HomeMy WebLinkAboutConditional use permit 86-51 - Tentative Tract 12896 - Doug AuPwow ra PWW4a AdvWIWW MQ or MI 11W4110 MrMf:
Wsm by OKI$* ofINS 3WOWW Cowl •J Wow loon W.
COW". 06#Mba A-it 1- dated n 61*11MmeN. lost. &W
A-14431. do"ed 11 Am, 1063
STATE OF CALIFORNIA D
Cou-nly of Oran" ►,,.• ».«�. .. , �,..,r
f �Ih1
.W to one:r.�� JAN 14 199 r
I am a Citizen of the united States and a resident of CITY OF WITINGTON MACH
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
years, and not a party to or interested in the below
entitled matter I am a principal clerk of the Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the r ' -
NE,WS-PRESS, a newspaper of wNndiral circulation, At't't:�:�•..:. . . .. .. ..
printed and published in the City cf Costa Mass,
County of Orange, Stale of California, and that a —'-�•--'•~-�-~~•�--~• 1Iy
Notice of public Hearing
ci,r Y cWW
of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete
copy, was printed and published in the Coats Mesa,
Newpo►t Beach, Huntington Beach, FounU in Valley,
Irvin, the South Coast communities and Laguna
Bosch issues of said newspaper for one _c f m M
aanaeouetstats�rlss to wit the lssuefs) of
January 8 19ti 7
t
t9a
Igo--
log
I deotare, under penalty of perjury, that the
fotlpol-fig is true and correct.
Exf mitcl of t -1.&Z"I A r. 198 L—
ot Costs Mesa, California.
_.� Signature
i
< PAW O
H�v
CITY tW HUhIT'INLs'T'0N BEACH
00--mmooft
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA E2648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
January 22, 1987
Magnn Corp.
120 W. 5th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Attn: Douq Mason
The City Council of the Citv of Huntington Beach at its regular meetinq
held January 20, 1987 granted your appeal to the Planninq Commission
denial of Tentative Tract 12896and Conditional Use Permit 86-51 .
The City Council approved T1 12896 and CUP IH6-51 with modifications and
canditinns.
Please contact the Department of Development Services for further infor-
mation.
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
AMW:CB:,js
cc : Tan Bruttomeeso
Magna Corp.
2001 E. Flamingo Rd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
tf0069M 71.arri,�ri
r ..r(q"M-
REQUES-i ' FOR CITY COUNCIL4CTION
01" January 20 , 1987
&,Amftwto: Honorable Mayor and City Council
&"ttedtiy: Charlen W. Thompson , City Administrator
Pt by: James W . Palin , Director , Development Serviceswoo �
subject: APPEAI. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' S DENIAL OF T ATIVE
TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51
Corainent with Council Policy? ( J Yes r ] New Policy or Exceptia+
Surto wt of laus, RecomnwWa'tlon, Arwlysis, Funding Source, Alt iA�sdtA n6ri�ttyc:� i.
I� STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by Doug Mason
of Magna Corporation , applicant , to the Planning Commission' s action
to deny Tentative Tract 12896 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51
for a 109 unit condominium project with special permits on a '8 . 03
gross acre site located on the south side of Garfield Avenue,
approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard. At the December 16,
1986 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission considered
and denied a motion to approve the project with amended conditions
pertaining to architecture , building bulk and parking. The planning
staff is recommending approval of the request with modified
conditions .
RECOMMENDATIONS :
Planning Commission Recommendation :
Planning Commission action and recommendation on December 16, 1986 :
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO DENY TENTATIVE
TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 86--51 WITH ADDED
FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : Rowe, Schumacher , Porter, Higgins
NOES : Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
PINbINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 886-511 :
1 . The proposed 109 unit condominium project will be detrimental
to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood. or to the
value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due
to the amount of special permits required to provide the
development an proposed.
* The site is 7 .96 acres in size for purposes of calculating na
I ��
v 0
2 . The proposed 109 unit condominium project will not be
compatible with surrounding single family residences to the
east and south because of the lark of conformance with the
requirement for architectural compatibility which is required
by the ordinance code .
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL_PERMITS :
1 . The nine requests for special permits will not promote a
better living environment nor provide better land planning
techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing
architecture .
I
2 . The granting of nine special permits will be detrimental to
the general health , welfare, safety and convenience of the
neighborhood; and detrimental to the value of property and/or
improvements of the neighborhood.
3 . The special permit requests are not consistent with the
objectives of the planned residential development standards in
achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible
with the surrounding environment .
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12896 :
� . The site is net physically suitable for the proposed density
of 13 . 7 units per acre and type of development proposed. The
building bulk and three-story height from existing grade is
not conducive to the site .
Staff Recommendation :
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use
Permit No . 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896 as modified by staff
based on the following findings and conditions of approval :
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12896:
1 . The proposed subdivision of this 7 .96 acre parcel of land zoned
R2, Medium Density Residential , is proposed to be constructed
having 13 . 7 units per gross acre.
2 . The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land
use as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation
of this type of housing.
3 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land
use at the time the land use designation and the R2--PD zoning
designation were placed on the subject property.
4 . The tentative tract is consistent with the goads and policies of
the General Plan.
RCA - 1 /20/87 - (7018d )
5. The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the
proposed density and type of development . Proposed density is
13 . 7 units per acre which allows for adequate building layout ,
open space and traffic circulation.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 :
1 . The 109 unit condominium project will not have a detrimental
effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience
of persons residing in the area or detrimental to the value of
the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to
building orientation,, landscaping, open space, circulation and
parking .
2 . The 109 unit condominium project will be compatible with
surrounding uses because of building setbacks to adjacent Rl
residential uses anti building design.
3 . The 109 unit condominium project with special permits does
conform to the previsions contained in Article 915 , Planned
Residential Development Standards.
4 . The 109 unit condominium project is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the General Plan and the Medium Density
Residential designation of the General Plan Land Use Map .
FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT:
1 . The orientation of each dwelling unit onto common landscaped
areas along with private patios for each unit help to ensure
maximum privacy for the residents within a project of this
density .
2 . Through the use of landscaped planting materials , aesthetically
pleasing architecture, and special design and construction
techniques, surrounding uses will have a minimized impact on the
proposed project and, in turn, the proposed project will not be
detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and
convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general . Th-+
two-story building design with a minimum 30 foot perimeter
setback will minimize visual and noise impacts to the adjacent
R1--zoned properties .
3 . Through the use of private and common open space area and by
maximizing the use of aesthetically pleasing types of
architecture, the proposed project will provide a better living
envi ronmen;: .
4 . The lot size, depth, frontage, street width# and through the use
of a special permit , all other design and implementation
features of the proposed project are proposed to be constructed
in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file
with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act
and supplementary City subdivision ordinance.
RCA •- 1/1011 (7081d)
5 . The following special permits for deviations to the requirements
of Article 915 are necessary for an improved site layout and
design :
a . A 34 foot building separation between opposite second and
third floor rear elevations ( driveway side ) in lieu of 40
feet „
b. Six foot to 10 foot setback from dwelling unit to driveway
and parking spaces in lieu of 15 feet .
c . 27. 5% ( 30 ) of the units to have a 20 foot garage setback
from drive aisle in lieu of 50% ( 55 ) .
d . Thirty-one units (28 . 4% ) are two story units clustered
adjacent to R1-2oned properties in lieu of ene-third ( 37
units ) being two story scattered throughout the project .
e . A common open space .area of 90 , 249 square feet with 29,361
square feet distributed in areas with less than a 20 foot
dimension .
f . Solid private patio walls with a 13 foot to 1G foot front
yard setback in lieu of ?0 feet .
g . Interior yard setback from R1 zoned properties of a minimum
30 feet in lieu of 33 . 7 feet and 42 feet.
h . Six foot high wrought iron fence with landscaping pockets in
front setback .
i . Four buildings do not have a 4 foot offset between each two
units in front building facade .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAi, USE PERMIT' l70. 86-51 :
1 . The site plan and floor plans received and dated December 8,
1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications described
herein:
a . Undulate the 6 foot high wrought fence along the front
property line with laniscaped pockets.
b. Setback building #2 a minimum of 34 feet from Garfield
Avenue.
c . Setback two-story, 5-unit building types adjaacent to R1
propert i�.!s a minimum 35 feet .
d . Six foot high block wall along common property lines as
measured from highest adjacent grade . Block to be smooth
finish with minimum two coarser decorative block near top
and compatible color with condominium development .
Waterproof membrane or other waterproofing method as
determined by Soils Engineer and approved by they City of
Huntington Beach.
RCA - 1/2087 -4- (7081 d )
e. Additional landscape pockets shall be provided between
garage doors along the rear of buildings 3 through 9 .
f . Enriched concrete treatment shall be provided at the
entryway and throughout the development .
2 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit the following plans :
i . Landscape and irrigation plan to the Departmen-- of
Development Services and Public Works for review and
approval .
b. The irrigated landscaped area shall have its own service ( s)
and meter( s ) with approved backf:low devices .
c . Minimum 24 inch box trees shall, be provided along all four
perimeter setback areas of the project.
3 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of conking
facilities, water heaters , and central heating units.
4 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets .
5 . All building spoils, s►ich as unusable lumber , wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable materials shall be disposed of at an
off-site facility equipped to handle them.
6 . if lighting is included in the parking lot , high-pressure sodium
vapor lamps shall he used for energy savings . All outside
lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent
properties .
7 . Prior to approval of a grading plan , a truck route shall be
established to be reviewed and approved by the Development
Services Department and Public Works Department that addresses
number of trucks, truck route, dust control , etc.
a . Truck deliveries shall be limited to Monday through Friday
only, between 7 : 00 AM and 8 : 00 PM.
8 . CC&R ' s shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Attorney and Development Services Department in accordance with
Article 915 .
9 . Construction hours shall be as prescribed by Section 8 . 40 . 090(d)
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code except that working hours
shall be limited to 9: 00 AM to 8 :00 PM on Saturdays.
10. A maximum of 109 units and 302 bedrooms shall be allowed.
11 . The elevations dated December 8 , 1986, shall be revised
depicting a combination of wtucco and masonite walls and
thick-butt, varigared charcoal grey asphalt shingles and
approved by the planning commission.
RCA - 1/2087 -5- ( 7081d)
12 . The 50 foot deep entryway shall be straight and aligned with
Valley Circle can the north side of Garfield Avenue .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12896:
I
I . Tenative Tract 12896 dated October 7 , 1986, shall be the
"conceptually approved" layout and shall be revised to conform
with the site plan dated December 80 19860 with modifications
described herein . The revised Tentative Tract map shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to
issuance of building permits .
2 . Garfield Avenue shall be constructed with 8 foot wide sidewalks
( Tentative Tract Mrp shows narrower widths ir, cross--sections,
which is wrong ) .
3 . The on-site sewer system shall be private, but constructed to
Public Works Standards .
4 . The on-site water system shall be public, and shall be located
in vehicular travel ways only.
5 . Each unit shall have its own individual water service and meter
with approved double check backflow device.
6 . The swimming pool/recreation building shall have its own service
and meter with approved backflow device.
7 . Parking shall be prohibited on Garfield Avenue.
B . Access rights to Garfield Avenue shall be dedicated to the pity
except at approved entrance to project .
9 . Garfield Avenue shall be to re-striped accommodate
e left turns in
and out of the project .
10 . The on-site private streets shall be designed to the City ' s
priv: te street standards and the 24 foot width does not include
the gutters ( see Standard plan ) .
11 . Tf the entrance is gated, the security gate location shall be
approved by the Department of Public Works, Development Services
and Fire Department and shall have Mti approved turn-around.
12 . All missing or damaged public improvements shall be constructed
per Public Works standards.
13 . 1. pavement evaluation of Garfield Avenue. shall be conducted by b
qualified firm and the results submitted to the City. The
A:eveloper is responsible to construct the remedial improvements
required.
RCA - 1/2087 -6- (7a81d)
14 . Hydrology and hydraulics for the site shall be approved by the
Department of Public Works and Development Services . All
surface water shall drain towards Garfield Avenue .
a . Grade difference between the subject site and adjacent
Rl-zoned properties shall not exceed 19 inches.
15 . Utilities on Garfield Avenue shall be bored unless otheL - ij
approved by the City Engineer .
16 . Automatic sprinkler systems MUST be installed throughout all
buildings to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and
Uniform Building Code Standards.
17 . A fire alarm system MUST be installed to comply with Huntington
Beach Fire Department and 'Tniform Fire Code Standards . The
system MUST provide the following :
a . Water flow valve tamper and trouble detection .
b. 24 hour supervision .
C . Annunication .
d . Audible alarms .
18 . Fire extinguishers MUST he installed and located in the
Recreation Room to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code
Standards.
19 . Four ( 4 ) fire hydrants MUST be installed prior to combustible
construction . Shop drawings MUST be submitted to the Public
Works Department and apprcved by the Fire Department prior to
installation.
20 . If security gates are installed, they MUST be designed to comply
with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 403.
21 . Show additional dimensions on plans for 17 x 45 foot fire access
radius turn to comply with Puntington Beach Fire Department
Standard 401 . All streets trust be installed with all weather
surface prior to combustible construction .
22 . Names of streets MUST be approved by the Huntington: Beach Fire
Department prior to use to comply with Fire Department Standard
409.
23 . Tentative Tract 12896 will be required to detain a 6-hour
100--year storm volume or,-3i te.
ANALYSIS :
The applicant has been working diligently with the adjacent
homeowners and staff to create a balanced project which attempts to
satisfy everyone 's concerns and an economically viable project in
today ' s competitive marketplace.
RCA 1/2087 -7- (7051d ?
0
The original plan included 113 units, all three-story ( two living
levels above garage ) , grouped in four, five and six unit buildings.
Unit sizes range from 1, 422 square feet to 1, 693 square feet with two
and three bedrooms plus a family room . .Seven special permits were
requested pertaining to building setbacks, building bulk elements and
open space area .
Several changes to the original plan have been made which are
reflected in the plans dated December 8, 1986 . They include a
two-story building type abutting the R1 zoned properties and a total
of 109 units . A matrix comparing the original plan and revised plan
with the Code is presented as Attachment No. 1 .
The following issues concerning the December 81 1966 plan were
brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting:
Four-Unit Building Types Alor:q the R1-Zoned Properties :
The revised plan shows three 5-unit building types and four 4-unit
building types adjacent to the abutting R1-zoned properties . Some
neighbors expressed concern over the bulkiness of the new 5-unit
building types 30 feet from their rear property lines. A greater
setback of 35 feet would reduce the visual impact of the 5-unit
building types . Or , one unit from each 5-unit building could be
relocated to other buildings to create uniform 4-unit buildings
adjacent to P.1 properties .
Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding- Structures:
Architectural flavor of the proposed condominiums is "Cape Cod" with
blue and beige simulated wood siding and charcoal grey asphalt
shingles . Dominating surrounding architectural material is stucco
walls with a variety of roof materials and treatment . Consensus of
the homeowners is stucco walls and mission tile roofs . After further
evaluation of surrounding architectural styles, the combination of
masonite and stuccoel walls would be more comratible with surrounding
developments .
i I
Garage Setbacks :
One special permit request includes a reduced number of garages
having a minimum 20 foot setback from the driveway. Staff feels this
special permit is acceptable because the project meets the guest
parking reguirevents and the spaces are evenly distributed throughout
the development and less driveway area allows for greater
landscaping . Thirty units have the 20 foot setback creating an
additional 60 parking spaces. The Code requires that an additional
25 units ( 50 spaces ) contain the 20 foot setback .
Traffic Impacts :
A memo from the City Engineer indicates that the intensity of the
project and the proposed entrance and exit from the project onto
Garfield Avenue should easily accommodate the anticipated traffic
volumes. Garfield Avenue is a primary arterial designed to handle
high traffic volumes .
RCA - 1/2087 s8- (7081d)
0
Overall , the project is aesthetically pleasing and will provide a
quality living environment for i::s occupants. Staff recommends
approval with the conditions imposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
The proposed project Is covered under previously approved Negative
Declaration No . 80-11 .
FUNDING SOURCE :
Not applicable .
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Due to the concerns of neighbors and the Planning Commission, the
City Council may refer the Tentative Tract and Conditional Use Permit
back to the Planning Commission and direct the applicant to revise
the plans in accordance with the following:
1 . Reduce 5-unit building types adjacent to R.I.-zoned properties to
4-units and provide a varied setback from buildings to R1-zoned
properties .
2 . Elevations shall be reviseO illustrating stuccoed walls and
mission tile roof treatment .
3 . Reduce the number of special permits by providing :
a. 50% of units with 20 foot garage setback from drive aisle.
b. Setback all building, the proper setback from R1-zoned
properties .
c . A 40 foot building separation, between opposing second and
third floor rear building facades.
d . A minimum 20 foot setback to solid private patio walls along
Garfield Avenue .
e . Delete or reduce to 42 inches in height the wrought iron
fence along Garfield Avenue .
f . Four foot offsets in f-ont building facades of the 4--unit
building types .
4 . Additional landscape pockets shall be provided between garage
doors along the rear of buildings 3 through g .
5. provide detailed landscape plan.
6 . Provide detailed grading plain .
RCA 1/2087 (70$ld )
,�„21CHM�NT3 : �
1 . toning conformance matrix
2 . Appeal letter dated December 24 , 1966 .
3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated December 16, 1986
4 . Staff Report dated December 16, 1966
JW'P : SH : kla►
i
ACA - 1/2087 -10- t7081d1
Awl
I
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
The following is a matrix reflecting a comparison of the zoning code
requirements and the revised condominium project plan dated December
8, 1986.
Revised
(bated
Issue ( Section.; Required Original proposal 12 g 'B6
Density-Units 119 units max . 113 unite 109 units
..Bedrooms 302 bdrms . max . 309 bdrms . 295 bdrms .
( 9150 . 4 )
Site Coverage 501 max . 20 . 9% 32 . 61
( 9150 . 5 )
Building Height 35 ' max . 30 ' -31 ' from Same for
(9150 . 6 ) existing grade to three story
aversc�a roof pitchl bldgs.
25 ' -27 ' from berm.
New two
story
b1_dgs r 22 '
f rom
exlsZing
grade ko
average
roof pitch .
Front Setback 20 ' min. for any 0 ' setback for 0 ' setback
( 9150 . 7 ) bldg . , w411 or wrought iron fencer * for wrought
fence exceeding 20 ' to private patio iron
420 in height walls; 34 ' to bldg. fence*
Face . 13 ' -16 ' to
private
patio
walls t*
20 '-30' to
bldg. walls
Interior Yard Bldgs . 3, 6, 8 : 42 ' (All bldgm. had 300 *
setback ( 9150. 8 ) Bldgs . 4, 5, 7, 9 : 33 .7 ' a greater
setback 301 *
(10 ' m1n. i Bldgs . 10-15 : 10' than min. req. ) 11. 5 '-34 '
increases 1 ' for
every 2166 of bldg.
length exceeding
251 adjacent to
R1 )
*special Permit Reiusat
I
Rervi.e�'`
(Dated
Issue (Section ) R92uired Original Proposal 12 S 66
sie.q. separation
(9350. 10 )
(a ) Front to Front Same 35 ' 43 '
(b ) Rear to Rear 40 ' 40 ' at grade level 34 , at grade
between garages; level be-
34 ' between upper tween
floors* garages in
one areal
elsewhere
the setback
has
increased . *
(c ) Side to Front
and/or rear 20 , 27 ' + 30 ' +
( d ) Side to Side 20 ' ( two story 20 ' (grade Same
bldgs ) ; 25 ' ( three elevated min . 4 '
story bldgs . ) in between bldge. )
(h ) Dwelling unit 15 ' 5. 5' to 10 ' on a Same*
to open parking horizontal plane*
space
( i ) Dwelling unit 15 ' 6' to 13 ' on a 15 '
to driveway horizontal. plane*
( 2 situations)
( j ) Garages to 51 ; 50% must be 20' 811 18. 51 with 20 ' 5 ' &8 ' ; 2.7 . 58
travel lanes setback* ( 30 units)
with 20'
s,.:tjack*
Bldg. Bulk (a ) Max 6 units 41 5, & 6 unit Same
( 9150. 12 ) side by side bldgs.
(b ) 4 ' offset in 4-unit , 3-story bldg : 4--unitr3-
front bldg. O ' offeet ( 12 bldge ) * story bldg:
facade for every O'offset (4
2 units bldgs) *; 4 '
offsets ( 2
bldgs )
5-unity 3-story bldg: 5-unit,3-
01ofteet ( 7 bldgn)* atdryy bl
4 ,of lift
(6 bldge
*special Permit Request
i
1
xevised
(bated
Issue (section ) Required, Original Pr2nsal 12 i '04
6-t:nit , 3-story bldg : 6-unit, 1-
41offaet ( 5 bldge ) story bldg:
4 ' offsets
( 4 bldg*)
4--unit ,
2-story
bldg: 4 '
offsets ( 4
bldgs)
5-unit , 2
story bldg :
4' offsets
( 3 bldgs)
ic ) one story drop All three-story 31 units
for 1/3 units bldgs . * are two--
in each bldg. stories
( 37 units must ( 28. 4%)
be two story) abutting
R1 zoned
property=
some end
units on
3-story
bldgs . have
5' average
setback
from 2nd.
to 3rd.
floor*
Open Space (a) Min. common open
( 9150. 13) space sq . ft . :
90,400 sq. ft. 84,457 sq. ft . *
87, 200 sq. ft.
( revised ) 90,249 sq.
ft. total
(60, 888
sq. fto with
min.
dimension
of 201 )
*special Permit Request
Revised,---
(dated
issue ,Section ) R uired Original PrpMral 12 # tG
( c )-Min . patio area :
250 sq. ft . ( two
bedrooms ) l
300 sq. ft . ( three
bedrooms ) l
Total patio area :
31 , 100 sq. ft. 36 , 080 sq. ft . 35 , 635 sq.
-Min. patio ft .
dimension: 10' 140 loft .+
(g ) patios cannot
count towards
open spaces and
common open space 201 + ( 60, 880
area must have a sq. ft . ) t
min . dimension of less than
I ZOO , 20 ' ( 29, 361
sq. ft . )* t
Total as required:
118, 300 sq . ft . 120, 537 sq. ft. 125 , 884 aq.
ft .
Main Rec. Area 10, 000 sq . ft . Min. 25,130 sq. ft . 24 , 352
( 9150 . 14 ) ft .
Min . Unit Floor 900 ( two bdrm. ) 11422-1 , 535 sq. ft. Same
C ( 9150. 15) 1, 100 ( three bdrm. ) 1 , 606-1 , 693 sq. ft .
Parking 226 enclosed spaces 226 garages
( 9150. 17 ) (original )
218 enclosed spacev
( revised) 218 garages
57 guest spaces 68 (47 l-hroughout
(original ) & 21 in front of
E garages setback 201 )
55 guest spaces 115 (55
(revised ) throughout
and 60 in
front of
garages
with 201
setback )
*special Permits
t
1
C'T Y Cl
f �� .
December 24 , 1986
City of Huntington Beach
City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92684 1
Dear Council Members:
on December 16, 1986, the City of Huntington Beach Planning
Commission denied the application for Conditional Use permit
Number 86-51 in conjunction with Tentative Tract Number 12896
that had been requested by Magna Corporation. We respectfully
appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City of
Huntington Beach City Council for the reasons set forth below as
referenced to the "Findings For Denial" contained in the City of
Huntington Beach Planning Division correspondence dated December
17 , 19860 a copy of which is attached.
FIN21NGB FS?R..DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_M=RR 86-51
We believe that the evidence presented to the Planning
commission supports the conclusion that the proposed development
will contribute in a positive manner to the surrounding commwtity
and to the value of the neighborhood property. This conclusion
seems to be adequately supported by the City of Huntington Beach
Planning Division Staff and by the remarks of the residents of
the surrounding community that made; public comments at the
Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, this specific
development has been approved by the City of Huntington beach
thrice in the past.
EIN__DING fi FO DENIAL - SPECIAL FERMITS
The special permits requested resulted primarily from specific
directions to us from the Planning commissioners during our first
meeting before them. They requested that we work with Staff and
the residents of the neighborhood property to eliminate certain
objections that they had to the development. We met with the
residents on three separate occasions and with Staff on several
other occasions to discuss their concerns. As a result of the l
input we received from Staff and the residents, we wade
suestantial revisions to the original site plan which resulted in
several conditions that require special permits. Despite our
efforts in this regard, the special permits requested were used
as a finding for denial.
.i
a
owesber 24 , 1996
City Of Huntington Beach
city Co"Cil
Page Two
EIHD NGS FOR DENIAL - TEZITATIVE 'rRl = NUMAER 12896
The type of development proposed is precisely the type of
development for which the site is zoned. The density of the
proposed development is less than the requirement of the City"s
zoning code. For example, in terms of overall density, the
zoning code allows a maximum of 119 units and 302 bedrooms . The
proposed development has 109 units and 302 bedrooms. In
addition, the zoning code allows up to 509 site coverage. The
proposed development has 32 . 6% site coverage.
In further support of our appeal , we incorporate herein by
reference the tape of the December 16, 1986 Planning Commissiond
meeting, the Planning Staff Report regarding the proposed
development and the Planning Commission Minority Deport related
to this matter. We request that the City Council consider the
evidence presented in these documents when evaluating our appeal .
Sincerely,
MAGNA CORPORATION
I
DOUG MSON
Vice President
DK/1 sb
Attachments
0,
waiish OV87 , eels*
pus or PJKJC NNUM
w 0 01IRM or
mmrrlcwkL un POWT 10 06-51
NOTICE IS IBC GIVEN that tha Hmtington Beech City GM=il will hood
a public hearir�jj in the Council Charter at the Huntington Beach Civic
Canter, 2000 it Street, Huntington Peach, California, on the date and at
the time indicated below to receive: and consider the statements of all
persons who wish to be beard relativm to the application described below.
tales: Tue:sde:y, January 20, 1987
TIM: 7:00 P.M.
Appeal to Planning Co mission denial of Tentative Tract
128% and Oo xlitiorfal Use Permit tb. 86-51
1►PQ[.IC'�TP 1�E 'l�I3J��: Doug Mason, Magna Corporation
I
X=TIC'K: 8.03 acre site south o4 Garfield Avenue approximately 300
feet east of Beach Boulevard
WHET R2-PD (Medium Density Residential--Planned Development)
�: To develop a 113 unit residential condminium proj„rct with
special permits, which include deviations to building bulk
requirements
Pi•�1T1 STK7W: Covored under Negative Declaration No. 80-11.
CH FIIa: A copy of the propaeed project and legal description is an
"-- file in the Department of Development Services.
I�Lt, IMMKCVM PorA.M are invited to attend said hearing and expcoss
opinions or otwit evidence for or against the aWlication as outlined
above. AU applicaticros, exhibits, and darcriptions of this p mpoeal area
an file with the office of the City Clark, 2000 Main Street, Raitingtvn
essch, Wifocnia, for impaction by the public.
lENrINaWN WAM CIV Ca IL
By% Alicia M. MentMocth
City CLack
UWAd I Donau 300, IM
01 C64 J /0
-- lop
. AWVA( � �ti4'r OR o dL#o^'�F pV I C d:�l�C
I at
4TENTIITIVE TRACT 128"6 AN 0 D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51
�
( 113 Unit Condominium Project with Special Permit Requests ',
G. C.-
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach pl n
will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington
Beach Civic Center , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach , California ,
on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider
the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below .
DATE/TIME : _ �L r. � . 201 M7
APPLICATION NUMBER: aT tative Tract 12896 and Conditional Use
Permit No . 86-51
APPLICANT Doug Mason , Magna Corporation:
I ,
LOCATION : 8 . 03 acre site south side of Garfield Avenue
approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard .
ZONE: R2-PD ( Medium Density Residential-Planned Development )
REQUEST: To develop a 113 unit residential condominium project j
- with special permits , which include deviations to
building bulk requirements .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Covered under Negative Declaration No . 80-11 ,
.A 4046VO
ON FILE : A copy of the proposed projects,"is on File in the
Department of Development Services , 2000 Main Street ,
Huntington Beach , California 92648 , for inspection by the
public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the aPpplication
as outlined above. If there are any further questions phrase call
Scott Hess , Associate Planner at 536-5271 .
James W. Palin, Secretary
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
(6480d-9 )
�i ate'
ft.
j ! W
NOTICE TO CLIW TO SCKOME PALIC WAINGS
TO: CITY CLERKS OFFICE DATE:
FRO14: .
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
DAY OF .� _._..�....�+ 19r7
s are attached
AP' s will follow
No AP' s
Initiated by:
Planning Comission
Planning kpartment
Peti tion
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of Environmental Status (x)
Has City Attorney's Office been YES NO
inforeaed of forthcoming public
hearing?
Refer to _ �+ Planning Department - Extension
for additional information.
0 a 1 + please transmit exact wording to be requ i red in the l e"I.
IS THIS AN APPEALABLE DMLWWNT (COASTAL KYELOPMEN! PEFMIr
'.S"a 6 ,�1n { '�R,ILwll�4'�6i ',e . �,i — ..�..,..a..�e _ _ .._ •11.JIL�.ui� C�,1
i
8341 MOO" Clr � X9blZ Cbl1#Mrstse •.ante � 19041 f�
t wi Nash, Ok 936" Darc#t, CA 92646 153-02 . AI*, CA !
Mcm d, payer Phillip D. Cozad Dart M. CI M
ft 8143 Pr Adt Car 19102 Cb1c hestar Lane 6052 GIM Drive
l6�tt�ngta�ot� 8esc'he CA 92646 Huntington Basch, CA 92646 mmtinjtcn senchp CR 92647
1'S3-022-02 153-023-04 153-024-06
Ater H. Sturm Richard D. Holben one J. Kettner
8165 Prestwick Cis 19112 Colchester Lane P.O. Boot 90894
HunUn.Tfion Reach. CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 icing. Beach, CA 90809
153-022-03 153-023-05 153-024-07
Gorge L. Haines Robert G. Heck Hobert M. Drakn
8202 Prestwick Cir. 19122 Colchester Lane 19081 (b1chester Lane
Rmtistiyton Bosch, CA 92646 funtington Pesach, CA 92646 1wtingtcn Beach, CA 92646
153-022-08 153-023-OG 153-024-08
Ronald P. Chapnan 7hecdore M. Bremer Eli H. Schor
8192 Prestwick Cir 19132 Colchester Lane 19091 Colchester Larne
Huntingtat Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 fhuttingt n Beach, CA 92646
153-022-09 153-023-07 153-024-09
Matthew B, Beucler Albert L. Cooper Tee Muk Kong
309 C,alle Capita 19142 Colchester Lane 19101 001chsttr LAM
Sant " Obispo, CA 93401 IhmLington Beach, CA 92646 Itmtington Beach, CA 92646
153-022-10 153-023-08 153-024-10
I
Valerie P. Dierken Robert K. Jayne Ralph Uzbu to
8161 Deauville Drive 19152 Colchester Larne 19111 0oldhester Lwa
38 nti.ngtan Beach, CA 92646 thuitington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264E
153-022-11 153-023-09 153-024-11
Fkl &zd F. Gowen Millard L. Hosfelt James A. North
8163 Deauville Drive 8161 Darn r Drive 8159 Wkedebri6p Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntiixltcn Beach, CA 92646
153-022-12 153-023-10 1.53-024-12
James E. Heili Dennis D. Webb Siunael Peter DWxdi.at
8165 Deaubille Drive 19001 Colchester Lane 9802 Kings Canyon Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 amti.ngtan Bs+ech, Ch 92646
153--022-13 153-024-02 153-024-13
city of I nntington Beach fiarold C. Hirsch
cLty t1au 19011 Colchester Carte 881141t.%A mI rid9a Cir
nmtirgtan Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Reach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,. CR 92646
153-023-01 153-024-03 153-024-14
John PL Fbtdhm Michael L. Johrwton Larry 1.. 0urz=
21972 )Wwtte hm. 19031 Colter Lean 8131 Melw! Cir
8.l Imo, CA 92630 Huntington Head%, CA 92646 Watirrglon D CN 9246i
153-023-02 15"24--Or 153-024-15
►�,! itraTkamis C. Klapkins C3br1 IL s +ten
UZI lM-% spa Cir 8151 Dertom Drive P.O. am 33S
S, Ch MWtinutin bacho CK 92646 NwWlrqton ft&*, Cal l2W
1S3-O�M16 153-02 27 153-4�4 -19,2S,26
�70h1 L.
Cary A. Kisasch hanrld Z. Treace
sill 6141 De.xtn= Drive 18921 Carolyn St.
Montiriglon beach, CA 92646 Huntingtcn Boat h, CA 92646 Huntingtin , CA 92W
153-024-17 153-024-28 157-402-19
Albert E. Smith Pobert L.Visser Louis J. Kernkarp
8101 Wadebridge Cir 8131 Dartmoor Drive 18931 Carolyn Lane
Homing# Beach, CA 92646 Hwt:ingtan Beach, M 92646 Huntington Busch, Ch 92646
153-024-18 153-024-29 157-402-20
Ais 11 T. Skartun Richard E. Sklar Faye P. owghtry
8102 WadebrldW Cir 8121 Dartmoor Drive 8221 Garfield Ave.
HMUrogton Bewh, CA 92646 Huntington Bach, CA 92646 ltunt.irrftoct 8eaati, CA 92646
153-024-19 153-046-30 157-402-26
7tmmie E. Atwell Le`rrence Dlingberg George Sanderson StuVes
8112 Waieberidge Cir 8111 Dartmoor Drive 6201 Garfield Ave.
Huntington Peach, CA Flutnignton Beach, CA 92646 Huntirgtm Bed, CA 92646
153-024-20 153-024-31 157-402-27
Tyler Brinker liaod Inc. Evelyn J-. Meyer
8122 Wadebridge Cir 123 Peacock Drive 8191 Garfield Ave.
Mmti xjton Beach, CA 92646 San Rafael, CA 94901 Huntirr4tin Bes&, CA 92646
153-024-21 153-041-04 157-402-28
manuchahr Mrani David R. Kelly Lanny uxbrick
5542 Southall 'Per P.O. Box 1907 1005 12th St.
C
Irvine, to 92715
1xvine,- Newport Beach, CA 92663 Huntington Boarch, C h 92648
153-041-05 157-402-29
Demis H. Wataan Carl. R. Steverson Joemph Heinz
19646 Waterview Lane P,0. fox 335 9535 Norraeindy Way
ti timngtnn Boarh, CA 92648 lCantingtcn Beach, CA 92648 Cypress, CA 9%30
153-024--23 153-041-09,10,12 157-402-3n,31
John F. Randolph James R. Brimfield Lanny E. Loch do
8152 Wadebridge Cir 25322 Maxim-a 1005 12th St.
&mtirgtcn Beach, CA 92646 Missicn Viejo, CA: 92691 Huntington Hooch, Ch 92648
153-024-24 153-041-13 157-402-32,33#34
Chiles W. Walker Sylvia S andrick Atlantic Richfield Cb.
8158 wsdebaridQe Cir 228 Main St. P.O. Box 2679
Huntfrrgtit� beach, Ca 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lae
153-024�-25 153�-041-14 157-45-03 Ch �5x
4rtilia Klein Pacific Southwest realty Hirued G. lima 2
L� ���� Drive p� 90005 Las JM�ge1�g7 C'J�► 90051 �31 9auraifbo Ct~it-�
153-024-26 153-041-18 LMIPM
Hil]s. ca► i2663
1"� -412-a4
yNds MCI*
f I" soMobw ► Mr.
f. Caft 1Mi, CA 1*627
MW *du
iss�h, CR 92646
a '
MLUP tinkis
16331 9vfto Low j
de•ch# CA 92647
157-02--2041
9WindIW 1K. Ahatia ;
16220 ranchita drive
Callas, U 75246
157-452-22
18982 Valley Circle Im.
695 TOM Qmter Drive
omta Mesa;' CA 92626
157-452.23
Grarge D. Bucvala
P.O. Luc 1385
W"iort Basch, M 92660
157-452-36,37,38
Mattall lkhisono Assmiszes
2925 College Ave. , Suits A-5
Coats firm, CA 92626-
r
IN
li0 5th Street
8suta 8sa a CIA 94'701
Etta: ft" Mtwn
Move Cdrporattom
1as19'4w.NOT*" 99109
Alta e TM 4 um"O o
1
y
Y' •.
ri
CITY OF HUI%rrMYGTM
po
I P.O. BoX ISO GALIFCMNIA/gib }
h D§PA11TWW Of 08VKL0NIW14T URV1C28
December 17, 1986
Doug Mason
Magna Corporation
120 Ke4t 5th . Street
Santa Ana, California
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
A6�51
REQUEST: To develop 109, three-story condominium unite- with •-
special permits .
LOCATION: South side of Garfield Avenue approximately 300 feet
east of Beach Boulevard
DATE OF
ACTION: December 160 1986
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL :
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 :
1 . The proposed 109 unit condominium project +till be detrimental
to the general health , welfare, safety and convenience of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or to the
value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due
to the amount of special perms Ls required in �rderr to develop.
2. The proposed 109 unit condominium project will not be
compatible with surrounding mingle family residences to the
east and south because of the lack of confoemance- with the
ordinance code and the lack of architectural compatibility with
the surrounding area.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMITS:
1 . The nine requests for special permits will not promote a better
living environment not provide better land planning techniques
with maxi,"Ufi use of aesthetically pleasing architecture.
rr'
TENTATIVE TRAC:' 12096 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51
PACE TWO
2. The granting of nine special permits will be detrimental to the
genwral health , welfare, safety and convenience of the
noighbochoodi and detrimental to the value of property and/or
improvements of the neighborhood.
3 . The special permit requests are not consistent with the
objectives of the planned residential development standards in
achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible
with the surrounding environment.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12896:
1 . The site is not physically suitable ,for the proposed density of
13. 7 units per acre and type of development proposed. The
building bulk and three--story height from existing grade is not
conducive to the site .
I hereby certify that Tentative Tract 12896 and Conditional Use
Permit No . 16-51 were denied by the Planning Commission of the City
of Huntington Beach on December 16, 1986, upon the foregoing
findings .
Sincerely,
James W. Palin , Secretary
Planning Commission
by:
Florence Webb
Senior Planner
JWP :FW: kla
( 6946d-11 2 )
i
i
I�
,
t
D R_ A FaT
C* PUBLIC dRXIMGi PERMS:
Coal TVIATIYC TOCT 1219i AMR- CONN_DITIONAL USSR PRKMIT 00. UAL
APPLICANT : MAGNA CORPORATION
At the December 2, , 1986 Planning Commission melting, this item was
continued as requested by the applicant to allow time for plan
redesign. In addition, the applicant waived the mandatory
processing time.
Conditonal Use Permit No. 86-51 in conjunction with Tentative Tract
12896 is a request to develop 113, three-story condominiums on a
7. 94 gross acre cite known as the old Edison Maintenance Yard
property on the south side of Garfield approximately 300 feet east
of such Boulevard .
Revised plans depicting 109 units were received on December 8,
1986. Major changes include a reduction of four units from the
total unit count and the inclusion of two-story buildings abutting
the RI zoned properties . Guest parking spaces are evenly
distributed throughout the project. End units on buildings along
Garfield have an average 5 foot offset between second and third
flours. Also, some special permit requests have been reduced or
eliminated and new ones added.
The applicant has worked with staff and the adjacent homeowners to
create a balanced project which attempts to satisfy everyone' s
concerns and an economically viable project in today ' s condominium
marketplace.
At the planning Commission meeting of November 5, 1986, all seven
special permit requests were denied by straw vote . The applicant
was advised to revise the project to substantially conform with the
PRD .Standards.
1 . h 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the front property line
in lieu of a 20 foot setback ; no change except fence will
contain landscaped cut--cuts. This is more desirable and
provides greater security.
2 . A 34 foot building reparation between apposite second and third
l:loor rear elevations (driveway side) in lieu of 40 foots
reduced to only one area between buildings.
3. six feet to 10 feet setback from duelling unit to driveway
and/or parking spaces in lieu of 15 feett 15 feet provided
between dwelling units and driveway,
8. Provide 20 feet setback for garages from drive aisle for 18.60
( 21 ) of the units in lieu of 500 (55) 1 inar"mod to Ilefii (30
units) . a
DIRA
PC INIONtes i2llilii w .. 18987d)
ts
• . 1,uuti
1
DRA 0
1. Provide no offsets in twelve front building facades in 4 and 5
unit building types in lieu of 4 fteti only four buildings
have no offott.
6. All three stlary units in lieu of one-third ( 37 units ) being two
iteryt 31 units t 21. 4% f are two-story but clustered adIse ent
to pi zoned properties,
7 . A common open space area of 84, 400 square feet in lieu of
90p400 square teen a cowon open space area of 9O,249 squezo
feet is provided but some areas contain less than a 20 foot
dimension t87, 200 square feet is now the required open spaced.
Additional special permit requests are required with the revised
plan as follows :
81 Solid private patio walls, 5 feet in height , with 11 foot to ld
feet front yard setback in lieu of 20 feet .
9. Interior yard setback from R1 zoned properties of 30 feet in
lieu of 33. 7 feet and 42 feet .
Staff presented revised plans which depicted a reduction in the
overall unit count from 113 to 109 and the creation of a two story
building type alnng the east and south property lines adjacent to
the existing sin.jle family homes. Staff pointed o�,t the intent of
the special permits allowing deviations to the code is to provide a
more aesthetically pleasing development . The concerns of the
adjacent neighbors have been addressed therefore creating the
requests for the special permits .
Staff also , because of the concerns of the Commission regarding the
requested special permits, presented an additional site plan
prepared by staff , that if agreeahle with the developer and the
Commission, would eliminate six of the nine requested special
permita , but would reduce the unit count from 109 to 105 .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896 as modified by staff
based on they findings and conditions of approval .
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS 0PNN9D
Tom 8ruttomesso, applicant , spoke in support of the develo+"ent. lie
stated that he has spent a considerable amount of time under sevtral
constraints (vishes of the Commissionera voiced at the prevAous
neetings, concerns of adjacent neighbors, coders of the City of
Huntington Seach, and demands of a competitive market , ) and has
ame up with some major changes from their original plans. "my
have re,ducod the density, have c*duced the height of the uAlts aleeft
D_R_A_E It �
PC Nnot. Y�/li/8d �1+- t�9i711d
�r
DRAFT
the south and east property lines to two stories and removed the .
berm, and hove met back the and units to create more Movoment in the
buildings. Be feels that they are proposing a high quality
development that will be geared to the upper end of the market. He
stated that he agrees with all conditions and recommendations from
Staff except for the requirement for the retention of the storm
water from a 100 year flood for six hours, no does not reel that
this condition should be imposed because there is not an existing
storm drain system on the property to work with, the nearest storm
drain is 2,000 feet from the project.
Stan UChixono, architect for the project, reiterated the comments
made by the applicant . He feels that all of the concerns have been
met and the major impacts have been mitigated.
Chairman Livengood asked the applicant if he supported the newest
plans presented by staff reducing the unit count another d units.
The applicant stated that he has already lost 4 units from the
original plans that requested 113 units and is not in favor of
losing any more, therefore would not support the new proposed plans.
Russell Skattum, 8102 Wadebridge Circle , spoke in support of the
development as revised by staff . He stated that there is a good
working relationship between the adjacent neighbors and the
developer . He did, however , readdress his concerns of the project.
He stated that he agreed with the applicant in opposition to the
requirement for the retention of the 100 year flood water for six
hours . He is still concerned with the fire dangers presented from
this project, the intensity and density of the project, the traffic
impacts from the project, and the compatibility in the design of the
project with the adjacent neighborhood . He further stated that he
would like to see the condition requiring 4 fire hydrants on the
property increased to 5 hydrants, he would like the construction
hours changed to give the adjacent homeowners some relief from the
noise on the weekends, and would like a further meeting with the
contractor to discuss landscaping along the property lines adjacent
4 to the single family homes . He fully supports the new plans
proposed by staff that would eliminate most of the special permit
requests .
Philip Hertino, 8121 wadebridge Circle, spo!:e in support of the
development and the cooperation that the adjacent homeowners have
had with the developer. He did however express his displeasure 4%nd
concerns regarding the traffic report presented by the City
Engineer. He feels that the traffic problems created by this
project will be monumental .
Larry Curran, $131 Wadebridge Circle, stated that the .develbper has
been very responsive to the wishes of the adjacent homeowners.
Since he will have a five unit building behind his house, 30 feet
from his 'backyardo he feels that the roofline of the buildings will
be too bulky and displeasing# He also feels that the grading of the
pcopetty May cause problems with flooding in the adjacent single
family hoofs teat have bavemonts.
{
D R- -A-
I PC Iinstes - 22/16/66 ,d- (dl07d
DRA
too Hruttomesso, applicant, readdressed the concerns expressed by
the homeowners. No stated that the entire project will be fire
sprinkled eliminating some of the fire problems and that the five
unit buildings are going to be set back an additional five feet than
the four unit buildings providing some design relief . No further
stated that he cannot afford to lose another d units and therefore
cannot support the new proposed plan by staff.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
project and the public hearing was closed.
Lei Evans, City Engineer, explained to the Commission that as a
result of the overflowing of the flood channels that occurred in
1983 the City Council has been imposing the condition to detain a
6-hour 10:1-year storm volume on-site on large developments . He
feels that the condition could be eliminated on this project, because
there is no storm drain system on the site or adjacent to a flood
control channel . it would require the installation of a reservoir
on site that would be filled during a storm and then pumped out ,
which would not ba safe .
Tom Poe, Fire Department, stated that his department is requiring
that all units be fire sprinkled and the development include four
fire hydrants. He felt that this would be a sufficient number of
hydrants on the property.
Chairman Livengood felt that the Commission had given clear
direction at the previous meetings regarding the project and that
the developer was still asking for a maximum project with nine
s ecial permits and not respondong to the Commission's direction
t ey provided to substantially Comply with the PRD Standards and by
denying by straw vote the request for 7 special permits . He then
asked that each Commissioner make his or her comments regarding the
proposed development .
Commissioner Schumacher stated that she feels that this .project is
too intense and that the special permit requests are being stretched
to the limit . She feels that the deviations to the code should ',Ee
considered as conditional exceptions, which would require a str1 t-.-t
criteria . She asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney.
Attorney Sangster stated that after referring to Section 9150 . 21, a
Special Permit Request was the proper procedure to take action on
this proposal .
Commissioner Schumacher further commented that she feels that there
should not be any exceptions given when it comer to parking in
residential areas. She also feels that all of the units along the
property line of the single family hostes should be 2 stories and
4-unit buildings and that the developer should conform to code to
all instancta . She was in favor of the new plans propoeed by staff*
Com*issioner garter stated that he was not as concerned with the
requested special permits as he was with the bulk of the structures,
the hoight, and the architeetur-41 coopatibility. Ne further stated
DPC 116nates 12/16/44
DRAF l4 0
that he thought the relationship between the developer and the
adjaoeAt homeowners had been excellent and that the c o+apromia• they
had reached concerning the removal of the three story structure and
berm along the property line of the single family homes was
acceptable. he does feel that the design of the development
warranted snore of a contrast in ao area that would be better served
with something more compatible.
Commissioner pierce stated that he felt this devolopment was more
oriented toward family type living tnd that he felt the architecture
was acceptable and would be saleable in today' s market.
` Commissioner Higgins had concerns regarding the storm retention
condition. He felt it was a rather extreme expenditure to impose on
the developer in a situation that wasn ' t typical and that didn' t
warrant the condition.
Commissioner hirjahangir stated that he did not have any problems
with the proposed building material and the compatibility of the
architecture . His main concern Was a workable solution regarding
the drainage .
Scott Hess explained to the Commission the revised layout that would
eliminate 5 of the 9 special permits.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCEf SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PE>RMTT NO. 86-51, AS
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL AND REVISED
CONDITIONS SUBMITTED BY STAFF AND THE DELETION OF CONDITION NO. 23
REGARDING THE STORM WATER RETENTION.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY SCHUMACH21t,
TO ADD A CONDITION TO PROVIDE AN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE CHANGE WITH A
MORE COMPATIBLE ROOFING MATERIAL FOR VISUAL RELIEF AND TO REVISE
SITE PLANS SUGGESTED BY STAFF DEPICTING 105 UNITS WITH 4 UNIT, 2
STORY BUILDINGS ALONG THE: R1 PROPERTY LINES.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER* SECOND BY
LIVENGOOD, TO DELETE SPECIAL PERMIT NO. d REGARDING THE 20 FOOT
SETBACKS FOR GARAGES FROM DRIVE AISLdS FOR 16 . 4% ( 21 ) OF THE UNITS
IN LIEU OF 50% ( 57) .
The following votes on the amendments were taken:
IN FAVOR OF DELETING CONDITION 023 WITH FINDINGS REGARDING THE STORM
R ETRNT I Oft:
AYES: Rowe, Schum4cher , Portor , Livenjood, Higgins, Pierce,
Mirlshangir
Not$: gone
MUM-MOTN" r"Sto
0
•4
DRAFT
PC Minutes - 12/16/04
s
DRAF 1
IOt N=S CONPATIOL8 ANCUTICTVR9:
ATW Rome Schumachor, Porter
NMI Livengood o Ni"ine s Pierce, Ni r lahangi r
k' �10'ltoo FAILSD
" RAV142 SITI PLANS SUQQ28TED MY STAFF ALLOWING A MAXIMUM Or 105
901"v TMD-STORT O 4 UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY, ALONG T23 Al PROPMM 01021
AYR$: Rowe, Schumacher , Porter
NOBS: Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Pirjahangir
&xanDlI rT NOTIoN FAILED
TO RSVISE SITE PLAN DEPICTING TWO- STORY, POUR-UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY,
AL+DNQ TXE R1 PROPERTY LINE:
AYES : Rowe, Schumacher, porter, Livengood, Higgins, Mirjahawgir
NORSS Pierce
ARNNDNXPT MOTION PASSED
DELETE SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 4 REGARDING THE 20 FOOT SETBACKS FOR
GARAGES FROM DRIVE AISLES FOR 18 . 61 ( 21 ) OF THE UNITS IN LIEU OF 50%
( 57 ) :
AY28t Schumacher , Porter
NOES: Rowe, Livengood, Higgins , Pierre, Mirjahangir
-mmaxtNT1 aonoN FAILED
Commissioner pierce stated that the only amendments to his motion
that he would be in favor of would be the suggested additional
conditions from staff, the deletion of condition #23 regarding the
storm retention , and the revised site plan depicting two -story,
four-unit buildings only, along the R1 property line. j
The motion: was restated :
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HINJARANCIR, TO APPROVE
TXNTATrVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No, 86-51, AS
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, wrTH THE ADDITIONAL AND INVISSD
COMOITtOPS SUBMITTED BY STAPP't THE DBLETION or comrrow No. 33
1tVMDING ?ME STORM RETENTION An To REMISE THE SITE PLAIT DEPICTING
'1NOwN To POUR-UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY, ALONG TOR RI PlW RTY LINSt •Y
i'!It POLLMI NG VOT :
AT": Livengood, Pierce, Nirjahangir
1*981 Rowe, SchusAeher, ftrter, ltiggins
A&SWT t Moat
AMAIN s None
Min
DRAFT
F
J
Iln,
1�
RAE
Chaitcnan Livongood stated that the notion to app tove, with &Lwor
eb469e8 would provide protection and flexibility to the ad jacmmt C
residents and developer , He felt that too much valuable time had
already been spent an this project by the deeeloprr, architects,
staff, cowmissionerso and the adjacent neighbors to not take,
positive action.
A NOTION WAS TRADE 8Y PORTRR, SECOND 9Y HIGGIRSt TO Dt" TOMATIY!
I ftACT 12096 AND CONDITIONAL U58 PERMIT NO. 86-51 WITO ADDED
FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Higgins
00E9: Livengood , Pierce , Mirjahangir ;
ASSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
!� WTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-51 :
1 . The proposed 109 unit condominium project will be detrimental
to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or to the
value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due
to the amount of special permits required to provide the
development as proposed.
2. The proposed 109 unit condominium project will not be
compatible with surrounding single family residences to the
east and south because of the lack of conformance with the
requirement for architectural compatibility which is required
by the ordinance code .
f
j FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMITS :
1 . The nine requests for special permits will not promote a
better living environment nor provide better land planning
techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing
architecture .
2 . The granting of nine special permits will be detrimental to
the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, of the
neighborhood; and detrimental to the value of property and/or
improvements of the neighborhood.
3. The special permit requests are not consistent with the
objectives of the planned residential development standatds is
achieving a development adapted to the terrain: and compatible
with the surrounding environment .
FINDINGS L0lt DENIAL - TItNTATIVIC TRAgI NO. 12f96 :
1 . The •sto is not physically suitable for the propoo" densit
of 13. 7 units pet acre and type of 6*velopment pr"oMM+
building bulk and three-story height from exists" grade Is w;
not conducive to the site.
i minutes DRAF
r
M
• 0
+ ��� lapraM OW ,
ff
TO: Planning Commission
FRM 3 Development Services
OAM December 16, 1986
NDbJRCT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USX PZRXrT NO.
66-51 (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 2, 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
APPLICANT: Doug Mason DATE ACCRPTEDs
Magna Corporation CUP : October 23, 1986
120 Nest 5th , Street TT: October 2?, 1966
Santa Ana, CA
MANDATORY P&oca,mma DATE :
OWNER: Retirement Fund Trust of walvea
the Plumbing, Heating
and Piping Industry of
Southern California znmz: R2--Pn
1656 E. Hill Street
Long Beach, CA 90806 ENERAL PLAN: Medium
Density Ireildential
_ RE MU ST: To develop 113, three-
story condominium units EXISTING U$E : Vacant
with special permits
LOCATION : South side of Garfield ACREAGE : 7. 4 net acres
approximately 300 feet 7. 96 gross acres
east of Beach Boulevard
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Conditional Use permit No. 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896
�s modified by staff based on the findings and conditions of
approval outlined in this report.
2,0 GRNNRAL INFORKATroy:
At the December 2p 1986 planning Commission m*etin9p this item was
continued as requested by the applicant to allow time for plan
tedes.19n. In addition, the applicant waived the emendatory
processing time. at the v**ting, cancerr►s from neightKir* r"Otding
trraffle, fire safety# and fire resistant building eewtertiala were
rtised. Also# four-unit building typos adjactnt to the Id noned
ptopottiea instead at five-unit types was requested.
cow
Several adjacent homeowners, the applicant and staff oft on fteembe
9, 1986, to review revised plans of the proposed Condominium
F projeat. The majority of the key issues outlined in the NwaOWwr 20
I 1986 stiff report were resolved and incorporated into the revised
plan. Included -in the plan was a mixture of two -story, 4 W 5 unit
j building types setback 30 feet from the Rl zoned properties. Soo*
adjacent residents still had concerns regarding the bulkiness of the
5-unit building type and recommended conversion of three 5-unit
types into 4-unit types adjacent to their Rl-zoned properties.
1 0ISSUES AND ANALYSIS :
Revised plans depicting 109 units were received on December 8,
1986. Major changes include a reduction of four units from the
total unit Count and the inclusion of two-story buildings abutting
the Rl zoned properties . Guest parking spaces are evenly
distributed throughout the project. End units on buildings along
Garfield have an average 5 foot offset between second and third
floors . Also, some special permit requests have been reduced or
eliminated and new ones added .
The applicant has worked with staff and the adjacent homeowners to
create a balanced project which attempts to satisfy everyone 's
Concerns and an economically viable project in today' s condominium
marketplace . Attachment No. 1 is a matrix which compares the
proposed project with the code. In reviewing the revised plan, two
design concerns arise that can be easily reconfigurated resulting in
an enhanced project .
First ie the reduced building setbacks from the R1 zoned
properties . The applicant is requesting a special permit for
reduced setback from 33 feet to j0 'Zeet for the two-story four-unit
building types and from 42 feet to 30 feet for the two story,
five-unit building types as a compromise for providing two-story
buildings as requested by the homeowners . A mixture of these
building types will create some variety; however , staff recommends
{ the five-unit building types be setback 35 feet tan additional 5
feet) to Create building undulation in the greenbelt area buffering
the R1 from the condominiums and offset the straight line driveway
effect in the rear.
Secondly$ the buildings Along Garfield are much closer to the street
than depicted on the previous plan and necessitate a new special
permit request for reduced front yard setback for the private patio
walls , it is recommended that Building No. 2 be setback an
f' additional 4 feet frcm Garfield Avenue in order to provid* greater
building movement amongst the four buildings visib o from Garfield
Avenue. The patio walls provide some souiA attenuation and their
varied setbacks negates the monotony of a lineal continuous wall*
a
a
i .
d
dtet9 d"Wrt 12/14/16
At the flanging Commission Motu of X*Oewiber ,8# 198t, all seven
special permit requests were deniod by stew vote. The applicant
was advised to revise the project'' to substantially conform with ,the
PRD standards. The original special permit requests were as follows
with changes reflected in the revised plan:
1 . A 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the front property line
in lieu of a 70 foot setbacks no change escePt fence Will
contain landscaped cut-outke This is more desirable and
provides greater security.
2. A 34 foot building separation between opposite second and third
floor rear elevations (driveway side ) in lieu of 40 feett
reduced to only one area between buildings.
3. Six feet to 10 feet setback from dwelling unit to driveway
and/or parking spaces in lieu of 13 feett 18 feet provided
between dwelling units and driveway.
4 . Provide 20 feet setback for garages from drive aisle for 18. 6•
( 21 ) of the unite in lieu of 501 (95) 1 1nareased to 27.50 (30
units ) .
5. Provide no offsets in twelve front building facades in 4 and S
unit building types in lieu of 4 Peed only four buildings
have no offset .
6. all three story units in lieu of one-third ( 37 units) being two
story; 31 units ( 28. 40 ) are two-story but clustered adjacent
to R1 toned properties .
7. A common open apace area of 84, 400 square feet in lieu of
90, 400 square feet1 a common open space area of 90# 249 square
feet is provided but some areas contain less than a 20 foot
dimension ( 87, 200 square fast is now the required open space) .
Additional special permit requests are required with the revised
plan as follows:
S. Solid private patio walls, 6 feet in height, with 13 feet to 16
feet front yard setback in lieu of 20 feet,
9 . Interior yard setback from Rl zoned properties of 30 feet in
f
lieu of 33.7 feet and 42 feet.
The special permit process was designed to enable deviations to the
planned residential development standards provided that these
special permits resulted in a more aesthetically pleasing
appearance, enhanced living environment for tha residences of the
project, and/or to facilitate innovative architectural design. The
buildings have a greater than 20 foot setback from Garfield Avenue
Staff report - 12/16/86 3 (6904d)
Vb1oh 16 desirable in order to allow th+8 priv4to patip►' Valls tit
•Aoroiob up to 16 fort. The 9" volts of the bulldi"s 0
e�
44rfioid Bove an arera e 9 foot Offset betw"s the mod ' �d third
floor aid* walls. Rev sed roofing matorial- using vari"tod r ebare"I
col6gs is more oospatible with the blue and beige mall siding tb&a ?
the Original black color.
4.0 ROCONNRNMON:
staff rtcos*hda that the Planning Commission approve Conditional
Use Permit Noy 06 .51 and Tentative Ttact 12896 as ' srodiflOd by Staff
based on the following findings and condition$ of approvals
FINDINGS CONDITIML Uss PERMIT NO, 86-51 Ago inNiATIVt MMICT
1 . The proposed subdivision of this 7. 96 acre parcel of land coned
92, Medium Density Residential# is proposed to be constructed
having 13. 7 units per gross acre.
1. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land
use as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation
of this type of housing.
3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land
use at the time the land use designation and the 22-lPD zoning
designation were placed on the subject property.
4. The conditional use permit and tentative tract are consistent
i with the goals and policies a! the Oenerul Plan.
f 5. The site is relatively flat amd physically suitable for the
proposed density and type of development. Proposed density is
13.7 units per acre which allows for adequate building- layout,
open space and traffic circulation.
FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT:
1 . The orientation of each dwelling unit onto common landscaped
areas and each unit provided with a private patio will help to
endure maximum privacy for the residents within a project of
this density.
2. Through the use of landscaped planting materials#, asethetically
pleasing architecture, and, special design and construction
techniques, surroundingg uses will have a minin' laed impact on the
proposed project and, in turn, the proposed project will not be
detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and
convenience of the neighborhood or the City in goneral . - The
two-story building .design with a minimum 30 foot 'perlmetor
setback will uinimite visual and noire impacts to' the adjacent
Rl-zoned properties!.
I
staff Report - 12/16/86 (6904d)
« Throa h , the of* e! plriwete 4"d tear oA open sp,�ce� areas and by
mMsii viol - the use of proposed atsibe►tically pleasing typ�a of
ahlt
a9ecture, the P Ve �to�ro ert w111 provides better living
eMM�rdAdeAt� .
40 The lot size, depth, frontgge, street width# and;`through the woo,
of la , special perait, all other design and implementation
features of the proposed project are proposed to be constructed
in compliance with standard plans and specilioationm- on file
with tho City as well as in compliance with the State Nap Mcu
and supplementary City subdivision ofdia4"0e0
S. The following special permits for deviations to the requirements
of Article 915 are necessary for an improved site layout and
design:
a. A 34 foot building separation between opposite second and
third floor rear elevations (driveway aide) in lieu of 40
feet.
i
b . Six foot to 10 foot setback from dwelling unit to driveway
and parking spacer in lily of 15 feet.
c. 27. 5t ( 30 ) of the unite to have a 30 foot garage setback
from drive aisle in lieu of 501 (55) .
d. Thirty-one units (28. 4t ) are two story units clustered
adjacent to Rl-sohed properties in lieu of one-third ( 37
units) being two story scattered throughout the project.
s . A common open space area of 90, 749 square feet with 15, 361
square feet distributed in areas with less than a 30 foot
dimension.
f. solid private patio walls with a 13 foot to 16 foot front
yard setback in lieu of 20 feet.
g. interior yard setback from R1 zoned properties of a minimuaa
30 feet in lieu of 33+ 7 foot and 42 feet.
CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL -- CO DI ZONAL U $ PERMIT HO9 86-5` �
1 . The site plan, floor plans, and el*vationsAreceived and dated j
December 8, 1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications
dehrribed herein:
a . undulate the 6 foot high Wrought fence along the front
property line with landscaped pockets.
b. Setback building f2, 34 feet from Garfield Avenue.
c. Setback two-story, 5-unit building types adjacent to RI
Properties a minimum IS feet.
d. Mooting material to be varigated charcoal grey, thick-butt
asphalt shingles.
Staff Report - 12/15/86 ( 6904d)
awl %
e. riX foot-'hith block well aia q comiWo pr4irti, i Nwa 10•
tw*a�rured, [cam . bi�bebt adjacent gr,1de. Rlook to;be tb
knish With - minim= two caarsis decorative block neat top
and compatible color with condominium develop Witt
Waterproof membrene of other waterproofing retbW as
determined by Roil* tnlinebr and approved by tbe',City of
Huntington beach.
f . Additional landscape pockets shalt be provided between
garage doors along the rear of buildings 3 through 9.
+�
1 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit the following plans:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public Works for review and
approval.
b. The irrigated landscaped area shall have its own service(& )
1
and meter( s ) with approved baekflow devices.
c . Minimum 24 inch box trees shall be provided along the
perimeter setback area of the project.
3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities, water heaters, and central heating units.
4 Low--volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets
•
5. All building spoils , such as unusable lumber# wire, pipe, and
other surflus or unusable :material shall be disposed of at an
off-site acility equipped to handle them.
6. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium
' vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside
lighting shall be directed to prevent *spillage* onto adjacent
properties.
7. A truck route shall be established to be reviewed and approved
4 by the Development Services Department and Public Works
` Department that addresses number of trucks, truck route, dust
1 control , etc.
a. Truck deliveries shall be limited to Monday through Friday
1 only, between 7 :00 AN and 8 :00 Ph.
S. CCaR 's shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Attorney and Development Services Department in accordance with
Article 915,
9. Construction hours shall be as prescribed by Section 8. 40. 090(d)
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code excc;rt that :corking hour
shall be limited to 9: 00 AN to 9:00 PM on Saturdays.
f
Staff Report - 12/16J86 (6904d)
f 1 �
I ( 4
t'f . oP►._ iar�r� - ;zeal "Nit
1. 4"'Uee treat 13891 dated G►etobet y# 195f, 6hall be the
00fteeptually approved layout and shall be revised to Conform
eitp, the site Dan dated "Oem"t d, 1981. ?*Atativoi 'tciot map
rerieW and final wpproeal by the' Planning COMisrioa' •heal be
required.
26 Garfield Avenue shall be constructed Mith a loot aide sidewalks
(Tentative Tract leap shows nars�owsr width* in croas-sections,
which is wrung) s
3. The one-site sewer system shall be private# but constructed to
Public Works Standards,
1. The on-site water system shall be public, and shall be located
in vehidular travel ways only.
5. Each unit shall have its own individual water service and meter
with approved double check backflow device.
I
6 , The swimming pool/recreation building shall have its own service
and meter with approved baekflow device.
l
7. Parking shall be prohibited an Garfield Avenue.
e. Access rights to oarfield Avenue shall be dedicated to the City
except at approved entrance to project .
90 Garfield Avenue shall be re-striped to accommodate left turns in
and out of the project
10. The on-site private streets shall be designed to the City's
private street standards and the 24 foot width does not include
the gutters (see Standard plah) .
t 11 . If the entrance is gated, the security gate location shall be
approved by the Department of Public Works and shall' have an
approved turn-around.
12. All missing of damaged public improvements shall be constructed
per Public Works standards.
13. A pavement evaluation of Garfield Avehue shall be conducted by a
qualified firm and the results submitted tc, the Cit The
developer to responsible to construct the remedial improvements
required.
la . Hydrology and hydraulics for the site shall be approved b the
Y 9Y Y Pa Y
Department of Public Works and Development Services. All
surface water shall drsih towards Garfield Avenue.
15. Utilities on Garfield Avenue shall be bored unless otherwise
approved by the City engineer.
staff Report • 12/14/86 -7- r�l04d1
r
16, AN' to"tia sprinkler system NM be 184tdll" AMk�gi
buildings to ►ly Mith 'ftntington beach' Fire o"Flreent rod r�
Cinifosse Muildirrg Cod*' itdarda.
17. A ruse &Uio system' HOST. be installed to +amply` with lustiagterw
such Fire Department ' and, uniform Fire Code stesdarda. 'The
system MUST provide the following:
a, Maker flow valve ta"r and trouble detection.
I b, 24 hour . supervision.
c. 1lnnunication,
d. Audible alarms.
18* Fir* extinguishers MUST be installed and located in the
Recreation Room to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code
Standards .
19 . Four ( 4 ) fire hydrants MUST be installed prior to combustible
construction. Shop drawings MUST be submitted to the public i
Works Department and approved by the Eire Department prior to
installation.
40. rf security gates are installedp they MUST be designed to comply
with Huntington Beach lire Department Standard 403,
21 . Show additional dimensions on plans for 17 x 45 foot fire access
radius turn to comply with Huntington Balch Fire Department
Standard 401. All streets must be installed with all weather
surface prior to combustible construction.
22. Names of streets MUST be approved by the Huntington Beach Fire
Deppartment prior to use to comply with Fire Department Standard
4096
23. Tentative Tract 12896 will be required to detain a 6-hour
100-year storm volume on-site.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Zoning conformance matrix
2. Memo from ties Evans dated December 2, 1986
3 . Staff report dated December 2, 1986
4 . Revised sit* and floor plans and elevations dated December 8,
1986
JWp:SH: k1a
f
Staff Report - 12/16/86 -8- ri9add
a
TO Glen Godfrey FroM lee ZYMW
Deputy birector City engineer
Subjen Tentative Tract 12896 Oft Decooker 30 1986
The public Works Engineering Division has reviond the plans for the
proposed 113 •unit development at the southeast corner of Garfield
Avenue and Beach Boulevard.
our analysis predicts about 1200 trips a day into and out of the dovelop-
ment. The proposed entrance/exit from the project onto Garfield should
easily aocormodate the anticipated traffic volumes. Garfield Avenue
is a primary arterial designed to handle traffic volumes of 30 ,000
vehicles a day. Present volumes are slightly lest than 25 ,000 vehicles
per day. The proposed entrance to the development is located far
enough from Beach Boulevard that it should not be significantly im-
pacted by stacking. There will be some difficulty making left turns
out of the development onto Garfield during peak hours. However, the
difficulty of making left turns onto arterial streets during peak traffic
hours is a fact of life in Huntington Beach.
Regarding the groundwater issue raised be the adjacent property owners,
..� we reviewed the available soils information. There is no evidence of
groundwater on the site (based on borings 16 ' below the ground surface) .
Runoff from rainfall will be directed away from adjacent properties.
There should be no impact on the neighboring properties due to drainage.
There will however, be minor drainage impacts on the Huntington Beach
Channel (D01) which originates mouth of Adams Avenue and runs parallel
to and just east of Beach Boulevard. Drainage from the new development
enters an existing underground storm drain on Newland Street and flown
to the Adams Avenue pump station at the head of the Huntington Beach
Channel. This is the channel which overflowed its banks in 1983 . Other
developments which drain to the Huntington Beach Channel have been re-
quired to provide for detention of a 6-hour, 100 year storm. This can
be fairly easily accomplished by developeaents adjacent to flood control
channels simply by providing flap gates that close when water in the
flood control channel reaches a high level. For tract 13996 there is
no adjacent flood control channel. On site detention could only be ac-
complished by (1) creating a reservoir for drainage then pumping it out
after storms; or (2) building a new storm drain system in Garfield.
Neither alternative is very practical in terms of costs to the developer
for construction and costs to the City and property owners for mainte-
nance. imposing the 6-hour detention condition on tract 12896 is a
policy decision that the Planning Commission and City Council must
decide.
L3sdw
,i
boa" do
SrAf f
0
REPO
FTO: Planning Commission
PRO": Development services
DATE: December 2, 19.6
SUBJNCT: T%NTATIV3 TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL UNN MRIT MO.
96-91 ( CMINUND FROM NOVNNBNN l9, 1996 FLAMING
CONNI$610N MRNTING)
APPLICANT : Doug Mason DATN ACCXPTXD: .
Magna Corporation CUPt October 230 1986
120 Nest Sth . Street TT: October 23, 1986
Santa Ana, CA
MANDATORY PROCLSSINg DATE:
OWNER: Retirement Fund Trust of : December , Igoe
the Plumbing# Heating TT: December 120 1986 j
and piping Industry of
Southern California IONS: N2-PDT
1456 E. Hill Street �
Long Beach, CA 90806 GENIMAL PLAN: Medium
Density Res Idential
RE29 EST: To develop 113 , three-
story condominium units EXISTING USE: Vacant
with special permits
LOCATION: South side of Garfield ACRUGS: 7. 6 net acres
approximately 300 feet 7 .96 gross acres
east of beach Boulevard.
1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896
as requested by the applicant. The applicant has waived the
mandatory processing date an those entitlements ,
2.0 GQNERAL INFORMATION:
On November 26, 1986 , the applicant, several adjacent homeowners ,
and staff met to discuss concerns raised by the homeowners, staff
and Planning Comission pertaining to the proposed 113 unit
condominium project. The applicant presented a reprised la out with
now two-story buildings along the perimeter of the site ad acent to
the single family homes . The following key issues were agreeable by
Magna Corporation and the homeowners:
1 . Maintain troy-story units near adjacent single family residence
properties with minimum 30 foot setback .
Ago?/
�i►
frovif minimum 10 (60t olfs*t from first to Seaawd fllkw
faceft an sash •nd unit of $40h two story buildid9.
3. Create greater breakup aad/or moveftont of C009110+a On tW artdry
building types.
4. Architectut* acceptable as modern Ca -Cod with tan and is t
sasonite siding, white trim and thick .butt, vari*d charcoa 1
color asphalt shingles .
S. A 6 foot high block wall along common property liner as
weasurod from 142host adjacent radon swath finish block rith
minimum two coarses decorative look near tope color to be
compatible with condominium dovelopmenti waterproof membrane or
other waterproofing method as determined by roils engineer cad
approved by City.
6 . Wrought iron fence on property line along Garfield Avenue with
landscaping pockets .
7 . All btiildings along Garfield Avenue have 'CO-units at each end
of buildings ( `CO -unite contain 5 foot average side wall offset
between second and third floor ) ; other four unit building types
do not have any end unit offsets.
S . Four-unit building on Garfield Avenue to have minimum 4 foot
front building facade offset between each two units; other four
unit buildings will not have such an offset.
9 . Five and six unit building types have "C"-unit on each end.
10. Five and six unit building types have minimum 4 foot facade
offset every two units average .
11 . Guest parking spaces to be evenly distributed throughout the
development .
12. An attempt shall be made to design 50% of units with 10 foot
i
garage setback from drive aisle .
13 . An attempt shall be made to maximize common open space area.
The issues of traffic and drainage were also brought up and have
been deferred to the public Works Department for comments.
The applicant indicated that they would redesign the site , plan
within these parameters and evaluate the feasibility of the, project;
sow* units may have to be eliminated in order to accommodate all
concerns . They felt some special permits will still be necossary,
staff 's comments regarding these issues will be presehted when the
final plans reflecting these changes are received.
.r
staff Report - 12/2/C6 -2- ( 6770d )
t A6 66 to' bo VOONdW ldo 1014 plannin MI"len w*tlmV
d+� r aat*d b the R/plicant to aixar tip far 6daquata
rr�s I oAa prejurat,
HEM, :
10 tot tar of co t invandf
x staff roport dated N Womborr le, IM
.tMP r iM r k la
1
Staff Rapart
N
4ANSFOhm
Ow
r � r
Tt): Huntington !leach planning Comsission
PA4M: Magna Corporation
I
DATE: November 25, 1986
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51/Tentative Treat
12896
I
Members of the planning Commission: ,
We respectfully request a Continuance on the above listed item
on your meeting of December 2, 1986 to the second regular
meeting in December .
We .are requesting this continuance for the purpose of revising
our proposed plane in order to address the concerns expressed &It
the meeting held on November 24 , 1986 , between the developer ,
staff and Huntington Crest homeowners.
i hereby waive the mandatory processing time (December 22 , 1986)
nn th app alias.
•''Fees a fully
Ro pattinson
Consultant/Magna Corporation
s .... :
i � v ,
d
j
151,
us •�KI +
J X
CpMliS947ilVlg 4 401 XUAT WS
r .\
1
ff
r
on
TO: PLanninq Commission
MR
FROM: Dbvolopment dervices
DATE: Novomber ld, 1986
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USN PRRNIT PO.
66-51 (CONTINUED FROM NOVENSSR Sr 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
APPLICANT : Doug Mason DATE ACCEPTED:
ftm� Magna Corporation Mi uctoDef23 , 1986
120 West 5th. street TT: October 23, 1986
Santa Ana, CA
MANDATORY PROCISSINC ' DATE:
OWNER: Retirement Fund Trust of R bar 23, Igoe
the Plumbing, Hosting TT: December 12, 1986
and piping Industry of
Southern California ZONE: R2-PD
1656 E. Hill Street
Long Beach # CA 90806 GENERAL PLAN: Medium
ensilty es dential
REQUEST: To develop 113# three-
story condominium units EXISTING USR: Vacant
with special permits
LOCATION: South side of Garfield ACREAGE: 7 . 6 net acres
approximately 300 feet 7 . 96 gross acres
east of Beach Boulevard
1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Continue Conditional Use Permit No . 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896
as requested by the applicant .
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
I
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 with special permits in conjunction:
with Tentative Tract 12696 was continued fros �the November 5, 1986
Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the applicant to
submit revised plans in compliance with all requirements for planned
4 residential developments . By straw vote , the Planning Commission
denied all seven special . permit requests which pertained to building
i
Setbacks , building bulk elements # and open space area.
Ile
The, proposod proiect entails 113 condominiums on a 7.0d gross 46tp
site known an the old Moon Maintenance yard praperty on the- south �"•
side of Garfield approximately 300 feet east of Nish •�au�ovo�d. �
3 .0 SURROUNDING LANs USE. SONING AND GENERAL PCaI►N '0 3aK4,T 3N�:
North of Subject property :
GENERAL. PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
ZONE : R2 and R3
LAND USE: Apartments
East of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Den31ty residential
ZONE: R1 ( Sin le Family Residential )
LAND USE : Single family. homes
South of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Low Density
Residential
ZONE : CA and RI
LAND USE: Commercial Center and single family
residences
West of Subject Prolerty-
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONE: C3
LAND USE: Commercial
4 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is co eyed under previously approved Negative
Declaration No . 80-11 .
5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS :
Not applicable .
6. 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS :
The subject property is within the proposed Reach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project area . This project conforms to the objectives
of the Redevelopment Department ,
7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN:
Not applicable.
staff. Report 11/18/86 •2- ( 647
on octohei 29, 1+3 d the dubdivision CW*ittee met to discuss
Tentative tract 1 •;6 foc 113 condominium' units. In s;ttepdatnce were
commiss"}onere Givenlaod .and tierce` representatives Etom 'the
Dfvelopt�nt Setvices bepartment, Hre department, Public worlds
Deppartment and the applicant. Concerns of staff regarding the
building bulk and inconvenient guest parking distribution were
addressed as well as public Works and lire Departm*nt ' cohditions
suggested for the development .
Detailed section drawings were; requested "in order to full yy evaluate
. the proposed berming, grade differences -and building tiirighk between
the subject site and adjacent: single family residences . Also, a
. composite elevation drawing from the Garfield Avenue view depicting
all four buildings in relationship to the existing curb was
recommended.
9 . 0 ISSUSS AND ANALYSIS:
On November Of 1986, staff received a revised site plan and floor
plans of the subject development , Still to be submitted are revised
elevations . General changes to the site plan include ( 1 ) placement
of the four buildings alon Garfield at a setback of 20 feet in lieu
of 34 to 40 feet setbacks 12 ) 500 of the units have the garages set
back a minimum 20 feet from the main driveway aisle in order to
accommodate 2 additional parking spaces in front of those units
eliminating the necessity for a opecial permit; ( 3 ) the minimum
common open space area has been reduced from 84 # 457 square feet to
j 78 ,817 square feet ; some of the areas included in the common open
-' space requirement are less than the minimum 20 foot dimension; (4 ) a
couple of the buildings have been shifted up to 11 feet closer to
the exterior property lines ; and ( 5 ) all of the 4 and 5 unit
buildings have a C- type floor plan which has an average 5 foot
offset between the second and third floor .
The following is a matrix reflecting an analysis of the zoning code
requirements and the revised condominium project plan .
Punned
issue ( Section ) Re uired Pr a t � _ opa d Revised
Density-units 119 unite max. 113 units Same
-Bedrooms 302 bdrms. max. 309 bdrms . 302 bdrms .
( 9150 . 4 )
s i t t• cov(!rage 500 max . 28 . 9% Same
M i 1ding Neight 35 , max . 301 -31 ' from Some
( 4150 . 6 ) existing grade to
average roof pitch ;
25'-271 from berm.
.S(.af f Report - 11/19/A6 --3- ( G 72d )
Iseult (s*btiarr ) pequired Propoadd v�aei"�``;
Front Setback 20' sirs . 0 ' setback for 0' setbit
( 9150. 7 ) wrought Iron foncry* fait solid
200 to private tlo finC01
walla= 34 ' to b dq. 20, to
face. bldg. face .
Interior Yard Bldgs. 3, 7 ,8 : 17 ' 20' ,sano
Setback (9150 . 8 ) Bldgs . 11112-16 : 10 ' 11. 5 ' -45 ' 11.51 -3i1r
( 10 ' min . ; Bldgs. 4 , G 8 , 9 : 341 341 -371 $soe
increases 1 ' for ®1dge. 5, 16 : 43 ' 49' 45,646,
every 2166 of bldg.
length exceeding
25 ' adjacent to
R1 )
Bldgg. Se e ration
( � 0 10
( a ) Front to Front 15 439 Same
( b ) Rear to Rear 40 ' 40 ' at grade level Same
between garages;
34 ' between upper Same*
floors*
( c ) Side to Front
and/or rear 20' 270 + 26 ' + 0
(d ) Side to Side 20 ' ( two story 201 (grade Same
bldga ) ; 25' ( three elevated min . 4 '
story bldge ,, ) in between bldgs. )
( h ) Dwelling unit 15 ' 5. 5 ' to 10' on a Same*
to open parking horizontal plane*
space
( i ) Dwelling unit 15 ' 6 ' to 13' on a 15 ,
to driveway horizontal plane*
( 2 situations )
( j ) Garages to 51 ; 500 must be 20 ' 81 ; 18 . 51 with 209 8 ' 00% with
travel lanes setback * 20 ' setback
Bldg. Bulk ( a ) Max 6 units side 4 , 5 , i 6 unit Same
( 9150. 12 ) by side bldga .
(b ) 4 ' offset in 0 ' offs*t ( 4 i S 0' offset
front bldg, unit bldgs ) * l 4 ' ( 4 unit
facade for every offset ( 6 unit bldg only ) *
2 unite bldg. ) 4 ' offset
( Si6 un
bldps O
*Special Permits wi+
.staff Report - 11/18/86 -4- ( Sd )
t ssue •'t� w red
, a
(�) CM0 lto;y 1 d90P 414 blgss► 490
for t 3 Otte to thloo 44orto
units *ust be
two story),
Open Blau* (a) Min , copan open
(917�0. 11 ) s► sore aq . fit. :
9 1400 sq ,fto $4, 457 sgotty * 76,+17 sq.
!t.
( c )-Min . pnt).e area; 961400 sq.1k,
260 xq. !t, ( two
bodeoo�nlr
300 P914t , ( three
btdCoe�l�s } rr
Total pO10 pro$$
86, 900 sq. ft .
-Min . patio
dimension : 10' 14 ' save
(9) patios cannot 101 +
count towordn
open ap4co and
open: space must
have a Min ,
dimegstofr of 20,
Total as requlreds
177, )00 sq. ft , 160oW sq, (t . 174 , 697 sq .
ft .
Main Rec . area 10,000 sq, ft. Min , 25n130 sq . ft, 22 , 560 sq .
(9150 . 14 ) - tt •
Min . Unit Floor 900 ( two bdira . ) 1 , 4Z2-1 , 535 sq, ft . same
( 9150 . 15 ) 1 , 100 (three b4co. ) 11606-10691 sgFft .
Parking 226 enclosed spares 226 garage same
( 9150 . 17 )
57 quest spaces di (47 throughout 93 ( 34
i 21 in front of throughout
9arsges setback 201 ) and 57 in
` front-of
gscages
with 20 '
Oetbarck )
*Sp*oi al Pierai is
staff Repoct - 11/14/06 ( 6672d)
' 1
The three main concetns 'of the oiriginal condominiu' m development are
reiterated with respect towards the revised plan dated November 13, �
1986. The first in the bulkiness of the three-story structures .
With the proposed berming, the illusion, of two--story units is
created. However , this effect is primarily achieved for the
buildings facing the central common open space area . The outer
facing buildings adjacent to the single tastily residences will also
appear two-story but on a four foot high berth which slopes to grade
level at the property line. In essence, three-story, 35 foot high
structures will be visible from Garfield Avenue and the adjacent
single family residences .
Secondly, the revised plan reflects the buildings, along Garfield
Avenue with a 20 foot setback in lieu of the origin&! 34 to 40 foot
setback . A block wall is proposed on the propert line along
Garfield Avenue . The four buildings at an even 26 foot setback along
Garfield combined with solid block wall at the property line creates
a static street scene. This can be mitigated by creating greater
offsets in the building facade, creating a greater setback for every
other building for undulation and by providing landscape pockets in
I' the block wall along Garfield Avenue .
Staff recommends that all buildings have at least one unit that is
two stories in height and that every two units on the four-unit
buildings have a minimum four foot building line offset . Only 24
two-story units would be two stories which is less than the 3?
required . As an option, all end units could have a minimum of 5 foot
average offset between the second and third floors as originally
depicted in the 1984 revised plan for the site. The applicant has
proposed only one unit on the four and five unit buildings with an
average 5 Moot offset between the second and third floor .
A third concern is the distribution of guest parking spaces within
the revised plan. The Applicant has increased the number of parking
spaces in front of each garage from 42 to 114 and has reduced the
number of separate parking stalls from 47 to 36 . The code states
that the parking spaces in front of the garages m.. 0 be used to
satisfy one of the required uncovered parking spaces ( i . e . guest
parking spaces ) . The applicant is proposing that of the 114
additional Narking spacers in front of the garages that 21 of them be
counted toward the 57 guest parking spaces . Due to the size of the
unita and the number of bedrooms vithin each unit that the full 57
guest parking spaces should be provided and evenly distributed
throughout the project .
Upon reviewing the revised plan it was noted that portions of the
common open space area have less than a 20 foot dimension , therefore
those areas must be approved by special permit to be incorporated as
part of the common open space area . It ,should be noted that staff
received a partial set of plans on November 13, 1986 , and has not had
sufficient time to due a comprehensive plan check of the project .
Staff Report - 11/18/86 -6- )72d)
fipBCiAfi PdltNtT fl8ilUt�„s
At the 1014noing Commission meeting# all seven +special tait t"Vedte
were denied by •traw' vote . The applicant was advised revise the
project to substantially conform with the no standards* the original
special permit requests hose as follows%
1 . A 6 foot higgh wrought iron fence along the front propetty line in
lieu of a 10 foot setback .
3. A 34 fort building sepatration between opposite second and third
floor rear elevations (driveway side) in lieu of 40 feet .
3. six feet to 10 feet setback from dwel+Ang unit to driveway In lieu
of 15 foist.
4. Provide 20 feet setback for garages from drive aisle for 16.6• ( 21 )
of the units in lieu of 50% ( 57 ) .
S. Provide no offsets in front building facade in 4 and 5 unit
buildings in lieu of 4 feet .
6 . All three story units in lieu of one -third (37 units ) being two
story.
7 . A common open space area of 04#400 square feet in lieu of 900 400
square feet .
The following special permit changes have been reflected on the revised
plans dated November 131 1986 :
1 . Has been changed from a wrought iron fence to a decorative block
wall on the front property liner special permit still necessary.
2 : No change: special permit still required .
3: Revised plan conformal special permit not necessary.
4 : Revised plan conforms: special permit not necessary.
5 : Five unit building contains required 4 foot offsetst special permit
needed for four unit building only because no offsets are provided .
6 : All buildings contains at least one C-unit type as an end unit
which has 5 foot average setback between the second and third
floorst special permit still required.
7 : Common open space area has been reduced to 78, 817 square foots
specio l permit still required,
The special permit process was designed to enable deviations to the
planned residential development standards provided th&t these special
permits resulted in a more aeetheticalli pleasin� OWMaroneet enhanced
living environment for the residences a the pro sot, avid/of to
Staff R"port - 11/18/86 - ?• ( ii73d )
s�
facilitate innovative architectural design . With the exception of
special permit request 17 the deviations to the code do not conform
the objectives . The request for reduction in colmn open space is
compromised by the increase of private op+�n space provided in the form--w
of private patio areas adjacent to each living unit . Also# the main
recreation area is more than twice the sixo required by code .
The atplicant has made an attempt to mitigate some of the concerns of
the planning Commission and the adjacent neighbors; however $ there are
additional architectural design changes, driveway and parking layout
changes , and open space areas that can be achieved to provide a more
aesthetically pleasing development .
At the Planning Commission meetinge staff was directed to respond to
each request made by the Huntington Crest Homeowners group (see attached
letter ) . The following is a resonse to the recommended modifications :
l . a . Height - The requirement that all structures within the complex
e no greater than two stories in height seems extreme. A
compromise might be to limit height for those buildings closest
to the single family residences to two-stories . This would
minimize visual impacts upon the single family residences .
1 .b Architectural Style -- Harmonious architecture is most desireable
or small infill developments The architecture is typically
dictated by existing surrounding development and designed for
compatibility . This parcel is large enough to warrant its own
architectural theme without detracting from the character of
surrounding neighborhood . However , there are a variety of
building materials and architectural elements which could enhanlot
the project and make it more conducive to the area . Design
Reviev Board review and approved is recommended .
l . c Unit Orientation - The majority of the building unit fronts face
ETie single fami y residences . In two cases the sides of the
buildings face the residences . Most of the proposed units will
have a 60 foot or greater distance from the rear of the single
family residential building .
l . d Landscaping - Additional landscaping can be provided and oriented
along TRe Perimeter of the property to create a park like
I atmosphere and obscure any visual intrusion upon the single
family residences .
l . e Grading and Drainage - A grading and drainage plan must be
reviewed and approved by the department of Public Works and
Developr -nt Services department not only prior to the issuance of
building percmits # but prior to final approval of the Tract Map.
All drainage will be designed so all water flows towards Garfield
Avenue.
l . f Sewer - rn addition to the drainage plan , a soils report is
necessary . }loth will be reviewtd to determine adequate water
flow to Garfield and the possibility of water seepage. 0
�r
staff Report. - 11/18/8 6 -8- ( 667 2d)
i
1.g Traffic Garfield Avenue is designed to accommodate the proposed
Realt- of development, specific street improvements are required
to improve movement from Garfield onto and off of the subject
property.
l . h Wall - An eight-loot decorative wall along the eastern and
southern property line will :litigate some noise.
1 . i Develo anent hre�r� - The use of a development agreement is not
app, cabld because conditional approval as part of the
conditional use permit process is equally enforceable and
achieves the same purpose .
Z. Workin Hours -- The suggested hours of operation ( 1 :a8' AM to 5 : 00
�'=" Monday through Friday ) is more stringent than the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code ( 7 : 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM - Monday through
Saturday) .
3 . Rodent Control - A rodent eradication plan is most appropriate
dui -to Elhe a re of the lot and its proximity to the single family
residences .
10.0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 and
Tentative Tract 12896 as requested by the applicant .
11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO . 1 :
_ The Planning Commission may deny Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 and
Tentative Tract 12896 based on the following findings for denial :
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 :
1 . The proposed 113 unit condominium project will be detrimental to
the general health, welfare , safety and convenience of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood, of to the value of -the
property and improvements iri the neighborhood due to the amount
of special permits .
Z . The proposed 113 unit condominium project will of
P P p j i l n be compatible
with surrounding two-story single family residences to the east
and south because of the bulkiness and three-story height of the
proposed buildings.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SPECIAL PERMITS:
1 . The seven requests for special permits will not promote a better
living environment not provide better land planning techniques
with Maxifium use of aesthetically pleasing architecture.
Z. The granting of seven special Permits
p pe a+it will be detrimental to th
e
general health , welfaret safetyC v
and ot� en sense of the
notighborhoodt and detrimental to the value of property and/or
improvements of the neighborhood.
•r
Staff Report - 11/10/86 -g_
(667Zd )
3. Th!P s cial xmit requests are not consiatent with the
objectives orther planned residential development standards ilIk',
}
achieving a development adapted to the terrain and ccw4w tible -+rr
with the surrounding environment .
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT N0, 12896:
1 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
14 . 5 units per acre and type of development roposed. The
building bulk and three-story height from existing grade is not .
conducive to the mite .
12 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 2:
The Planning Commission may approva Conditional Use permit No. 86-51
and Tentative Tract 12896 as modified by staff based on the following
findings and conditions of approval :
FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 :
1 . The proposed subdivision of this 7 . 96 acre parcel of land zoned
R21 Medium Density Residential, is proposed to be constructed
having 14 A- units per gross acre .
141 V
2 . The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land
use as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation
of this type of housing.
3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land
use at the time the land use designation and the R2-Pb zoning
designation were placed on the subject property.
d . The conditional use permit and tentative tract are consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan .
5 . The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the
proposed density and type of development . Proposed density is
14 . 5 units per acre which allows for adequate building layout ,
open: space and traffic circulation .
FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT:
1 . The orientation of each of the dwelling units onto common
landscaped areas keep each unit via a private patio will help to
ensure maximum privacy for the residents within a project of
this density.
2. Through the use of landscaped planting materials # aesthetically
pltasinU architecture, and special design and construction
techniques , surrounding user will have a minimised impart on the
proposed project and, in turns the proposed project will not be
detrimental to the general healtho welfare, safety, and
convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general .
I
staff Report 11/18/86 -10- 03 11 ( 66724 )5
t . . ;.,,.. ... 19
3. Through the use of private and cooWn opan space areas and by
maximising the use of aesthetically barring types of
architecture, the proposed project will provide a better living
envirohm*nt . {
. The lot size , depth, frontage, street width, and through the use
of a special permit, all other design and implementation �
Matures of the proposed project are proposed to b* constructed
in eonpliance with standard plans and specifications on file
with the City as well as in compliance with the Mate leap hot
and supplementary City subdivision ordinance.
S. The following special permits for deviations to the requirements
of Article 915 are necessary for an improved sit* layout and
design :
a . A 34 foot building separation between opposite second And
third floor rear elevations (driveway side) in lieu of 40
feet .
b. Six foot to 10 foot setback from dwelling unit to driveway
and parking spaces in lieu of is feet .
c . 18 . 6% (21 ) of the units to have a 20 foot garage setback
from drive aisle in lieu of 50% (57) .
d . All three story units in lieu of one-,third ( 37 units ) being
two story.
e . A common open apace area of 64 , 400 square feet in lieu of
90 ,400 square feet .
CONDITIONS Or APaROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 86-51 :
1 . The site plan, floor plane , and elevations received and dated
October 7, 1966, shall be revised depicting the madi.Acations
described herein :
a . Reduce the height by one story for at least one unit within
each building unit, or provide minimum 5 foot offset hetween
the second and third floor on each end unit .
b . Provide minimum 4 foot offset for every two units at every
building .
c. delete the 6 foot high wrought fence along the front
property line .
d . Distribute guest parking spares throughout the development
by relocating some to the end of Building 18.
e . Reduce bedroom count to maximum 302 .
staff Report - 11/18/86 -11- ( 6673d )
I _ I
2 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit the follcming plans:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
• Development Services and Public Works for review and
approval .
b . The irrigated landscaped area shall have its own service s)
and ,enter(s ) With approved back f low devices.
3. Natural gas shcJ ;cl be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities , water heaters , and central heating units .
4 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets .
5 . All building spoils , such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and
other sur lus or unusable material shall be disposed of at an
off-site �acility equipped to handle them .
6. rf lighting is included in the parking lot , high-pressure sodium
vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings . All outside
lighting shall be directed to prevent "$pillage' onto adjacent
properties.
7 . A truck route shall be established to be reviewed and approved
by the Development Services Department and public Works
Department that addresses number of trucks, truck route , duet
control , etc . 41
a . Truck deliveries shall be limited to Monday through Friday
only, between 7 : 00 AM and 8 : 00 PM.
8. CCiRle shall be submitted .for review and approval by the City
Attorney and Development Services Department in accordance with
Article 915.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12696 :
1 . Tenati.ve Tract 12696 dated October 7 , 1966, shall be the
approved layout .
2 . Garfield Avenue shall be constructed with 8 foot wide sidewalks
( Tentative Tract Map shows narrower widths in cross-sectionso
which is wrong ) .
3 . The on-site sower system shall be private , but constructed to
Public Works Standards .
4 . The on-site water system shall be public , and shall be located
in vehicular travel ways only.
S . Each unit shall have its own individual water service and meter
with approved double check backflow device.
Staff Report - 11/18/86 -12- ( 6672d)
6. The swimming pool/recreation building shall have its awn servicr
and Meter with approved backflow devico.
7 . parking shale be prohibited on Garfield Avenue.
6 . Access rights to Garfield Avenue shall be dedicated to the City
except at approved entrance to project .
9 . Garfield Avenue shall be re-striped to accommodate left turns in
and out of the project .
10. The ors-site private streets shall be designed to the City ' s
private street standards and the 24 foot width does not include
the gutters (see Standard plan ) .
11 . If the entrance is gated, the security gate location shall be
approved by the Department of public Works and shall have an
approved turn-around .
12 . All missing or damaged public improvements shall be constructed
per Public Works standards .
13 . A pavement evaluation of Garfield hvenue shall be conducted by :a
qualified firm and the results submitted to the City. The
developer is responsible to construct the remedial improvements
required .
14 . Hydrology and hydraulics for the site shall be approved by the
Department of Public Works .
15. Utilities on Garfield Avenue shall be bored unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer .
16 . Automatic sprinkler systems MUST be installed throughout all
buildings to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and
Uniform Building Code Standards.
17. A Eire alarm system MUST be installed to comply with Huntington
Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. The
system MUST provide the following:
a . Water flow valve tamper and trouble detection.
b. 24 hour supervision .
c. Annunication.
d. Audible alarm& .
is . Fire extinguishers MUST be installed and located in the
Recreation Room to comply with Huntington Beach Pire Code
standards .
19. Four ( 4 ) fire hydrants MUST be installed prior to Combustible
construction. Shop drawings MUST be submitted to the Public
Works Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to
Installation .
Staff report - 11/18/86 -13- 16672d )
"r
20 . If security gates are installed , they MUST be designed to comply ,,,—.
wcth Huntington $each Eire Department Standard 403 .
r..,.
21 , Show additional dimensions on plans for 17 x 45 foot fire access
radius turn to comply with Huntington Beach Fire be artment
Standard 401 . All streets must he installed with ayl weather
surface prior to combustible construction .
22. Names of streets MUST be approved by the Huntington Beach Fire
Department prior to use to comply with Fire Department Standard
409 .
23 . Tentative Tract 12896 will be required to detain a 6-hour
100-year storm volume on-site .
ATTAChMENTIS:
1 . Getter dated November 14 , 1986 , requesting continuance .
? . Concerns from neighbors of original plan dated November 5 , 1986
3 . Staff Report dated November 5 , 1986
uWP : SH : kla
staff Report - 11/18/86 -14- 0( 64672d )
PA 77INSON 41 ASSW iar , rx s�xa�sr.start�r
[71I)Iq,i/4) /NiJ►M7)MCfra1V MUCX C4UF*RNi'A UM
To : Huntington Beach Planning Commission
From : Magn4 Corpora ion
Oat2 November 14 , 1986
Subject : Cvnditional Use hermit No . 86 -81 Tentative Tract 1$898
Members of the Planning Commission :
We repectfully request a continuance an the above listed 1te• on your
meeting of November la , 1086 to the flrat regular meeting in December .
We are requesting this continuance for the pu:rpost of addressing the
concerns of the residents as voiced at your ! %at regular meeting .
4Res trul y ,
on Pattinaon
Consultant/Magna Corp .
HUNTINGIBEACH
I)EVELOPMEN? SERVICES
P.O. Box lw
HuntiP00A S*K' we
COAR t t7NG R QOVRRNMBWAL ULA TIONS
huntb*M b►*Wh dOwlap et servi"s dwertwat
STAf f
JRIEPORTm.
TO: Planning Commission
FROM : Developnent Services
DATE: November 5, 198h
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51/TENTATIVE TRACT 12096
APPLICANT: Doug Mason DATE ACCEPTED:
Magna Corporation Z'tJFF ME&M 23, 1986
120 West 5th . Street TT: October 23, 1986
Santa And , CA
MAND&TORY PROCESSING DATE :
OWNER: Retirement Fund Trust of W ; DiceMber 22f 71996
the Plumbing, Heating TT: December 12, 1986
and Piping Industry of
Southern California ZONE: R2-PD
1456 E . Hill Street
Long Beach , CA 90806 GENERAL PLAN: Medium
inns I tyVe'sTdontial
REQUEST: To develop 113, three-
story condominium snits EXISTING USE: Vacant
with special permits
LOCATION: South side of Garfield ACREAGE: 7 . 38 net acres
approximately 300 feet 7 . 94 gross acres
east of Brach Boulevard
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Conditional Use Permit No . 86-51 as modified by staff and
Tentative Tract 12896 based on the findings and conditions of
approval outlined in this report .
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Conditonal use permit No. 86-51 in conjunction with Ten
tative Tract
12896 is a request to develop 113p three-story condominiums on a
7 . 94 gross acre site known as the old Edison Mainten3nee Yard
property on the south side of Garfield approximately 300 feet east
of Reach Boulevard. In addition. six special permits are requested
pertaining to building setbacks, building bulk elemonta , and open
space area . They are as follows :
1pp� ,-�--.
1 . A 6 font high wrought iron fence along the front property line
in lien of a 20 foot setback .
2 . A 34 foot building separation between opposite second and third '�..,,�
floor rear elevations ( driveway side ) in lieu of 40 feet .
3 . Six feet to 10 feet setback from dwelling unit to driveway in
lieu of 15 feet .
4 . Provide 20 feet setback for garages frog drive aisle for 17%
( 21 ) of the units in lieu of 50% ( 57 ) .
5 . Provide no offsets in front building facade in 4 and 5 unit
buildings in lieu of 4 feet .
6. All three story units in lieu of one-third ( 37 units ) being two
story .
In 1980 , a 113 unit condominium project was approved on the site .
This plan was slightly revised in 1984 . The last approved lan
contained 113 two-bedroom units with special permits for bu�lding
bulk and open space .
3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE , ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS :
North of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAY DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
Z014E: R2 and R3
LAND USE: Apartments
East of Subject Proper ter :
GENERAL. PLAY DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONE: RI ( Single Family Residential )
LAND USE : Single family homes
South of Subject Property :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial and Low Density
Residential
GONE : C4 and R1
LAND USE: Commercial Center and single family
residences
West of Subject Property:
C.E.NEReki. ELAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONF: C4
i.AND IISF. : Commercial
Staft Report - 11/5/86 -2- (6570d)
t
4 . 0 ENVIRONMRNTAL STATUS :
The proposed proA-11 .
ct is covered under previously approved Negative
Declaration No. P Y PP
5 . 0 COASTAI, STATUS :
Not applicable .
6. 0 REDEVF.I.OPMENT STATUS :
The subject property is within the proposed Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project area . This project conforms to the objectives
of the Redevelopment Department .
7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN :
Not applicable .
8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE :
On October :91 1986, the Subdivision Committee met to discuss
Tent-ative Tract 12896 for 113 condominium units . In attendance were
Liven good and Pierce representatives from the
Commissioners 9 , p
Development Services Department, Fire Department , Public Works
Department and the applicant . Concerns of staff regarding the
building bulk and inconvenient guest parking distribution were
addressed as well as Public Works and Firo Department Conditions
suggested fcor the development .
Detailed section drawings were requested in order to fully evaluate
the proposed berming, grade differences and building height between
the subject sits and adjacent single family residences . Also, a
composite elevation drawing from the Garfield Avenue view depicting
all four buildings in relationship to the existing curb was
recommended .
9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
The proposed condominium development consists of 113 three-story
units situated in four , five and six unit buildings . Unit sizes
range from 1 , 422 square feet to 1 , b93 square feet with two and three
bedrooms plus a family room . At existing grade level is a two-car
garage ; two upper floors comprise the habitable areas .
Approximately 4 , 000 cubic yards of dirt will be imported to create
an artificial grade around the front and sides of each building to
create the appearance of two-stories . Building height from existing
grade to roof peak is 35 feet . Exterior building materials include
masonite siding and stucco walls, asphalt shingle roofs and resarwn
cedar trim . Overall architectural style is of a •Caf►e Cod" E14vor .
Staff Report - 11/S/86 -3- *3Y0
(6570d )
I
r
The following is a zoning conformance breakdown of the proposed /�►,
project :
Section rasue Required Proposed
9150 . 4 rr.nsity-Unitm 119 units mbx . 113 units
-Bedrooms 301 bdrms . max . 309 bdrms .
9150 . 5 Site Coverage 50% max . 28 . 9%
9150. 6 Building Height 35 ' max . 30 ' -'41 ' from
existing grade to
average roof
pitch ; 25 ' -27 '
from berm.
9150. 7 Front Setback 20 ' min . 0 ' setback for
wrought iron
fence ;* 20 ' to
private patio
walls ; 34 ' to
bldg . face .
9150. 8 Interior Yard Dldgr . 3 , 7 , 8 : 17' 20 '
Sv tback Bldgs . l l , 2--16 : 10 ' 11 . 5 '--45 '
( 10 ' min . ; Bldgs . 416 , 819 : 34 ' 34 '
increases 1 ' for Bldgs . 5, 10 : 43 ' 49 '
every 2 ' 6' of bldg .
length exceeding
25 ' adjacent to
R1 )
9150 . 10 Bldg. Separation
(a ) Front. to Front 35 ' 43 '
(b ) Rear to Rear 40 ' 40 ' at grade level
between garages ;
34 ' between upper
floors*
(c) Side to Front
and/or rear 20 ' 27 ' +
( d ) Side to Side 20 ' ( ;:wo story 2D' ( grade
bldga ) ; 25 ' ( three elevated mi» . 4 '
story bldgs . ) in between bldgs . )
( h ) Dwelling unit 15 ' 5. 5 ' to 10 ' on a
to open parking horizontal plane
space
( i Dwelling unit 15 ' to 10' on a
to driveway horizontal plane
( i ) Garages to 50 ; 504 must be 20 ' 8 ' 17% with 20 '
travel lanes see�bdck *
*Special Pern►its
:staff. RelmDrt 11/5/86 -4- ( 6570d )
4
0
secs issue • aired Proms d
9150. 1Z Bldg. Bulk (a ) Marx 6 units side 4 5, b 6 unit
by side bldgs .
(b ) 4 ' offset in 0 ' offset ( 4 ` 5
front bldg. unit bldgr) *s 4 '
facade for Every offset (6 unit
2 units bldg . )
l
( c) One story drop All bld$s. are
for 1/3 units in three stories*
each bldg. ( 37
unite must be
two story)
9150 . 13 Open Space ( a ) Min . sq. ft .
900400 sq . ft , 64 # 457 sq . ft .
( c ) Min . patio area 96 #060 sq . ft .
250 sq. ft . ( two
bedrooms )
300 sq. f t s ( three
bedrooms )
Totnl patio atea< :
e6, 900 sq. ft .
(9 ) patios canhot 20 '
count towards
open space and
open space must
have a Miff .
dimehuibn 0 201
Total as required :
q � f � q 177, ,100 e t 290 537 sq . ft .
9150. 14 Main Roc. Ate& 100000 sq . ft . Min. 25, 130 sq . ft .
9150. 15 Min . Unit Floor 900 ( twe bdrin. ) 1 # 422-1 , 535 sq . ft .
1 , 100 ( three bdrm. ) 1 , 606--1t693 sq . ft .
9150 . 17 Pakking 226 enclooed spades 224 garage
51 guest spaces 66 ( 47 throughout
6 21 ih front ,of
garages setback
*Special permits
E�
Staff Report - 11/5/e6 -5-- (6570d)
t
There are three main concerns of the proposed condominium �-
development .
The first is the bulkiness of these three story structures . With the
proposed herming, the illusion of two-story units is created .
However , this effect is primarily achieved for the buildings facing
the central common open space area . The outer facing buildings ,
towards Garfield and the single family residences , will igloo appear
two story but on a 4 foot berm which slopes to grade level at the
property line. In essence , three-story, 35 foot high structures will
be visible from Garfield Avenue .
Staff recommends that: all buildings have at least one unit that is
two stories in height and that every two units have a minimum 4 foot
front building line offset . Only 24 two-story units would be
two-story which Is less than the 37 required . As an option , all end
units could have a minimum 5 foot offset between the second and third
floc,rs as depicted in the 1984 revised plan for the site .
Secondy, the distribution of guest parking spaces is concentrated in
the front half of the project . This could result in a parking and
circulation problem towards the rear when the project is fully
completed . Staff recommends relocating some guest parking sppaces
from the vain parking area to the southerly end of building 18.
Thirdly, the proposed wrought iron fencing along the front property
creates a double wall effect because the front private patio walls
are within 20 feet of the fence . The wrought iron fence is not
recommended in order to obtain a greater opera feeling and
effectiveness of landscaping when driving down Garfield.
Granting special permits to enable deviations to the Planned
Residential Development standards is permitted if a better living
environment and land planning techniques are achieved .
overall , the development is interesting. The six unit buildings
contain some movement and variation in front building facade (4 foot
offset ) and end unit movement by offsetting the second and third
floors . Staff recommends carrying that name treatment through the 4
and 5 unit buildings . all the buildings have some variation in roof.
lines .
Since the bedroom count exceeds the maximum allowed, revised floor
flans will be necessary to reduce the bedroom count . The applicant
indicated this can aisily be achieved. by converted some bedrooms to
family rooms .
10. 0 RECOMMENDATION:
staff recommends approval of conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 and
Tentative Tract 12896 as modified by staff based on the following
findings and conditions of approval .
If#
Staff bepott - (6570d )
FINDINGS _.CONDITIONALe U,EZ PZAJtITNot 66 51, _ AND TEWJ TIY6 TRACT 12896 :
1 . The proposed subdivision of this 7 . 95 acre porCel of land Toned
R2 , Medium Dena i t y ass i adept is l , is proposed to tee constructed
having 11 . 5 units per gross acre .
7 . The General Plan has set forth provisionu for this type of land
use as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation
of this; type of housing .
3 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land
use at the time the land use designation and the RZ-PD Zoning
designation were placed on the subject property,
FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT:
1 . The orientation of each of the dwelling units onto common
landscaped areas keep each unit via a private patio will help to
ensure maximum privacy for the residents within a project of
this density .
2 . Through the use of landscaped planting materials, aesthetically
pleasing architectures and special design and construction
techniques , surrounding uses will have a minixiRed impact on thQ
proposed project and, in turn , the proposed project will not be
detrimt-ntal to the general health, welf4re # safety, and
convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general .
3 . Through the use of private and common open space areas and by
maximizing the use of aesthetically pleasing types of
architecture, the proposed project will provide a better living
environment .
4 . The lot size, depth , frontAge, street width, and through the use
of a special permit , all other design and iinplepeptntin features
of the proposed project are proposed to be constructed in
compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with
the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and
supplementary City subdivision ordinance.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL UJ9 FRIN <T Not 16-51 :
1 . The site plan , floor plans , And elevations received and dated
Cctober 7 ; 1986 , shall be revised depicting the modifications
described herr. :n:
a . Redace the height by one story for at basset till* 40i.t within
each building unit , or provide nAnipnum 5 foot offset between
the second and third fluor on tech end unit .
b . Provide mi ;,vi,mux / toot offset Jos Ovefy two units at every
building.
Staff Report - 11/6/86 16S?Od )
'.r-
� 1 l
e the foot wrought fence aloe the front
c. Delete h 6 high g 9
property line. s
d. Diatribure guest parking spaces throughout the development Y
by relocating some to the end of Building 18.
e . Reduce bedroom count to maximum 301 .
2 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall
submit the following plans :
a . landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public Works for review and
approval .
b . The irrigated landscaped area shall have its own service( s)
and meter ( s ) with approved backflow devices.
3 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities , water heaters , and central heating units .
4 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets.
5. All building spoils , such as unusable lumber , wire, pipe , and
other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an
cuff-site facility equipped to handle them.
6 . If lighting is included in the parking lot , high-pressure sodium
vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings . All outside �+
lighting shall be directed to prevent 'spillage• onto adjacent
properties.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVALLTENTATIVE TRACT 12696 :
1 . Garfield Avenue shall be constructed with 8 foot wide sidewalks
(Tentative Tract Map shows narrower widths in cross-sections,
which is wrong ) .
2 . The on-site sewer system shall be private , but constructed to
Public Works Standards .
3 . The on-site water system shall be public, and shall be located
in vehicular travel ways only.
4 . Each unit shall have its own individual water service and meter
with approved double check backflow device .
5 . The swimming pool/recreation building shall have its own service
and meter with approved backflow device.
6 . parking shall be prohibited on Garfield Avenue,
7 . Access rights to Garfield Avenue shall he dedicated to the City
except at approved entrance to project . �
staLf Report - 11/5/86 -g- ( 6570d )
8. Garfield Avenue shall be re-striped to accommodate left turns in
and out of the project .
9 . The on-site private streets shall be designed to the City' s
private street standards and the 24 foot width does not include
the gutters (see Standard plan ) .
10 . If the entrance is gated , the security gate location shall be
approved by the Department of Public Works and shall have an
approved turn-around .
34 . All missing or damaged pubtic improvements Rhall be constructed
per Public Works standards ,
12 . A pavement evaluation of Garfield Avenue shall be conducted by a
qualified firm and the results submitted to the City. The
developer is responsible to construct the remedial improvements
required .
13 . Hydrology and hydraulics for the site shall be approved by the
Department of Public Work,a ,
14 . Utilities on Garfield Avenue shall be bored unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer .
15 . Automatic sprinkler systems MUST be installed throughout all
buildings to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and
Uniform Building Code Standards .
16 . A fire alarm system MUST be installed to comply with Huntington
Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards . The
system MUST provide tho following :
a , plater flow valve tamper and trouble detection .
b . 24 hour supervision .
c. Annunication .
d . Audible alarms .
17 . Fire extinguishers MUST be installed and located in the
Recreation Room to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code
Standards .
18. Four ( 4 ) fire hydrants MUST be installed prior to combustible
construction . Shop drawings MUST be submitted to the Public
Works Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to
installation .
19 . If security gates are installed, they MUST be designed to comply
with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 403 .
20. .Tow additional &mens ions on plans for 17 x 45 foot *,ire access
radiuR turn to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department
Standard 401 . All streets must be installed with all weather
surface prior to combustible construction .
NWW-
Staff Report 11/5/86
J
0
2i . Names of streets MUST be approved by the Huntington Mach dice r,
Department prior to use to comply with Eire Department Btandard� 1
409 . --'
11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may approve the project as proposed with
changes in building bulk to only the bu ldings fronting Garfield
Avenue since they are most visible by approving the following
modified condition:
CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. @ 6_5 .
1 . a ( Modified ) Modify Buildings 1 , 2 and 3 along Garfield Avenue by
converting the end units in each building to unit type C (has
upper floor offset on side ) .
1 . b Provide 4 foot offset every two or three units .
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Area map
2 . Narrative
3 . Site plan , floor plan and elevations
JWP :SH: kla
s
f,
Staff Report 11/5/86 (6570d)
4 i t• ram„ , i E i A! MH ! "
l71
NO C4 •• 1 Rl
to aw '',w Rx
R� `trr
C4 R 3
FBI
R � • R, RI
rAs - J
ll Rt Rl
R2Ilk
RZ •, ( j 1 "'
r
MN R2,P!) R fRE C2
' ` .
MI-A
} - Rt II i
_ Ems.A R2 1 r_- -,• _
--`I- R2 R►
/AAA
f
ml
` . _ �t t
R2 Y4
•.1..• •
7V'• (C !h ' RI Ott
�'.{
R2 ii Rt
Rl fit .>
R2 — i j a cm RI fit
�. • r. • ff? ! O1
,I
cur - &S
+rPAII NIGIOM rA{cw Is
ectober 22 , 1986
Planning comission .
City of Huntington beach .,
N.O. Box 190
Muntbwft�jn Oeach, CA 92646
SUBJECT: Special Permit Request
PROJECT; Senwind Cove Condominiums
Garfield Avenue
Huntington Beach , California
Dear Commissioners :
Magna corporation is proposing to develop a site of approximately
8 . 03 acres in size just east of they intersection of Beach
Boulevard and Garfield Avenue . The existing zoning for this site
is R-2 PD. Although the maximum number of units allowed by code
is 120 , the applicant proposes to build 113 . The proposed
condominiurs will be built in 24 buildings of four to six
dwelling units in each building . Each unit will have a two car
•
garage . Total site coverage is 93 , 218 square feet or 271 of
total site where 50% is allowed . Guest parking has been provided
throughout the site. Although the required minimum unit sins for
a two bedroom unit is only 900 square feet and a three bedroom
unit is only 1100 square feet , the project will have five unit
types that surpass these midaimum requirements . These unit types
are:
unit type "H" - Two Bedroom - 1 , 422 Total Square Feet
Unit type "C" -- Two Bedroom, Family Room w-1 , 5 3 5 Total Square Feet
Unit type "D" - Three Bedroom - 1 , 606 Total Square Feet
Unit type "Da " - Two bedroom, Family Room - 1 , 606 Square feet
Unit type "E" - Three Bedroom, Family Roos - 1 , 693 Nquare Feet
it should be noted that the size of these units, while in excess
of most planned developments, more closely matches the averMp
•.r
Mdaa
October 22 , 1966
Planning Commission
Pwe�e
site of the murroundinq home. The applicant is attmWting to
provide a quality living environment with emphasis placid on
interior amenities , quality of construction and rmple living
atlas . This project will serve as an excellent transition from
the commercial area to the w*st of this site and the surrounding
residences. They quality of these unite will serve to protect the
integrity of the neighborhood values and lifestyle.
Individual features to be provided include :
Private enclosed pctios that exceed minimum requirements
Two-car garages with direct home entry
Autozatic garage door openers
Large master bedrooms with vaulted ceilings
Skylights
Hay Windows
Pantrys
Walk in closets
Large oval tubs with separateishowers
�.. Separate dining axeas
Breakfast Bars
Ceramic mile Baths
Raised Tile Entryways
Fireplaces with gas outlets
Upgraded dual pane windows with lattice dividers
Seawind cove condominiums will be a unique development because of
its i��novative architectural design and amenities. Great tare
has bRin taken to provide an ample buffer from the surrounding
residences by pleasing placement of buildings, walkways and
landscaping . The developer estimates that they proposed
landscapinq will cost in excess of $ZSO, a00 . Cottmon amenities
being provided Include s recreation building, pool , spa, saunw,
barbecue acee& and a tot lot. The total requixed waJor recreation
area is I6 , 66s square feet, however the d*velai er is pr*Vldirq
October 22 , 2986
Planning Cowmeission
Page 3 ,
21 , 394 square tees: ., The required minimum clubhoume slAs is 701 -%;W
square feet and the proposed clubhouse will be 1 , 032 square feet*
Construction will be woods framing, concrete floors and wood
siding. Exterior appearance will be of a "Cape Cod" nature.
Magna Corporation desires to build a project which will be of
high quality, superior design and incorporate amenities that will
provide residents superior quality of life .
The applicant, Magna Corporation , requests the planniny
Commission approve the following special permits to the above
referenced project . The Huntington Beach code allows fo
r
special permits upon the findings by the Planning Commission that
the requested exceptions will :
h
(a) Promote better living environments .
(b) Provide better land planning techniques with maximum
use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture ,
landscaping , site layout and design .
(c) Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare,
safety and convenience , nor detrimental or injurious to
the value of property or improvements, of the neighborhood
or of the city in general .
(d) Be consistent with the objectives of the planned
residential development standards in .achieving a
development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the
surrounding environment.
The applicant feels that the following requestod except1cma or*
__ _.J
oc:to"r #2 , 1986
Irlanni ng Coalssion
PCqe 4
nece*&ary 't,A &Ghlevi the 4t4ted gmals and Intent of the pleneaed
development standards r,nd thAt they do sent the Qriterie for
acceptable special permits. The Seavind Cove Condefiiniwm pro j%Act
w&s last approved for construction by the Planning Coweaiss,io" of
Huntington beach in 1984 . Most of the special permits that are
being asked for iii this application were granted at that time.
The project has been rades.ignad in order to more closely meet the
changes made in the building codes and coning codes since that
tiVae .
1 . S. 9150. 10 ( i ) The code requires that dwelling units be
setback 150 from vehicular accessways . The applicant
requests a reduction in the required 15' setback to the
vehicular accessway. Thera ire 9 situations within the above
*41bw
mentioned project that are affected by this setback
requirement. However, it measured from the traffic aresas •
diagonally to the living areas, in most cases , the minimum
setback would be scot . The applicant rolverts this exception
in order to provide enhanced overall architectural design as
evidenced by increased reparation& o,ter the required minimum
between buildings in almost every case.
z . S . 9150 . 10 (j ) - The code requires that sot of the dwelling
units have a setback 20 feet from the travel lane, The
applicant requests a redaction of the required 5o• (57 units)
with a 20 ' setback to the travel lane to 170 (21 Units) with
A 2 0 ' setback. The rhea i n i nq uA f to will haVe a ietbeak of a ,
N s
y
octaber 22 r 1986
planning commission
Page 5
which is three feet in excess of the Accepted minima. To . �
mitigate the impact of this exception, open parking stalls
have been provided throughout the project for 00"On quest
parking. This request is justified in that each unit
pteavideea for tuck under, attached parking garages which have
direct access to the living area . Also, the project meets
parking requirements for residents and exceeds the required
number of guest parking stalls .
3 . S . 9150 . 12 (b) - This section requires that buildings have
a 4 ' offset of the front building line: for every %:vo dwelling
units. The applicant seats this requirement in buildings
which contain six units, but requests a deviation from the
required 4 ' offset in the front building line on the 4 and 5 ,
unit buildings . The applicant requests this exception
because it is felt that the overall project offers a pleasing
architectural style which meats the intent of the code. In
I ' the 4 and 5 unit buildings in which the offset requirement is
not met , the applicant has achieved a pleasing architectural
design through varied roof lines and utiass movement at they
second level along with sovenent at the rear of the
buildings. in addition, architectural movement has been
achieved by offsetting entire buildings, especially along
• the perimeter whero they are most visible to the public.
4 . 9 . 919o. 12 (c) • The applicant reegueats a deviation frees
the requirement that 1/9 Of the total units per building 1G
1 �
low"%
cectober ?= 19s6
f'l onni ng commission
Page 4
One story less in height than the reining portion of the
building. This requiremelst in Pat in Wildings containing i
units, but is not sat in buildings containing 4 and 5 units.
The applicant again feels that the desicIn Deets the intent of
the code by Stepping the second story back for the entire
length of the building and not just at the ends. In addition ,
the use of varied roof planes contributes to a pleasing
design. The applicant reels that the overall architectural
design maintains a quality of life by utilizing larger units
with less density. This objective could not be accomplished
without this exception .
This exception is also necessary because the applicant wishes
to provide tuck under parking for all units and would be unable
to achieve this and provide the necessary relief. This type of !
I
construction is necessary on the Site because the applicant
cannot excavate to provide gars e
q parking as no storm drains
are provided by the City of Huntington Beach along Garfield. '
Wherefore, we are limited to surface floe to achieve proper
drainage ,
5 . S . 9150 . 13 (a) - In this request , the a l
pp scant ask* for a
deviation from the required open space of 90, 400 square Feet
to 84 , 400 square feet . Wile the open space Ss ataasurid
under this ordinance does not Meet the requirwnnt, the
applicant feels this deficiency is offset by thei increased i
private patio aY.esi in a total amount of ],ids
&* ax"i foot in
- - --
october zi , iSIG i
Planninq e:omission
Page 7 .
excess of the required winiruw. The proposer design _, , •
pro•oides more privacy in front of residents' units which
homeowners prefer over of larger common open areas. in
addition, applicant is providing additional amenities
including a tot lot, pool , barbecue area, spa and a sauna.
In summary, thet applicant feels that -he above requested special
permits are necessary to achieve a better living environment for
this development . These requested special exceptions are
essential to provide a project which is conducive to the overall
neighborhood and necessary to provide a pleasing environmmnt for
the residents . In all cases, the applicant feels that the
requested exceptions can be justified and that they contribute to
the quality of life, enhancer the architectural design, adapt well
to the environment without being detrimental to the surrounding
area. As noted before , these exceptions were granted in 1964
and we fuel they will not negatively impact the Community.
overall , the applicant believes that through the use of
landscaped planting matel•ials, aesthetically pleasing
architecture, and special design and construction techniques, the
proposed project will contribute to the quality of life, cjeneral
health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood and
the city of Huntington Beach in general .
very truly
i
Tow oru l t
.thief Us"tivee Officer
i
l
1
PROMS. CONCERNED HOMPOWNSRS - HUNTINCTON CIEST
TO: PLANNING cOMMIRSION/DEVILOPMtNT SCIVOSWAFt M IO '
DATE : NOVEMBER 'So 19Bd
L 0 11
COMM. OUL•:L.
As adjacent homeowners of the proposed project , we respectfully
request your consideration of the following concerns felt by the
residents of Huntington Crest . Should the project be approved we .
request that you consider our ccncerns as specific conditions of
approval .
The concerns expressed at present were also addressed back in 1960
when originally proposed . As property owners, we are anxious for
development of the vacant land surrounding our neighborhood but we
want a development that will promote better living conditions and
environments for all concerned . We feel that the establishment of
this project, as proposed , will be detrimental to the general
welfare of persons residing and working in the vicinity .
Please review the following modifications and may we suggest that
they be imposed as conditions of approval to alleviate any potential
problems :
1 . The site plan , floor plane , and elevations shall be revised and
depicting the modifications described herein:
I
a . Height - No three story structures shall be allowed. if
three story units are preferred the garages _shall be
subterranean. There shall be no�artificial rades or
Berms crew ed . To-of pe`aga sha=be no more than 77 reet
from ground level .
b . The project design ( Cape Cod ) will be revised to be more
architecturally compatible with surrounding neighborhood
(new commercial center - stucco buildingel commercial
buildings on corner - stucco with red the roofes
adjoining homes to south and east - maditerranean) .
C . Front of unite shall face the adjacent single family
homes; garages shall face away from t`ie homes to alleviate
car roises . There should be a minimum 40 foot set.ba^.k
from the existing single family homes .
d . Landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for
review and approval , The Developer is proposing to spend
$250 , 000 on landscaping . The single family homes to the
east and south have approximately $500000 in landscaping
per lot .
HUNTINGTON CREST HOMEOWNERS
PiA ge TWO
low,
y
el Grading and drainage plan should be completed prior to
development . Drainage is a main concern of the adjacent
property owners . Many of the adjacent single family
residents have subterranean family rooms/recreation areas
that will be subject to flooding . There should be a 4
foot drain tile on the west, south and east perimeters
inside project wall draining towards Garfield Avenue.
f . Sewage Study - A study should be completed to determine
any impacts from ground water caused by sprinklers in the
project as well as storms.
g . Traffic study should be completed immediately. The
project will create a hazardous traffic problem to the
area . ( 113 units x 2 cars - 226 cars + existing traffic
on Garfield + school children + bike riders a major
conjestion )
h . An eight foot high masonry wall shall be constructed of
uniform design and material along the eastern and southern
edge of the property . The applicant shall work with
adjacent homeowners to replace or repair any walls ,
patios , the work damaged during construction .
i . A Development Agreement shall be prepared pursuant to the
Government Code and those procedures adopted byy the City
Council for such agreements (Resolution No. 5390 ) .
2 . During construction period , hours of operation should be
limited to regular working hours ( 7 : 00 AM to 5 : 00 PM) - no
week-end work a.11owed . Requirement of daily water trucks to
wet down the dirt to alleviate any dust problems . If
construction occurs during winter months, allowances should be
made to mitigate any problems with mud/compaction .
3 . Rodent eradication plan, approved by the Orange County Vector
Control Distri4t , should be provided by the developer .
We will be present and well represented at the Planning Commission
meeting this evening and are prepared to speak individually on each
of the above mentioned concerns.
Huntington Crest Homeowners
�►IMI�'1
1
low Y7
January 9 , 1997
r. /e ! L
�►�-t r r f
City Council . - r7-
City of Huntington Be�vh S�l
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach CA 92646 -
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 86 . 51
Tentative Tract No. 12896
Seawind Cove Condominiums
Garfield Avenue
Huntington Beach, California
Honorable Council Members,
Magna Corporation proposes to develop a vacant site of
approximately 8 . 03 acres , just east of the intersection of Beech
Boulevard And Garfield Avenue,
On December 16, 19850 the Planning Commission of Huntington Beach
denied our application to develop this property by a vote of 4-3.
We have appealed their decision to you. Because of the complex
and lengthy planning process which has taken place, we would like
to present our views of the issues, involved in our appl.icatiot
for development .
Since November 5, 1986 , we have worked with the Planning
Commission, Staff and the neighbors to create a plan which is
both desirable and feasible. In doing so, we have been quite
frustrated by the many different, and at times, conflicting
wishes of these three entities . At the same time, just when we
seem to have reached an understanding, opinions change again. We
have also attempted to keep in mind what will be good for the
future residents of this development.
The background pertinent to this project is :
The existing zoning for this site is R-2 PD. Although the
maximum number of units allowed by code is 120, we propose to
build 109 units. The proposed condominiums will be built in 23
buildings of four to aix dwelling units in each building. Each
unit will have a two car garage.
Total site coverage Is 113 , 026 square feet or 12 .6% of total
site; however, 50% is allowed by code.
Guest parking in excess of code has been provided throughout the
site.
1
V �.r.
i
Although the required minimum unit size for a two bodroom unit is
only 900 square feet and a three bedroom unit is only 2, 100
squarer feet, the project will have five unit types that surpass
these minimum requirements. These unit types range in sis• from
1, 535 square feet to approximately 1,700 square feet. The site
of these units, while in excess of most planned developments,
more closely matches the average size of the surrounding homes,
The applicant is providing a quality living environment with
emphasis placed on interior amenities, quality of construction
and ample living areas. This project will serve as an excellent
transition from the commercial area to the west of this site and
the surrounding residences . The quality of these units will
serve to protect the integrity of the neighborhood values and
lifestyles.
Individual features to be provided include:
1. Private enclosed patios that exceed minimum requirements
2 . Two-car garages with direct home entry
3 . Automatic garage door openers
4 . Large master bedrooms with vatilted ceilings
5. Skylights
6 . Bay Windows
7 . Pantries
8 . walk in closets
9 . Large oval tubs with separate showers
10 . Separate dining areas
11 . Breakfast Bars
12 . Ceramic Tile Baths
13 . Raised Tile Entryways
14 . Fireplaces with gas outlets
15. Upgraded dual pane windows with lattice dividers
Great care has been taken to provide an ample buffer from the
surrounding residences by pleasing placement of buildings,
walkways and landscaping.
The developer estimates that the proposed landscaping will cost
in excess of $250, 000. Common amenities being provided include a
recreation building, pool , spa, sauna , barbecue area and a tot
lot. The total required major recreation area is 17 , 985 square
feet, however the developer iu providing 24 , 352 square feet. The
required minimum clubhouse size if 763 square feet and the
proposed clubhouse will be 1 , 032 square feet .
Construction will be wood framing, concrete floor& and wood
siding . Exterior appearance will be of a "Caps Cod" nature.
Maqna Corporation builds projects which are high quality,
superior desiqn and incorporate amenities that will provide
residents superior quality of life.
This development was submitted and approved by the City of
Huntington Beach in 1960 and again in 1984. For various reasons,
G 1
theprior applicants were unable to complete development of for
project. The original plan was of the same architectural style
and consisted of all 3 2/2 story buildings.
The architects for the development on both those occasions was
the firm of Nuttall i Vchisono. This same firm has boon retained
by Magna Corporation to continue the architectural work on the
project.
Prior to our original hearing date of 11/5/86 with the planning
coniission, we sent a letter to residents outlining our proposal
and requesting any comments be referred to us for a response. We
heard from no one, but a ]getter of protest was filed by a group {
of neighbors the day of the hearing. Because the project had
previously been approved on two separate occasions Magna Celt
there would be minimal protests it we proceeded with are identical
project. We appeared before the Planning Commission on November
5, 1986, and requested approval for conditional use permit and
tentative tract map for substantially the sane project.
Certain special permits had been granted when the project was
previously approved and, because out, project was substantially
the same an the previous submissions, we asked the Planning
Commission to grant the same special permits .
The public hearing was quite Zengthy and it was quite evident
that the residents and the Commission had a difficult time fully
understanding the diverse and complicated isscugs involved. At
the same time, the Commissioners ' and the residents ' discussion
expressed substantial concern about certain aspects of the
development. These major concerns included:
1 . Building bulk was too great, especially along
Garfield and adjacent to the residential property.
commissioners suggested that buildings along the
residential property be reduced to two stories and
interior buildings be 2 1/2 stories. it was also
suggested that units along Garfield be softened.
II
2 . Residents complained about the "huge mass" along
them property lines and about the setback from their
property.
3 . Commissioners and residents expressed concerns
about the architectural style of the development. They
wanted the style to "Mix in noose" with the
neighborhood. Also that "lines were too straight with
not onoucih architectural relief" , and that "buildings j
did not stagger in and out".
4 . Concerns about drainage were expressed. Residents
were concerned that eater from the development mould
3
h
{
flood their property. A condition of approval
ssixufiring detention of 100 year flood water on sits for
hours was made. Perimeter berms were stated by the
residents to be unacceptable.
b. Not enough parking, both distributed frec parking
and parking behind units.
because of these concerns, the planning commission deferred the
decision on our application. We were instructed to work with the
residents and the planning Division Staff, to wake revisions to
the project that would address the concerns of the residents and
which would eliminate the special permits requestad (special
permits that had been granted when the project was previously
approved) . The strongest objections of the residents had to dial
with elements of the project that were not in conflict with
codes, such as buildinq heights along their properties .
between November 6, 19s6, and December 16, 1986 , we not with the
residents on threw separate occasions and with Staff on several
other occasions to discuss their concerns. At ail times, Magna
has kept the residents fully informed of developments and
supplied with, all copies of revisions. The point has been made
by both Staff and the residents that Magna haw been cooperative
and honest in their efforts to resolve this problem.
At our November 24 , 1986 , ,meeting with the residents a general
consensus for approval of the project, at least from the
residents ' perspective, was agreed to providing the following
conditions were met:
i. Two story units only around the perimeter of the
project.
2 . Setbacks from residents property at least 20 feet.
3 . No perimeter berms .
An a result of the input we received from Staff, residents, and
the planning Commission, we made substantial revisions to the
` project plan as discussed below. The most current revisions
which will come before you still have all of the conditions in
i the original project plan requiring special permits, but the
instances they occur in the project are greatly reduced. At tner
same time, changing our design to satisfy the neighbors concerns
created other conditions that require two Aditional special
permits . The following is a summary of the special exemptions
requested and how they have changed in the subsequent revisions:
1 . A 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the front
property line in lieu of a 10 foot setback. This
condition has not changed in any of the revisionso
we feel this fence will allow for greater security to
the project and that, through an undo laming
i 4
configuration, will not negatively affect the street
scene from Garfield. The onsite sidewalks that provide
access to each home will rise and fall with the berms
we will create and we see this as an attractive
nuisance to children either riding bicycles or
skateboards. Magna understands that this section of
the coda is primarily designed to prevent two solid
walls too close together which would create an
unappealing appearance. An open, attractive wrought
iron fence will not create this type of appearance.
2 . A 34 foot building separation between opposite second
and third floor rear elevations (driveway side) in lieu
of 40 feet. on our original plan,, this condition
occurred in several places. presently, this situation
occurs in only two areas on the site. Where it does
occur, it is not because solid wails are too close
together, but because architectural pop outs and
overhangs are within 34 feet of each other. We have
more than ample light penetration and feel this special
permit is necessary to provide a more appealing
architectural style.
3 . six feet to 10 feet setback from dwelling unit to
driveway and/or parking spaces in lieu of 15 feet.
This condition deals only with the separation between
parking spaces and buildings. We do provide at least
15 feet between dwelling units and driveways. In all
instances this impacts only the side of a dwelling unit
and if measured diagonally to the nearest window
exceeds 151 . The request for this exception is to
provide for more parking. The granting of this
excep'.1on allows us to provide pull in parking as
opposed to parallel parking.
4 . Provide 20 foot setback for garages from drive aisle
for 27 . 5% (30 units) where 50% is required. The
original plan submitted had 10. 6% of the units that met
this requirement. Parking is a major concern of both
the residents and the Planning Commission. The need
for ample parking is also a major concern of Magna.
What we have done to mitigate any potential parking
problem is to provide more than required free open
parking spaces around the project. This is one area in
which the Planning Commission did give us a firm
direction in which to work. However, they failed to
let us know how much parking they would like to have.
In total parking, we have 303 countable spates where
only 273 are required. In actuality, we have an
additional 30 spaces behind the garages which. cannot be
counted in the official tally because by Code only 500
of the units that are within the 20, setback from the
5
drive &Lola may be counted. by satistying the
neighbors concern about building height around the
adjoining property lines, we needed to wake those
buildings longer to place the garages adjoining, but
behind the units. Therefore, we could not provide the
additional 20 foot setbacks to most Code without
drastically affecting our open space .
S . Provide no offsets in building facades. In our
original submission, this condition existed in all four
and five unit buildings. Currently, this condition
occurs in only four buildings which are in the interior
of the project. We also feel that there are enough
other architectural movements within these buildings to
support this request.
G. All three story units in lieu of one-third being two
story. Currently we have 31 units which are two-story
but clustered adjacent to R1 aonod properties. It was
suggested by the Planning Commission that this would be
a good compromise. To further reduce the building hulk
in the remaining buildings along Garfield and
throughout the project, we have softened the building
j bulk by offsetting the end units at least 5 feet. This
was at the suggestion of staff and has been allowed in
several other projects in Huntington Beach. As a
result of these changes, our project plan has reduced
bulk on 574 of the units . the special permit is
still
necessary because they are not at both ends of each
building . However, each end of six unit buildings are
softened and at least one unit of the remaining five
unit buildings is softened.
7 . A common open space area of 84 , 400 square feet in lieu
of 87 , 200 square feet. A common open space of 90, 249
square feet is provided but some areas contain less
than a 20 foot dimension. As staff has pointed out,
our total open space, including private open space,
exceeds the minimum requirement. our requested
deviation is about 3% . Basically, we are providing
more private open space as opposed to common open
space .
Additional special permit requests that are required with the
rovised plans are:
a, solid private patio walls, 6 feet in height, with 13
feet to 16 feet from property line in lieu of 30 feet.
our request for a variance for a patio wall with a
setback from the front property line is necessary to
provide those 14 units along Garfield privacy while at
the same tino, allowing for more overall parking behind
6
1 ,.
t
dwelling units .
0. Interior yard setback fro* R2 toned properties of 30-35
feet in lieu of 33 .7 feet and 42 feet. By redesigning
the buildings, we have made them longer which therefore
increases the required setback. Magna did not, widen
the buildings which are a good deal below the allowed
maximum width . At the same time, we have setback the
second floor windows about fifteen feet from the front
building line . We actually have less visual impact
than one would have with two R1 properties knack to
back. Along the R1 perimeter, the building height doer
not exceed 21 feet. We did not need this exception on
our original design. 1
As stated before, we have redesigned and created a new two story
unit which provides a good transition from the residential
properties to the higher, more typical townhome that appears in
the interior of the project. This was accomplished, only by the
elimination of four units. We were also able than to create more
parking.
Another concern of both the Commission and the residents was that
of drainage. our civil engineer prepared a drainage study and
attended two meetings with the residents and answered their
questions and addressed their concerns about drainage. In
addition, the City' s Engineering Department studied this problem.
As a result, the Planning Commission agreed with our proposed
drainage plan and subsequently recommended removal of Staff's
P �N Y
condition for 200 year flood 6 hour retainage. Magna also
removed all berms along the parimeter of the R1 residences.
Despite our efforts , the Planning CoYamidsion rejected our
aprlication on December 16, 1986p by a 4-3 vote. Therefore, we
have appealed they decision of the Planning Commission to the City
Council .
We request that the City Council approve conditional use permit
No. 86 . 51 and tentative trAct No . 12896 with the requested
special permits. j
It should be noted that this conditions requiring special permits
arose primarily from the project plan revisions that were made to
address the Concerns of the local residents that had nothing to
do with violations of code. Furthermore, the conditions are
relatively insignificant. Please note that a projectplan with
no special permit requests could be submitted, but it would
require returning to the original building design which created
so much opposition from the residents.
The aajor objections of the residents which still remain have to
do with the architectural style we have chosen and the tact that
they would like to have all four unit buildinlre alanq their
properties. both of these objections have nothing to do with
code .
The question of the architectural style is a highly changed
emotional issue. It boils down to a question of taste. The Cape
Cod style we propose is not on u;,asual style. The neighbors
. greed at the meeting of November 24 , that this style was
acceptable, as evidenced by Staff Ia report (pages i i 2) to the
Planning Conmission dated December 2, 2986. In fact, we went so
far as to allow them to approve the colors and the roofing
material. They now say they object to this style. Fie feel , as
Staff stated in their original, report to the Planning
Commission, that this project is large enough to support its own
style. We have been informed, howevar, that Staff has reversed
their opinion and in now recommending that we use stucco and
tile. We have researched, the market and feel the style we have
chosen is compatible with the area. I think this objection would
have more validity if we abutted a subdivision which had a
particular architectural style.
In truth, we have no architectural style to blend with. There
are at least six distinct architectural styles in the surrounding
area. The quality of materials, construction and amenities of
our proposed development is in keeping with that of units which
will seal for approximately $154 , 000 to $180, 000. We would be
foolish to build a product that would not be accepted in the
marketplace.
In answer to the residents request for only four unit buildings
along their property lines , we make the argument that in mixing
building types, a more pleasing &Achitec:tural design is achieved.
Staff concurred with this feeling. We have only three buildings
along the perimeter which are five units, the rest area four unit
buildings and one of the five unit building abuts Garfield.
Current Code allows for six units within one building. This
objection was not praised by the residents until the December
second meeting in which Magna requested a continuance. At that
time, the objection was raised that any buildings over 4 units
would create: a fire hazard . All units are to be fire sprinklered
and will not creates any fire hazard. Currently, the residents
object to fiver unit buildings as being too wide.
Through out this planning process, in -trying to work with all
concerned parties, we have been impeded by the constant changing
conditions and objections of both Staff and the Residents.
Examples of this are the residents' objection to the number of
units in each building and Staff and residents ' objection to the
architectural style. Magna has attempted to meet the desir-Qs of
all concerned parties. In attempting to solve those objections,
mainly in building, height, parking and setback, that wets not in
violation of code, we have been forced to ask for special
L
vita. While the somber of rapest increased, the freWwenoY of
each instance in which the variarms Is needed, deareased. Us
result of theme changes has been the loss of units and otdis
Increased costs.
fn summary, we feel that we have tried to most the intent of the
Code of Huntington beach while at the same time, satisfying so
many personal objections not related to code as possible, etaft
has stated to us that they feel we have met all of their major
concerns with the project. However, despite our many effortsoit
is impossible to please everyone and Kagna wishes that we could
have come to the Council with a plan which had the unqu►alifiad
indorsement of both Staff and the residents. We are unable to
aocomplish this, but Magna feels that the plan before you is a
quality development which will add not detract from the
neighborhood and will improve the City of Huntington Beach.
Thank you for your time and consideration In this matter.
sincerely,
Tote Eruttomanno
Chief Executive officer
S
:4
APO-
` 120 Nest Sth Street
Somta &m. California 92701
January 16, 1987
,/ ,�. .
�'c .—
The Honorable Grace Winchill (`. L S
City Council /
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH y -�i ( llJ�if c/)
C�
Huntington Beach, California 92646 � 0��
Subject: Conditional Use permit Number 86 . 51
Tentative Tract Number 12896
rc�l �O
Seawind Cove Condominiums Q,�L�
Garfield avenue
Huntington Beach, California F c�
Dear Councilwoman Winchell:
I have had delivered to your office a copy of the tape of the
Planning Commission meeting of December 16, 1986 . I apologize
for the fact that there is some extraneous programming at the end
of the tape, which I wary unaware of when the tape was duplicated.
The following are a few prujects in the area , which have the
same type of architectural materials. They are: Pentridga Cove
Condominiun project, located on Baker Street, between Bristol and
Boar; there is also a condominium project on Baker Street,
located between MacArthur and Bear; The Woodlakes project (this
may be an apartment project) , located on the corner of MacArthur
and Greenville. While the architecture is not exactly the same
as what we propose, the materials are very similar.
I have also enclosed for your information a copy of Hones
Magazine, which illustrates the homes fir sale throughout
Southern California. The paper-clipped paged, are examples of the
same type of materials and similar architectural style to what we
proposs. I think the sale prices that these homes are offered
for demonstrate that our architectural style in both desirable
and valuable.
Thank you again for your time and consideration in this matter.
If you have any further questions at all, I will be in California
M,
� v
3asuary 16, 1987
fto Mamrable Grace Minchell
Page Two
on Monday and Tuesday, January 19th and 20th, and I can be
contacted through Eton Pattinson. Or I can be reached through ay
Las Vegas Office (702) 369-9999 .
Sincerely,
MAGNA CORPORATIO
TOM 8hUTTOKESSO
President
TS/lsb
Enclosures
As Stated
I