R-1 (:Medium-High Density Residential) . :lic Planning Co=iss ion has viewed this request and is recommending rezoning the property to (Q) AZ (Qualified-Medium Density Residential) with conditions. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Director of Development Services presented slides of the area . The Mayor declared the hearing open. Robert Mickelaon, representing the developer, stated that there would be less intenitity of the development if the project is planned under the requested toning than there would be under the present zoning. He requested that Council approve Zone Case 84-17. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The City Clark presented Ordinance No. 2745 for Council consideration - "AN ORDI11AlQCiB OF TEM CITY OF 9WItd4`'ICK NEACH AMIEIrDM THE HUNTIlRGTOii SEACR 0NDINANCE CODE BY AMNDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CBAl9GE OF ZONING NM OTFICB nOFRSSIOXAL DISTRICT TO QUALIFIED )MDIUM-NIGH DENSITY 19STDFW7JAL 015TRICT OIL RaAL FROYF.BTT 16EXEI ALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF YORX"Z'WN AV9MJ9, EAST Of IXACH WIL IVARD (ZONE CASE no. 94-17) ." A motion wss made by Kelly, seconded by MacAllister, :o approve Negative fttleration 84-3.7 to approve introduction of Ordinance No. 2745k after Page 6 - Council Minutes - 12/3/84 reading by title and to approve Zone Case 84-17 for rezoning to Q-R3 with conditions and findings as follows: 1. The proposed development shall be architectural compatible with residential developments adjacent and easterly of this development in terms of building offsets , roof and wall materials and colors , window insets , and other similar features. 2. Variations in building , wetbacks and building height are required to enhance the development . A minimum building offset of 4' at-all be provided for every 38' of building frontage . 3. A mix of one, two and three bedroom units is recommended Within the development. 4. Balconies shall be reduced in ;ize andior recessed to complement the varied building setbacks, and produce a greater variety in building elevations . I 5. Prior to issuanc - of building permits , the applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating; the three existing lots . Said ma- shall be recorded prior to final building inspection. 6. Intensified landscaping shall be provided in the setback areas to create a parklike atmosphere compatible with surrounding uses . A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works. 7. Any proposed development shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Hoard. 8. A Use Permit application along with the Design Review Board ' s action shall be submitted to and appro••--d by the Planning Co=ission for the entire project prior to the issuance of building permits. Findings : i 1. The zone change is consistent with the General Plan. 2. .ti change of zone on the subject property from R5, Office Professional , to R3, medium-high Density Residential is compatible with surrounding zoning designations. 3. The "Q" designation will assure that future development will be more compatible with the surrounding properties and neighborhood. f 4. The subject property is of adequate size and shape for multiple family residential development. f The amoLion carried by the, following roll tall vote : L S : Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Finley, Green 5 : Handic EN'T: ?ho�wa