The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPublic Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tem Dav VAN BLA.IRtiCOM ° r` ` JOHN G.McCLENDON LEIBOLD 1.4T'� t7 john@cEQA.COM 7 1�-f0� @�ACtl, CA MCCLENDON IIJ �'�p,h 23423 T,,L K11VRI`N 1;ISUITE 105 . LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 MANN Z11 Ski C?? TEL 949.457.6300 FAX 949.457.6305 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION September 16, 2005 I-MND PELIVERED TO.-- BOARD OF TRUSTEES CITY CLERK Ocean View School District City of Huntington.Beach 17200 Pinehurst Lane 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92647 Huntington Beach, California 92648 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Huntington Beach Union High School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999 RE: Ocean View School District/Huntington Beach Union High School District Contract ofAdhesion with Roosevelt Huntington, LLC—Notice ofProtest [City ofHuntington Beach—Tentative Tract Map No. 166821CUP No. 04-16] TO: Honorable Members of the Boards of Trustees and Honorable Mayor and City Council On or about January 10, 2005,the manager of Roosevelt Huntington, LLC, executed and submitted, under protest, four originals of that certain Agreement Among Roosevelt Huntington LLC, Ocean View School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District("Agreement") in the preprinted form presented to him by the School Districts. In accordance with the requirements of subdivisions (a) and(d)(1) of California Government Code section 66020,VAN BLARCoM LEIBOLD MCCLENDON&MANN submits the following information on behalf of Roosevelt Huntington, LLC, and the manager thereof: (A) The condition imposed upon Roosevelt Huntington, LLC, by the School Districts and the City of Huntington Beach ("City") of having to execute the Agreement as a prerequisite for the City processing Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and CUP No. 04-16 has been satisfied, under protest, and the required payment set forth in paragraph 3 of the Agreement will be tendered when due, under protest. i (B) The factual elements forming the basis for this protest are as follows: By letter dated January 10, 2005, the manager of Roosevelt Huntington informed the Districts of his objection to the School Districts threatening"to do everything in [their] power to make sure the project does not get approved, including VAN BLARCOM LEIBOLD MCCLENDON &MANN September 16, 2005 Page 2 withholding the "will serve" etter. I want you to know that I personally find this practice by the school district extremely distasteful." By.letter dated January 25,2005,Roosevelt Huntington was informed by the School Districts that unless it presented the Agreement without reservation, "an unmitigated impact on schools may remain. As a result, the District is unable to provide any confirmation to other local agencies that it is able to serve the students of this development at this time." Faced with this threat, by letter dated January 26, 205, the manager of Roosevelt Huntington apologized for his January 10, 2005, letter and submitted resigned copies of the Agreement. On June 20, 2005, the City approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and CUP No. 04-16. The legal theories forming the basis for this protest are as follows: (1) The Agreement is a classic contract of adhesion. The School Districts illegally black-mailed Roosevelt Huntington into signing the Agreement using its pending development application as a hostage. (2) The School Districts illegally extorted money out of Roosevelt Huntington in violation of Government Code section 65996, which states: "(a), Notwithstanding Section 65858, or Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code,or any other provision of state or local law,the following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur or might occur as a result of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, by any state or local agency involving,but not limited to.,the planning, use, or development of real property or any change of governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in Section 56021 or 56073: (1) Section 17620 of the Education Code. (2) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7. (b)The provisions of this chapter are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities miti ag tion and, notwithstanding Section 65858, or Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code,or any other provision of state or local law, a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental VAN BLARCOM LEIBOLD MCCLENDON &MANN September 16, 2005 Page 3 organization or reorganization, as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the basis that school facilities are-inadequate. (c) For purposes of this section, "school facilities" means any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the ability of a local agency to utilize other methods to provide school facilities if these methods are not levied or imposed in connection with,or made a condition of a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to the planning use, or development of real property or a change in governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in Section 56021 or 56073. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the assessment or reassessment of property in conjunction with ad valorum taxes,or the placement of a parcel on the secured roll in conjunction with qualified special taxes as that term is used in Section 50079." (Emphasis added.) (3) Roosevelt Huntington is informed and believes that a conspiracy exists between the School Districts, and possibly the City, to extort money out of persons developing properties within their jurisdictions in violation of State Law. (4) Roosevelt Huntington is informed and believes that the School Districts, with the possible complicity of the City, made the foregoing unlawful demands upon the manager of Roosevelt Huntington because he was born in Taiwan and is Chinese. In this regard, they violated Government Code Section 65008 which expressly declares any governmental action null and void if it denies to an individual any land use because of race, ethnicity or national origin. Very truly yours, VAN BLARCOM, LEIBOLD, MCCLENDON & MANN, P.C. By: John G. McClendon 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK June 29, 2005 Hank Jong EGL Associates, Inc., 11823 Slauson Avenue, Suite 18 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Re: NOTICE OF ACTION —Tentative Tract Map No. 16682—Conditional Use Permit #04-16 Dear Mr. Jong: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 20, 2005 took action on the following Public Hearing: Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tern Dave Sullivan of the Planning Commission's Approval of 13 Residential Units for Tentative Tract Map No. 16682—Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 - Roosevelt Townhomes(16811 Roosevelt Lane(west side, north of Warner Avenue, south of Pearce Drive)--Applicant, Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc. Council approved Tentative Tract Map No_ 16682 -- Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Enclosed are the action agenda pages 6 &7. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, oan - Y City Clerk �490j Enclosure: Action Agenda Pages 6 & 7 Findings and Conditions of Approval cc: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Mayor Pro Tem Dave Sullivan (Telephone:71"3"227) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 166821 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is ex- empt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15332-- In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres sub- stantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 to subdivide a 41,054 square foot parcel into one (1) lot for condo- minium purposes (13 units) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density) on the subject property and applicable provisions of the zoning code. The RM designation provides for residential development at a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The project proposes residential development at a density of 13.76 units per acre. In addi- tion the project complies with all applicable development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including minimum lot size and width, minimum on-site parking, land- scaping, setbacks and open space, and maximum building heights. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is regular in shape, has no unique topographical or other constraints to development and can accommodate the proposed development in accordance with all applicable codes and development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi- tat. The project consists of residential development on a previously developed lot in an urbanized area. The project site does not serve as habitat for fish or wildlife, is not identified as a hazardous waste site and contains no known environmental hazards. The project will comply with all Code re- quirements applicable to the subject site. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements acquired by the public at large exist within the proposed subdivision and all necessary easements will be provided pursuant to conditions of approval. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 to permit (a) construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot within the RM (Residential Medium Density) Zone; and (b) patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches) within the required front yard setback, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems can adequately service the proposed development without sig- nificantly impacting the overall service or system. The project will not have a significant adverse im- pact on traffic volumes, school enrollments or recreational resources. Adequate on-site parking is provided (in conformance with code requirements) and no significant noise, air pollution or other im- pacts will be generated on-site. The project will provide 11 market-rate units and two affordable hous- ing units, thus serving to maintain a proper balance of housing opportunities in the City. The proposed project features quality architectural design, site layout and building materials that will ensure no det- rimental impact to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed 43- inch tall patio fencing will have no detrimental impacts since the one-inch increase in height over the basic requirement is minimal, the fencing will extend across less than 35 percent of the lot width and the top 12-inches (approximately) of the fence is designed as view fencing. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed multi- family residential use will be established on a site designated by the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map for the type and density of development proposed. In addition, the project design is consistent with and complementary to existing multi-family and single-family residential uses in the vi- cinity, including the project site grade elevation, building scale, architecture, massing, building colors and materials. 3. The proposed 13 unit condominium project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordi- nance, including maximum density and building height, and minimum building setbacks, landscaping, open space and on-site parking requirements. The HBZSO authorizes fences exceeding 42 inches in height with approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density— 15 units/acre)on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse eco- nomic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Objective LU 9.5: Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens, the physically and men- tally challenged, and very low, low and moderate-income families. Policy LU 9.1.3: Require that multi-family residential projects be designed to convey a high level of quality and distinctive neighborhood character as discussed below: a. Design building elevations treatment to convey the visual character of individual units rather than a singular building mass and volumes. b. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit, which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards, and /or common areas. c. Site and design parking areas and facilities that are integrated with but do not dominate the archi- tectural character of the structure. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.2 The proposed project is consistent with the goal to achieve development of a diverse range of hous- ing types by providing for the development of 13 housing units consistent with the design and density standard established for the corresponding zoning designation. Moreover, the project provides for a mixture of two and three bedroom dwelling units, and unit sizes ranging between 1,465 sq. ft. and 1,848 square-feet. In addition, two units would be designated as affordable housing. The project is designed as a townhouse-style development whereby each unit has well defined, ground-floor entries, as well as distinct massing elements and other design features which serve to define the individual units within each building. Moreover, variations in the facades and rooflines of each of the four buildings are incorporated while maintaining consistency with the overall design theme. The project also includes an interior landscaped courtyard as well as a separate common area amenity (spa). All 13 units are designed with the garages at the rear of the dwellings, thus minimizing the impact of the parking areas on the architectural character of the building. Open park- ing spaces are separated in groupings of three and four parking stalls with adjacent landscape plant- ers such the parking area does not appear as a singular dominant feature of the site. Policy LU 3.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orienta- tion, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The project provides for a multitude of rooflines, building offsets, massing elements and upper story setbacks that serve to maintain compatibility with surrounding single and multi-family residential de- velopment_ All four units proposed along the street frontage are oriented toward the street, consis- tent with existing single-family development located directly east of the site, across Roosevelt Lane. Upper story setbacks incorporated into the design provide for an appropriate transition between the two-story single-family dwellings (30 fit. height limit) existing to the west and the proposed dwellings. B. Housing Element Obiective HE 1.1.5: Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. Objective HE 5.1.3: Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes.. The project incorporates several design features that serve to maintain compatibility with existing residential development surrounding the project site. In addition, the project proposes development at a density that is practical for the site and just under the maximum density allowed, thus providing adequate numbers of housing units, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Hous- ing Element policies. (05SW5) Attachment No. 13 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL--TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. The tentative map tract map received and dated December 16, 2004 shall be the conditionally ap- proved layout with the following modifications: a. A 26-foot wide public street easement dedication shall be required and depicted westerly from the existing centerline along the entire Roosevelt Lane frontage terminating at the southerly end with a 46-foot radius arc dedication for public street right-of-way purposes. b. A 2-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) dedication shall be required and depicted along the westerly side of Roosevelt Lane. c. A 20-foot half roadway width westerly of the existing centerline and full parkway width (6-foot) sidewalk shall be required and depicted along the Roosevelt Lane frontage. d. A separate water meter shall serve each dwelling unit. e. The right-of-way line along the Roosevelt Lane frontage of the adjacent property to the north shall be correctly depicted. f. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association for the project. g. State mandated school impact fees shall be paid to all applicable school districts. h. The final map shall be revised for consistency with the site plan received and dated June 1, 2005. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 1, 2005, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The height of patio fencing proposed within the front yard setback shall be 43 inches. Any re- quest to increase the height shall be subject to approval of an entitlement plan amendment. No fencing or walls other that that depicted on the approved plans shall be permitted within the re- quired front yard setback. b. The site plans shall be revised to depict a new six-foot tall block a long the north property line, consistent with the tentative tract map. c. The required private patios for all units shall be enclosed with plaster finish walls (as depicted by the detail drawing on Sheet A-4.7 of the conceptually approved plans) in lieu of hedges. 2. Two affordable housing units shall be provided. The affordable units shall be median income on-site or one low-income and one very low-income off-site. 3. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are pro- posed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. (OSsr05) Attachment No. 1.4 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harm- less the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or pro- ceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or em- ployees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any ap- proval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this pro- ject. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.5 (6) June 20, 2005 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 6 Speakers spoke regarding Huntington Beach Youth Shelter and support of the city's efforts to reopen this much needed service. C-1. Council Committee/Appointments/Liaison Reports { } (This is the opportunity for Councilmembers to make announcements regarding Council committees, appointments or liaison reports.) Councilmember Coerper, Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan and Councilmember Green reported on the 311 Committee. C-1 a. (City Council) Councilmember Gil Coerper to Introduce Huntington Beach Firefighter/Paramedic Justin Fleming and sister Shauna Fleming Re: Sending Letters to the Troops Serving Overseas (160.10) Councilmember Gil Coerper will introduce Huntington Beach Firefighter/Paramedic Justin Fleming and his sixteen-year-old sister, Shauna Fleming, to discuss a project that Shauna has been working on to send letters to troops serving overseas. Shauna set a goal to send one million letters in one year to show the troops our appreciation for their efforts. She has since met that goal and is now working to increase her goal to 1.4 million — one letter for every person serving in the military now. Presentation made by Huntington Beach Firefighters'Association to Shauna Fleming for her"A Million Thanks"program. She announced her website—amillionthanks.org and expressed how much these letters are appreciated by the troops. C-2. City Administrator's Report - None C-3. City Treasurer's Report C-3a. (City Council) Review and Accept Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer's Aprils 2005 Investment Summary Report Titled City of Huntington Beach Summary of City Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity (310.20) Communication from City Treasurer Shari Freidenrich transmitting the Monthly Investment Report and Summary of Investments for April 2005. Recommended Action: Motion to: Review and accept the Monthly Investment Report. Following review of the report, by motion of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Report Summary of Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity for April 2005, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. Approved 7— 0 D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Pro Tem Dave Sullivan of the Planning Commission's Approval of 13 Residential Units for Tentative Tract Map No. 16682—Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 - Roosevelt Townhomes (16811 (7) June 20, 2005 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 Roosevelt Lane (west side, north of Warner Avenue, south of Pearce Drive) —Applicant, Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc. (420.40) Public hearing to consider appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16682/Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 (Roosevelt Lane Condominiums): Applicant: Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc. Appellant: Dave Sullivan, Mayor Pro Tern Request: Tentative Tract Map (TTM): To subdivide a 41,054 sq. ft. parcel into one lot for condominium purposes; Conditional Use Permit (CUP): To permit (a) construction of 13 three- story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot; and (b) patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (proposed 43 inches)within the required front yard setback. Location: 16811 Roosevelt Lane (west side of Roosevelt Lane, north of Warner Avenue, south of Pearce Drive) Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. On file: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday,June 16,2005. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536- 5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing 4. Following public input, close public hearing Recommended Action: Motion to: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with findings and modified conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1.) Assistant Planner Ron Santos gave PowerPoint presentation. Council and staff discussed Affordable Housing issue, drainage situation, open spaces and setback area, and six-foot versus eight-foot block wall along Roosevelt Lane frontage. Public Hearing opened, 2 speakers, Public Hearing closed Approved Recommended Action as amended— on site would have two medium affordable units for sale or offsite, one low and one very low affordable rental units applicant's choice, and eliminate "g"from Conditions of Approval of TTM 16682. Approved 7— 0 D-2 (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Councilmember Debbie Cook of the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-03 (Doo Retaining Wall located 17041 Westport Drive, west of Bedford Lane) —Applicant, Shirley Doo (420.40) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACF#' ;. ;. �. MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-19 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ww� )�Ap rove ❑ Con itionallyApproved ❑ Denied City erk' Signa r Council Meeting Date: June 20, 2005 Department ID Number: PL05-19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABL MAYOR�IND CITY MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: PENELO CUL ETH-GRAFT, City Administrator PREPARED BY. HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 (Roosevelt Townhomes) - APPEAL Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mayor Pro Tem Dave Sullivan of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16682/ Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16. This application represents a request by Hank Jong — EGL Associates, Inc., to subdivide a 41,054 square-foot parcel into one (1) lot for condominium purposes, construct 13 three-story residential units (Roosevelt Townhomes), and allow patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (proposed 43 inches) within a portion of the required front yard setback. The Planning Commission approved the project on March 8, 2005. Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission and is recommending that the City Council approve the request with recommended findings and conditions of approval (Recommended Action - A) because the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use designation, complies with applicable Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and the Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines, is suitable for the project site, will not cause detrimental impacts and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Funding Source: Not applicable. PL05-19 Roosevelt Townhomes 61712005 812 AM I } REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-19 Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with findings and modified conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)". Planning Commission Action on March 8 2005: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16, WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BURNETT, DWYER, FUHRMAN, LIVENGOOD, RAY, SCANDURA NOES: DINGWALL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with findings" 2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Hank Jong — EGL Associates, Inc., 11823 Slauson Avenue, Suite 18 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Location: 16811 Roosevelt lane (west side, north of Warner Ave., south of Pearce Drive) Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 represents a request to subdivide a 41,054 square-foot parcel into one (1) lot for condominium purposes (13 townhome units). Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 represents a request to permit construction of 13 three- story residential dwelling units with attached garages and to allow patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (proposed 43 inches) within the required 15 foot front yard setback. PL05-19 Roosevelt Town homes 4 6/712005 8:12 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-19 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requested entitlements on March 8, 2008. The Planning Commission discussed and considered all aspects of the proposed project in detail, including driveway widths, emergency access, the proposed spa, landscaping within the front yard setback, traffic impacts, site drainage, and private and common open space. In addition, the Planning Commission considered a letter, received from an interested party as late communication, which stated that a pair of hawks are currently nesting in a tree existing on the project site. In addition to the staff recommended conditions of approval, the Planning Commission imposed conditions (see Attachment No. 1) requiring the following: ■ separate water meters for each unit ■ establishment of a homeowner's association (required by the HBZSO) ■ restricted spa use hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) ■ restricted fencing within the front yard setback (can not exceed approved height and no additional fences/walls in front setback area, except as approved by the Planning Commission). One person spoke in support of the request. There were no other public comments. C. APPEAL: The following represents the basis for the appeal, as outlined in Mayor Pro Tem Dave Sullivan's appeal letter (Attachment No. 4): ■ There is not sufficient reason to allow private patios within the required front yard setback. ■ The area in which the project is situated has inadequate storm drainage. The project should not add to the problem. The project should mitigate its contribution to the area's drainage problem. ■ The affordable housing requirement is met at only the most minimal level possible. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As noted above, the proposed project has been designed in conformance with applicable City codes and policies, except for the conditional use permit request relative to fencing. A detailed project description, staff analysis and background discussion is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No. 3). The following focuses only on the appeal issues and site plan modifications: Private Patios Staff believes that the proposed patio and fence design is preferential to what would otherwise be allowed by the ZSO (i.e., by right); that the proposed patio design and layout is consistent with principals of good design and planning; and that approval of the project as proposed will have no detrimental impacts to surrounding properties based on the following: PL05-19 Roosevelt Town homes ,.4f 617l2005 8:12 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-19 ■ The proposed one-inch increase in height is negligible, based on the proposed fence design and setback: The top 12 inches is proposed as decorative view-fencing while the bottom 31 inches features a plaster finish matching the proposed dwellings. In addition, proposed 43 inch tall fencing is setback a minimum of six feet from the front property line; whereas the ZSO allows (by right) 42 inch tall, solid fencing at a zero setback from the front property line. ■ Proposed fencing within the front yard setback traverses less than 35% of the lot width and is designed with offset segments in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines. ■ The proposed patio areas occupy less than 20 percent of the required front yard setback. Moreover, landscaping (six foot minimum) separates the proposed patios from the public sidewalk; and landscaping and paved walkways separate the patio areas between Units 1 and 2, and between Units 3 and 4. ■ The proposed dwelling units are setback a minimum of 19 feet from the front property line, whereas the ZSO requires only a 15 foot minimum setback. The private patios, which are proposed between the dwelling units and the front property line, provide for a varied and height-graduated setback from the street frontage and represent a preferred alternative to two-story facades at the minimum (15 foot) setback. ■ The project provides both private and common on-site open space in excess of the minimum required (7,548 s.f. provided vs. 5,363 s.f. required). ■ The project site is adjacent to single-family residential development (Meadowlark) located directly to the north. The proposed private open space within the front setback would provide for compatibility with existing single-family residential properties whose entire front yards are private open space. ■ Denial of the requested conditional use permit would necessitate revisions, such as reorienting of the garages toward the street, narrowing of the central courtyard or a reduction in the number or size of units proposed, that would likely result in a less desirable project overall. It should also be noted that the City has previously approved conditional use permit requests to allow private patio fencing within the front yard setback, in conjuction with new multi-family housing projects. Examples include the following: ■ Regency Executive Townhomes — a 30 unit town homelapartment project at 1301 Delaware with 48 inch tall patio fencing at a ten-foot front and street side yard setback; ■ PLC Townhomes — a 10 unit project at 19081 Holly Street with five foot tall patio fencing at a seven foot front yard setback (66% of lot width). Drainage The preliminary design for the proposed project provides for drainage flow from the site to be conveyed to a recently constructed, 24-inch diameter storm drain in Roosevelt Lane. The 24-inch drain connects to a 30-inch diameter storm drain in Pearce Drive, which flows to Bolsa Chica Street, then to the Sunset Channel. The 24-inch storm drain was constructed PL05-19 Roosevelt Townhomes rB= W712005 8:12 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-19 as part of drainage improvements for the Meadowlark residential subdivision. The storm drain was sized based on a hydraulics and hydrology report, submitted for Public Works Department review and approval, which specifically addressed drainage issues on Roosevelt Lane. The project is subject to City standard development requirements which include submittal of hydrology and hydraulic studies addressing the adequacy of both on-site and off-site drainage facilities. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer will be required to construct new storm drain improvements of adequate capacity in Roosevelt Lane, or design an on-site drainage attenuation system. Public Works Department staff will review the required studies, in conjunction with review of the Precise Grading Plan. The requirement to submit the aforementioned studies and the potential need to construct new storm drain improvements was identified in a letter transmitted to the applicant on February 11, 2005. Affordable Housing The City Council recently (November 1, 2004) adopted an ordinance (Attachment 7) establishing requirements for provision of affordable housing in conjunction with new residential projects consisting of three or more units. The ordinance requires that a minimum of ten percent of new residential units to be made affordable housing for a minimum of 60 years, sets a range of income levels for both rental and for-sale units, provides for off-site units and for payment of in-lieu fees for projects consisting of nine or fewer units. A developer intending to satisfy the affordable housing requirement must prepare an affordable housing agreement outlining all aspects of the affordable housing to be provided, in accordance with Code, for review and approval by the City Council. Action on a proposed affordable housing agreement is taken separately from the associated entitlement(s) by the City Council alone. That is, the affordable housing agreement is not subject to Planning Commission review and approval; consideration of a proposed agreement is deferred until associated development entitlements are approved. Typically however, an applicant will prepare a draft affordable housing agreement outlining (in varying degrees of detail) the proposed means of satisfying the affordable housing requirement. Information regarding the draft affordable housing plan is conveyed to the Planning Commission as an informational item only. The applicant for the Roosevelt Townhome project submitted a draft affordable housing agreement prior to Planning Commission approval of the project. The agreement would provide for two affordable units (15 percent) on site, in conformance with applicable Code requirements. Although the Planning Commission staff report indicated that two on-site units are proposed, the affordable housing agreement plan has not yet been reviewed and approved by the City Council. Moreover, the submitted draft agreement does not specify income levels nor identify which units are proposed to meet the affordable housing requirement. Since approval of the project by the Planning Commission, the applicant has advised that they intend to satisfy the affordable housing requirement off-site, instead of on-site as originally proposed. The proposed location of the affordable units has not yet been PL05-19 Roosevelt Townhomes 6/7/2005 8:12 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-19 determined. in light of this, and in order to provide certainty to the City Council with respect to an issue serving as the basis of the appeal, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that the required affordable housing be provided on-site. Hawks'Nest Finally, in order to address concerns expressed at the Planning Commission hearing regarding red-tailed hawks presumed to be nesting on the site, the applicant hired a zoologist, Peter Bloom, to survey the site. Mr. Bloom's findings are provided as Attachment No. 6: In summary, Mr. Bloom determined that, although a hawk's nest exists in a eucalyptus tree on the site, the nest had been abandoned, had not been maintained and is currently unattended. Mr. Bloom further concluded that, although a pair of hawks remain in the territory, they will not attempt to breed again this year. Planning Department and City Attorney staff contacted the California Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and reviewed applicable State and Federal laws applicable to habitat preservation. The aforementioned consultation and review indicates that red-tailed hawks are not rare or endangered species, and that the applicable laws provide no protection for the existing eucalyptus tree, provided the tree does not serve as an active nesting site. Site Plan Modifications The applicant has made minor revisions to the project plans since the Planning Commission hearing. Those revisions include widening the drive aisle between Building I and Building II from 25 feet to 26 feet (in accordance with a condition of approval adopted by the Planning Commission), relocating the private patio/fencing for Unit No. 4 entirely out of the front yard setback, reducing the depth dimension of each building by one foot, and substituting hedges for the solid walls enclosing the private patios of Unit Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12. Although the ZSO allows the use of hedges to enclose private open space, staff recommends (as a condition of approval) that all private patios be enclosed with a plaster-finish wall as originally proposed. The use of walls in lieu of hedges will ensure the permanence of the required enclosure, eliminate the need for continual trimming of the hedges, ensure the required 43 inch minimum height is maintained, provide greater privacy and security to tenants, provide greater protection from wind and help to minimize dust and debris (leaves, etc.) collecting in the private patios. E. SUMMARY Staff recommends approval of the project, based on the suggested findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The staff recommendation considers the following key factors: ■ The proposed location of private patios within the front setback provides for a well designed and functional site layout. Morevover, fencing allowed by code is a less desirable alternative to the project proposal and no detrimental impacts will result from approval of the requested conditional use permit. P1.05-19 Roosevelt Townhomes .=' 617l2005 8:12 AM LP REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 DEPARTMENT 1D NUMBER: PL05-19 ■ Any on-site or off-site drainage improvements necessary to ensure no detrimental impacts to downstream facilities will be constructed pursuant to the City's standard development requirements. ■ The applicant is proposing to provide affordable housing in compliance with the recently adopted affordable housing ordinance. Final review and approval of a proposed affordable housing agreement is pending and subject to City Council action. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 — In-fill Development Projects of the California Environmental Quality Act, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d)Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 2 Minutes — March 8, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting 3 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 8, 2005 4 Appeal letter from Mayor Pro Tern Sullivan dated March 18, 2005 5 Letter from Wendy Weber dated March 8, 2005 (re: hawk's nest) 6 Letter from Peter Bloom, Zoologist, dated May 18, 2005 7 Affordable Housing Ordinance 8 Project Plans —received and dated June 1, 2005 9 1 PowerPoint Presentation RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:RS Pt_05-19 Roosevelt Townhomes fi1712005 8:12 AM LATTACHMENT 1 19�ln &__Yjl eeb ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 166821 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is ex- empt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15332— In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres sub- stantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 to subdivide a 41,054 square foot parcel into one (1) lot for condo- minium purposes (13 units) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density) on the subject property and applicable provisions of the zoning code. The RM designation provides for residential development at a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The project proposes residential development at a density of 13.76 units per acre. In addi- tion the project complies with all applicable development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including minimum lot size and width, minimum on-site parking, land- scaping, setbacks and open space, and maximum building heights. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is regular in shape, has no unique topographical or other constraints to development and can accommodate the proposed development in accordance with all applicable codes and development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi- tat_ The project consists of residential development on a previously developed lot in an urbanized area_ The project site does not serve as habitat for fish or wildlife, is not identified as a hazardous waste site and contains no known environmental hazards. The project will comply with all Code re- quirements applicable to the subject site. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements acquired by the public at large exist within the proposed subdivision and all necessary easements will be provided pursuant to conditions of approval. (05srO5) Attachment No. 1.1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 to permit (a) construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot within the RM (Residential Medium Density) Zone; and (b) patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches) within the required front yard setback, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems can adequately service the proposed development without sig- nificantly impacting the overall service or system. The project will not have a significant adverse im- pact on traffic volumes, school enrollments or recreational resources. Adequate on-site parking is provided (in conformance with code requirements) and no significant noise, air pollution or other im- pacts will be generated on-site. The project will provide 11 market-rate units and two affordable hous- ing units, thus serving to maintain a proper balance of housing opportunities in the City. The proposed project features quality architectural design, site layout and building materials that will ensure no det- rimental impact to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed 43- inch tall patio fencing will have no detrimental impacts since the one-inch increase in height over the basic requirement is minimal, the fencing will extend across less than 35 percent of the lot width and the top 12-inches (approximately) of the fence is designed as view fencing. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed multi- family residential use will be established on a site designated by the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map for the type and density of development proposed. In addition, the project design is consistent with and complementary to existing multi-family and single-family residential uses in the vi- cinity, including the project site grade elevation, building scale, architecture, massing, building colors and materials. 3. The proposed 13 unit condominium project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordi- nance, including maximum density and building height; and minimum building setbacks, landscaping, open space and on-site parking requirements. The H13ZSO authorizes fences exceeding 42 inches in height with approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density— 15 units/acre)on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse eco- nomic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Obiective LU 9.5: Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens, the physically and men- tally challenged, and very low, low and moderate-income families. Policy LU 9.1.3: Require that multi-family residential projects be designed to convey a high level of quality and distinctive neighborhood character as discussed below: a. Design building elevations treatment to convey the visual character of individual units rather than a singular building mass and volumes. b. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit, which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards, and /or common areas. c. Site and design parking areas and facilities that are integrated with but do not dominate the archi- tectural character of the structure. (05srO5) Attachment No. 1.2 The proposed project is consistent with the goal to achieve development of a diverse range of hous- ing types by providing for the development of 13 housing units consistent with the design and density standard established for the corresponding zoning designation. Moreover, the project provides for a mixture of two and three bedroom dwelling units, and unit sizes ranging between 1,465 sq. ft. and 1,848 square-feet. In addition, two units would be designated as affordable housing. The project is designed as a townhouse-style development whereby each unit has well defined, ground-floor entries, as well as distinct massing elements and other design features which serve to define the individual units within each building. Moreover, variations in the facades and rooflines of each of the four buildings are incorporated while maintaining consistency with the overall design theme. The project also includes an interior landscaped courtyard as well as a separate common area amenity (spa). All 13 units are designed with the garages at the rear of the dwellings, thus minimizing the impact of the parking areas on the architectural character of the building. Open park- ing spaces are separated in groupings of three and four parking stalls with adjacent landscape plant- ers such the parking area does not appear as a singular dominant feature of the site. Policy LU 9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orienta- tion, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The project provides for a multitude of rooflines, building offsets, massing elements and upper story setbacks that serve to maintain compatibility with surrounding single and multi-family residential de- velopment. All four units proposed along the street frontage are oriented toward the street, consis- tent with existing single-family development located directly east of the site, across Roosevelt Lane. Upper story setbacks incorporated into the design provide for an appropriate transition between the two-story single-family dwellings (30 ft. height limit) existing to the west and the proposed dwellings. B. Housing Element Objective HE 1.1.5: Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. Objective HE 5.1`3: Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes.. The project incorporates several design features that serve to maintain compatibility with existing residential development surrounding the project site. In addition, the project proposes development at a density that is practical for the site and just under the maximum density allowed, thus providing adequate numbers of housing units, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Hous- ing Element policies. (05sr05) Attachment No_ 1.3 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. The tentative map tract map received and dated December 16, 2004 shall be the conditionally ap- proved layout with the following modifications: a_ A 26-foot wide public street easement dedication shall be required and depicted westerly from the existing centerline along the entire Roosevelt Lane frontage terminating at the southerly end with a 46-foot radius arc dedication for public street right-of-way purposes. b. A 2-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) dedication shall be required and depicted along the westerly side of Roosevelt Lane. c. A 20-foot half roadway width westerly of the existing centerline and full parkway width (6-foot) sidewalk shall be required and depicted along the Roosevelt Lane frontage. d. A separate water meter shall serve each dwelling unit. e. The right-of-way line along the Roosevelt Lane frontage of the adjacent property to the north shall be correctly depicted. f. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association for the project. g. State mandated school impact fees shall be paid to all applicable school districts. h. The final map shall be revised for consistency with the site plan received and dated June 1, 2005. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 1, 2005, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The height of patio fencing proposed within the front yard setback shall be 43 inches. Any re- quest to increase the height shall be subject to approval of an entitlement plan amendment. No fencing or walls other that that depicted on the approved plans shall be permitted within the re- quired front yard setback. b. The site plans shall be revised to depict a new six-foot tall block a long the north property line, consistent with the tentative tract map. c. The required private patios for all units shall be enclosed with plaster finish walls (as depicted by the detail drawing on Sheet A-4.7 of the conceptually approved plans)in lieu of hedges. 2. Two affordable housing units shall be provided. The affordable units shall be median income on-site or one low-income and one very low-income off-site. 3. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are pro- posed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1 A INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS-CONDITION- The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harm- less the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or pro- ceedings, liability cost, including attomey's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or em- pioyees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any ap- proval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this pro- ject. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (OSsr05} Attachment No_ 1.5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 166821 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CE The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is ex- empt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15332 — ln-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres sub- stantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and {public services. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 to subdivide a 41,054 square foot parcel into one (1) lot for condo- minium purposes (13 units) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density) on the subject property and applicable provisions of the zoning code. The RM designation provides for residential development at a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The project proposes residential development at a density of 13.76 units per acre. In addi- tion the project complies with all applicable development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including minimum lot size and width, minimum on-site parking, land- scaping, setbacks and open space, and maximum building heights. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is regular in shape, has no unique topographical or other constraints to development and can accommodate the proposed development in accordance with all applicable codes and development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi- tat. The project consists of residential development on a previously developed lot in an urbanized area. The project site does not serve as habitat for fish or wildlife, is not identified as a hazardous waste site and contains no known environmental hazards. The project will comply with all Code re- quirements applicable to the subject site. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements acquired by the public at large exist within the proposed subdivision and all necessary easements will be provided pursuant to conditions of approval. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 to permit (a) construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot within the RM (Residential Medium Density) Zone; and (b) patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches) within the required front yard setback, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems can adequately service the proposed development without sig- nificantly impacting the overall service or system. The project will not have a significant adverse im- pact on traffic volumes, school enrollments or recreational resources. Adequate on-site parking is provided (in conformance with code requirements) and no significant noise, air pollution or other im- pacts will be generated on-site. The project will provide 11 market-rate units and two affordable hous- ing units, thus serving to maintain a proper balance of housing opportunities in the City. The proposed project features quality architectural design, site layout and building materials that will ensure no det- rimental impact to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed 43- inch tall patio fencing will have no detrimental impacts since the one-inch increase in height over the basic requirement is minimal, the fencing will extend across less than 35 percent of the lot width and the top 12-inches (approximately) of the fence is designed as view fencing. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed multi- family residential use will be established on a site designated by the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map for the type and density of development proposed. In addition, the project design is consistent with and complementary to existing multi-family and single-family residential uses in the vi- cinity, including the project site grade elevation, building scale, architecture, massing, building colors and materials. 3. The proposed 13 unit condominium project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordi- nance, including maximum density and building height; and minimum building setbacks, landscaping, open space and on-site parking requirements. The HBZSO authorizes fences exceeding 42 inches in height with approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density— 15 units/acre) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse eco- nomic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Obiective LU 9.5. Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens, the physically and men- tally challenged, and very low, low and moderate-income families. Polic LU 9.1.3: Require that multi-family residential projects be designed to convey a high level of quality and distinctive neighborhood character as discussed below: a. Design building elevations treatment to convey the visual character of individual units rather than a singular building mass and volumes. b. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit, which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards, and /or common areas. c. Site and design parking areas and facilities that are integrated with but do not dominate the archi- tectural character of the structure. (05srO5) Attachment No. 1.2 The proposed project is consistent with the goal to achieve development of a diverse range of hous- ing types by providing for the development of 13 housing units consistent with the design and density standard established for the corresponding zoning designation. Moreover, the project provides for a mixture of two and three bedroom dwelling units, and unit sizes ranging between 1,465 sq. ft. and 1,848 square-feet. In addition, two units would be designated as affordable housing. The project is designed as a townhouse-style development whereby each unit has well defined, ground-floor entries, as well as distinct massing elements and other design features which serve to define the individual units within each building. Moreover, variations in the facades and rooflines of each of the four buildings are incorporated while maintaining consistency with the overall design theme. The project also includes an interior landscaped courtyard as well as a separate common area amenity (spa). All 13 units are designed with the garages at the rear of the dwellings, thus minimizing the impact of the parking areas on the architectural character of the building. Open park- ing spaces are separated in groupings of three and four parking stalls with adjacent landscape plant- ers such the parking area does not appear as a singular dominant feature of the site. Policy LU 9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orienta- tion, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The project provides for a multitude of rooflines, building offsets, massing elements and upper story setbacks that serve to maintain compatibility with surrounding single and multi-family residential de- velopment. All four units proposed along the street frontage are oriented toward the street, consis- tent with existing single-family development located directly east of the site, across Roosevelt Lane. Upper story setbacks incorporated into the design provide for an appropriate transition between the two-story single-family dwellings (30 ft, height limit) existing to the west and the proposed dwellings. B. Housinq Element Objective HE 1.1.5: Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. Objective HE 5.1.3: Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes.. The project incorporates several design features that serve to maintain compatibility with existing residential development surrounding the project site. In addition, the project proposes development at a density that is practical for the site and just under the maximum density allowed, thus providing adequate numbers of housing units, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Hous- ing Element policies. (05sr05) Attachment No. I.3 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. The tentative map tract map received and dated December 16, 2004 shall be the conditionally ap- proved layout with the following modifications: a. A 26-foot wide public street easement dedication shall be required and depicted westerly from the existing centerline along the entire Roosevelt Lane frontage terminating at the southerly end with a 46-foot radius arc dedication for public street right-of-way purposes. b. A 2-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) dedication shall be required and depicted along the westerly side of Roosevelt Lane. c. A 20-foot half roadway width westerly of the existing centerline and full parkway width (6-foot) sidewalk shall be required and depicted along the Roosevelt Lane frontage. d. A separate water meter shall serve each dwelling unit. e. The right-of-way line along the Roosevelt Lane frontage of the adjacent property to the north shall be correctly depicted. f. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association for the project. - g. The project CC&Rs shall restrict use of the spa to the hours between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. h. State mandated school impact fees shall be paid to all applicable school districts. i. The final map shall be revised for consistency with the site plan received and dated June 1, 2005. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated June 1, 2005, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The height of patio fencing proposed within the front yard setback shall be 43 inches. Any re- quest to increase the height shall be subject to approval of an entitlement plan amendment. No fencing or walls other that that depicted on the approved plans shall be permitted within the re- quired front yard setback. b. The site plans shall be revised to depict a new six-foot tall block a long the north property line, consistent with the tentative tract map. c. The required private patios for all units shall be enclosed with plaster finish walls (as depicted by the detail drawing on Sheet A-4.7 of the conceptually approved plans) in lieu of hedges. 2J Required affordable housing (two units), as determined by the City Council, shall be provided on-site. 3. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are pro- posed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.4 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harm- less the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or pro- ceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or em- ployees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any ap- proval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this pro- ject. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.5 ATTACHMENT 2 PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 3 7:00 P.M. —COUNCIL CHAMBERS EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Commissioner Dwyer CA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER ' {* P P P P P ,.. '�Y P P ROLL LL: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livegngood, Burnet#, Fuhrman AGENDA PPROVAL =yr A MOTION V AS MADE BY LIVEN„ 06D, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEX-TONG AGENDA OF MARCH 8, 2005 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: or, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: Non r ABS None AIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITSMS B-1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 166821 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 fROOSEVELT LANE CONDOMINIUMS}: Applicant: Hank Jong, EGL Associates Request: TTM: To subdivide a 41,054 sq. ft. parcel into one lot for condominium purposes; CUP: To permit(a) construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot, and (b) patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches) within the required front yard setback. Location: 16811 Roosevelt Lane (west side of Roosevelt Lane, north of Warner Avenue, south of Pearce Drive) Protect Planner: Ron Santos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with recommended findings and conditions of approval." Ron Santos, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and made a PowerPoint presentation to the Commission that highlighted the following points of information: ■ Surrounding properties ■ Project site suitability ■ Land Use Compatibility Project Design Mr. Santos identified a late communication received by Wendy Weber that notified the Commission of a hawk's nest existing in a tree on the subject property. Commissioner disclosures: Commissioners Scandura and Fuhrman spoke with staff and visited the project site; Commissioner; Livengood and Burnett visited the project (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8,2005 Page 4 site; Commissioner's Ray, Fuhrman and Dwyer participated in a Subdivision Committee meeting on the project held on February 16, 2005. Commission questions/comments included: ■ Acreage and permitted density in the RM (Residential Medium Density) zone ■ Maximum height requirements (10 foot tower; varied roof lines for massing breaks) • 43" wall within the 15-foot setback (code allows 42") ■ Code requirements for enclosing private open space (code conflicts where open space is located) ■ Affordable housing objectives (applicant proposed 2-units (10%) designated for median income housing; discussion on the goals & objectives of the General Plan Housing Element) ■ School district fees (negotiated with each respective district and paid at the time of permit issuance; amount of fees mandated by state law) ■ Inadequate drainage and flooding (current litigation discussed by Commission Counsel; final hydraulic studies/drainage plan subject to code requirements) ■ Project gates ■ Water meters (individual versus a master unit providing sub metered water to units; roles of the City/HOA in water billing, fees and maintenance) ■ Traffic studies and impact fees (average number of daily trips generated, road conditions and fee analysis) ■ Project compatibility with surrounding uses (compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines, height, upper story setbacks, massing, etc.) ■ Conceptual Plan discussion (landscaped areas, spa location) ■ Fire Department access (discussion on the westerly drive aisle having a 28' wide turnaround for Fire accessibility while the easterly drive aisle does not) ■ Lengthy discussion on the process for greater fence height through applying for a conditional use permit ■ Double walls (new block wall proposed along the north property line adjacent to an existing wood fence) • 26' wide drive aisles (increased from the minimum requirement 24' to allow for improved access to garages) ■ Late communication regarding the presence of a hawk's nest in a eucalyptus tree proposed to be removed THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Rob Tyler, applicant and architect, thanked staff for their guidance and invaluable input. He stated that the proposed project entirely conforms to zoning code regulations and is pedestrian-oriented. He described project depth and elevations, and the use of high quality materials. He addressed comments on fence appearance and security, and removing the eucalyptus tree that may pose a threat to an existing hawks nest. He also discussed drive aisles and his support for meeting the minimum fire lane standard width of 24', school district mitigation, primary and secondary drainage systems, tower elements and varied rooflines. Eva Weisz, Pearce Drive, welcomed the project and inquired about price arrangements for the 2 units proposed to be affordable. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8,2005 Page 5 . Commissioner Scandura proposed a condition of approval for individual water meters, and for uniform landscaping near the two identified cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Dingwall voiced support for individual water meters and asked staff to explain why they recommend a master unit. Terri Elliott, Pubic Works, explained the issues related to providing water in a multi-unit development including water conservation, meter reading and billing, maintenance and meter locations. She discussed the City's minimal involvement in controlling water fees imposed by an HOA and made comparisons to individual trash collection versus multi-unit trash enclosures and collection. Commissioner Dingwall voiced concerns related to urban runoff and described the project's westerly drive aisle as unacceptable because it's narrow width does not allow turnaround accessibility for Fire Department vehicles. Commissioner Livengood voiced support for the Fire Departments acceptance of the 25' wide easterly drive aisle width. He suggested adding a condition of approval that assures collection of school impact fees and voiced support for separate water meters for individual units and landscaping. Commissioner Burnett stated that a separate meter is necessary for landscaping, and that her experience with common water meters has not been problematic. She also asked for the distance between the dwellings to the eucalyptus tree where a hawk's nest supposedly exists. Commissioner Dwyer asked about water heater design. The applicant explained the design and voiced support for individual water meters. Commissioner Fuhrman voiced concerns about dual use of private open space between building one and the street. He discussed the City's 15' setback requirement and mandated area for open space, stating that the patios should be built outside the setback. He also voiced concerns about traffic impacts and differences between the project's density and what is identified in the Meadowlark Specific Plan. He discussed compatibility issues related to building frontages and the surrounding area, and suggested relocating the spa between buildings 2 and 3 to prevent potential noise problems. Chair Ray called the project design excellent. He provided support for the Fire Department's recommendations on the drive aisles but voiced concerns about the existing fence and proposed block wall creating double walls, the landscaping lacking native, drought-tolerant vegetation, and disturbing the hawk's nest identified in late communication. He suggested adding a condition of approval for HOA establishment and hiring a qualified ornithologist to determine the consequences of disturbing the hawk's nest. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the attics contain sprinklers. Eric Engberg, Division ChieflFire Marshall, answered yes, and that the wall material is fire-rated. Commissioner Fuhrman asked for background on single-master water meters and why the City has made such a recommendation. Ms. Elliott repeated staff's position by explaining the benefits of a master water meter, including that the City owns everything up to the meter while separate meters mean public-owned water lines on private property or 14 meters versus 2. She also discussed conservation measures and the (05pcm03O8) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 6 uniform plumbing code, and how meters are sized per the number of sinks, showers, water connections, etc. Mr. Santos addressed Commissioner Fuhrman's concerns related to dual use of private open space, stating that the project's designated open space requirements are in full compliance with code. He also explained how the code allows for balconies to be credited as open space. Mr. Santos addressed concerns related to traffic impacts by explaining the one-time traffic impact fee paid by the developer and referencing a summary made by the Public Works Transportation Department that identified the number of vehicular trips. He explained that the number of trips is based on the number of units, etc., and that the number of driveways has no bearing on trip generation. Mr. Santos informed the Commission that the applicant was sent a letter identifying code requirements, including a provision that addresses double-wall concerns and use of drought-tolerant plants. Discussion ensued on where the applicant would like water meters to be located. Ms. Elliott explained that the applicant would work with Public Works on appropriate meter location and discussed backflow devices and laterals that may effect the location. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO REVISE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1.d. FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 TO READ "THE PROJECT SHALL BE SERVED BY INDIVIDUAL WATER METERS WITH THEIR LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the motion could be amended to include a separate meter for common areas. Ms. Elliott discussed the extra expense incurred by the City, and how the developer pays for installation and monthly rental on meters. She also discussed sidewalk vaults for meter placement. Both the applicant and Commissioner Scandura accepted Commissioner Dingwall's amendment. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett NOES: Fuhrman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DWYER, TO DELETE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1.d. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 THAT INCREASES DRIVE AISLE WIDTH TO 26 FEET BETWEEN BUILDING NOS. 1 AND 2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (a5p=oso8) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 7 AYES: Dwyer, Ray, Livengood NOES: Scandura, Dingwall, Burnett, Fuhrman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO REVISE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1.d. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04- 1E ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 BY INCREASING THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH TO 28 FEET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ray, Dingwall NOES: Dwyer, Scandura, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Commissioner Fuhrman asked if the Public Works traffic study identified 118 vehicular trips per day. Ms. Elliott answered yes and mentioned that staff would provide back-up detail to the Commission. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO ADD CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1.g. TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 THAT REQUIRES BUILDING ONE TO BE A 2-STORY BUILDING. The applicant spoke in opposition to the motion and used the project model to show that the 3rd story articulation is already setback from the building frontage. Commissioner Livengood spoke in opposition to the motion stating that it would destroy a great project that meets code requirements. Scott Hess, Planning Manager, explained that upper story setbacks have been provided and design guidelines for massing have been met. He also discussed how the 3rd level elements are on other modules as well, directing the Commissions attention to the project plans and model. Commissioners Dwyer and Burnett voiced opposition to the motion. Commissioner Fuhrman explained that his motion does not affect buildings 2, 3 and 4 with deeper 3rd story setbacks. He discussed compatibility with surrounding structures and asked if Commissioner Dingwall consider an amendment to increase the 3`d story setback in building one by 50%, rather than 2-story. Commissioner Dingwall concurred. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 8 AYES: Dingwall, Fuhrman NOES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Burnett ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RELOCATE THE SPA FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE COMMON AREA BETWEEN PARKING UNITS 7 AND S. The applicant voiced opposition to the motion, stating they would rather omit the spa than relocate it. Commissioners Scandura and Burnett voiced opposition to the motion. Commissioner Livengood asked for the standard setback requirement for a spa from the property line. Staff responded that no setback is required, and that it applies to pools as well. Commissioner Livengood was opposed to the request and voiced concerns related to potential problems in the parking area. Chair Ray asked for staffs position on no spa versus a spa in the common area. Mr. Santos stated that staff was pleased with the applicant's selection for spa location. COMMISSIONER FUHRMAN WITHDREW HIS STRAW VOTE MOTION. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RESTRICT HOURS OF SPA USE TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CCR'S) FROM 7:00 AM TO 10:00 PM DAILY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: Dwyer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO ADD A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 THAT REQUIRES PAYMENT OF RESPECTIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT FEES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Discussion ensued about open space requirements within the 15-foot setback. Commissioner Fuhrman voiced concerns about private open space encroaching into the common open space and being counted twice to meet code requirements. Chair Ray (05pcm0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 9 asked if findings were provided to explain the encroachment. Mr. Santos discussed findings within the CUP that address private open space requirements within the 15-foot setback. He also explained that the developer must provide private open space somewhere else on the property if the 43" wall request is denied. Herb Fauland, Principal Planner, provided support for the applicant's proposal and staffs recommendation for approval. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY FUHRMAN, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 AND THE REQUEST FOR A 43" WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. Commissioner Dwyer voiced opposition to the motion, stating that changing the proposal will ruin the design of the project. Commissioner Burnett voiced opposition to the motion, calling the front elevations attractive. Commissioner Scandura asked how many 43"fences has the City approved. Mr. Santos answered many, approved by the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Scandura voiced opposition to the motion. Mr. Hess stated that the private space encroaches into less than 50% of the front setback area, and that buildings could have faced inward for a less pleasing development. He also stated that private open space could not be used in the back of the development because of the location of the garages. Commissioner Livengood voiced strong opposition to the motion and discussed the importance of aesthetics. Chair Ray voiced opposition to the motion. Commissioner 1=uhrman discussed withdrawing his motion if the conditions of approval state that the fence height would not exceed 43", and would not be built closer to the street than it is now. COMMISSIONER FUHRMAN WITHDREW HIS STRAW VOTE MOTION. Commissioner Livengood discussed revising condition of approval no. 1.a. on Attachment 1.4 for CUP No. 04-16 to prohibit additional fencing within the required front yard setback. Mr. Santos explained that such a condition would prevent future fence redesign. Mr. Hess added that the applicant could otherwise construct a 42" fence along the entire front property line. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY FUHRMAN, TO REVISE CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL NO. 1.a. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 ON ATTACHMENT 1.4 BY ADDING A SENTENCE THAT PROHIBITS ANY ADDITIONAL FENCING OR WALLS WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (05p=0308) PC Minutes March S,2005 Page 10 AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Chair Ray asked if it would be appropriate to condition the project to require the applicant to reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner that no double walls will be created. Commissioner Livengood commented that the applicant should make a reasonable attempt to reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner that no double walls will exist on the adjoining properties. The applicant commented that the existing fence lies entirely on adjacent property owner's property. Mr. Santos stated that staff does not recommend keeping the existing fence. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY FUHRMAN, TO INCLUDE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT REQUIRES FORMATION OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA). Mr. Hess referenced a section of the zoning code that addresses HOA's. Ms. Mulvihill discussed the specific conditions that require HOA's to maintain public improvements, including common areas. ACTION ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS TAKEN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dingwall, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: Dwyer, Scandura ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO HIRE A QUALIFIED ORNITHOLOGIST TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE OF A HAWK'S NEST WITHIN A EUCALYPTUS TREE SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL. Commissioner Fuhrman asked who is responsible for the expenses associated with such a request. Staff replied that the applicant would be financially responsible. Commissioner Scandura voiced opposition to the motion and discussed how the request would cause delays for a situation that may not exist. He described the hawk as a common bird, not endangered, that can easily relocate to a number of nearby areas. Commissioner Dingwall asked the applicant when groundbreaking would occur on the property, The applicant replied that working drawings are ready to be submitted. Mr. Santos reminded the Commission that the final tract map would have to be approved by the City Council, along with the affordable housing agreement. He also voiced caution about providing a time estimate when so many variables exist. Mr. Hess commented that the timeline could be 60-90 days. (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8,2005 Page 11 Commissioner Livengood asked about nesting areas in the immediate vicinity and called for the question. Commissioner Scandura seconded the call. Commissioner Fuhrman called for a point of order and explained that Robert's Rules of Order allow for comments prior to taking action on a motion. Commissioner Dwyer asked that Ms. Mulvihill respond as to whether or not the Chair should call for the vote. Chair Ray overruled Commissioner Dwyer's request, explaining why it was inappropriate to defer to Commission Counsel for an opinion when the Chair had the floor. Ms. Mulvihill concurred with Chair Ray but noted the importance of moving the process along. Chair Ray repeated his motion and asked to amend it by adding a delay in construction through the 2005 nesting season. Commissioner Dingwall seconded the amendment. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dingwall, Ray, Fuhrman NOES: Dwyer, Scandura, Livengood, Burnett ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DWYER, TO ADD A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-'16 THAT CALLS FOR CONSISTENT LANDSCAPING WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT. Chair Ray voiced opposition to the motion. Mr. Hess stated that the present sidewalk separates the areas. Commissioner Fuhrman asked if the added condition would take precedence over what is identified in the code requirements letter. Discussion ensued on landscaping the area between building one and the sidewalk. ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE PREVIOUS STRAW VOTE MOTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Dingwall NOES: Dwyer, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED (05pCm0308) PC Minutes March 8,2005 Page 12 Commissioner Dingwall voiced opposition to the project and discussed related drainage issues. Commissioner Livengood voiced support for the project and recommendations made by the Fire Department. Commissioner Dwyer voiced support for the project. Commissioner Fuhrman voiced support for the project but voiced concerns related to drainage issues, double counting private open space and 26' wide drive aisles. Chair Ray supported the project but voiced concerns related to the 26' drive aisles, double walls and potential disturbance of a hawks nest. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Dwyer, Scandura, Ray, Livengood, Burnett, Fuhrman NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 166821 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15332—In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 to subdivide a 41,054 square foot parcel into one (1) lot for condominium purposes (13 units) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density) on the subject (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 13 property and applicable provisions of the zoning code. The RM designation provides for residential development at a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The project proposes residential development at a density of 13.76 units per acre. In addition the project complies with all applicable development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including minimum lot size and width, minimum on-site parking, landscaping, setbacks and open space, and maximum building heights. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is regular in shape, has no unique topographical or other constraints to development and can accommodate the proposed development in accordance with all applicable codes and development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project consists of residential development on a previously developed lot in an urbanized area. The project site does not serve as habitat for fish or wildlife, is not identified as a hazardous waste site and contains no known environmental hazards. The project will comply with all Code requirements applicable to the subject site. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements acquired by the public at large exist within the proposed subdivision and all necessary easements will be provided pursuant to conditions of approval. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 to permit (a) construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot within the RM (Residential Medium Density) Zone; and (b) patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches) within the required front yard setback, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems can adequately service the proposed development without significantly impacting the overall service or system. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes, school enrollments or recreational resources. Adequate on-site parking is provided (in conformance with code requirements) and no significant noise, air pollution or other impacts will be generated on-site. The project will provide 11 market-rate units and two affordable housing units, thus serving to maintain a proper balance of housing opportunities in the City. The proposed project features quality architectural design, site layout and building materials that will ensure no detrimental impact to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed 43-inch tall patio fencing will have no detrimental impacts since the one-inch increase in height over the basic requirement is minimal, the fencing will extend across less than 30 percent of the lot width and the top 12-inches (approximately) of the fence is designed as "view fencing". 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed multi-family residential use will be established on a site designated by the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map for the type and density of (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8,2005 Page 14 development proposed. In addition, the project design is consistent with and complementary to existing multi-family and single-family residential uses in the vicinity, including the project site grade elevation, building scale, architecture, massing, building colors and materials. 3. The proposed 13 unit condominium project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including maximum density and building height; and minimum building setbacks, landscaping, open space and on-site parking requirements. The HBZSO authorizes fences exceeding 42 inches in height with approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density— 15 units/acre) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Objective LU 9.5: Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens, the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low and moderate-income families. Policy LU 9.1.3: Require that multi-family residential projects be designed to convey a high level of quality and distinctive neighborhood character as discussed below: a. Design building elevations treatment to convey the visual character of individual units rather than a singular building mass and volumes. b. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit, which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards, and/or common areas. c. Site and design parking areas and facilities that are integrated with but do not dominate the architectural character of the structure. The proposed project is consistent with the goal to achieve development of a diverse range of housing types by providing for the development of 13 housing units consistent with the design and density standard established for the corresponding zoning designation. Moreover, the project provides for a mixture of two and three bedroom dwelling units, and unit sizes ranging between 1,609 sq. ft. and 2,145 square-feet. In addition, two units would be designated as affordable housing. The project is designed as a townhouse-style development whereby each unit has well defined, ground-floor entries, as well as distinct massing elements and other design features which serve to define the individual units within each building. Moreover, variations in the facades and rooflines of each of the four buildings are incorporated while maintaining consistency with the overall design theme. The project also includes an interior landscaped courtyard as well as a separate common area amenity (spa). All 13 units are designed with the garages at the rear of the dwellings, thus minimizing the impact of the parking areas on the architectural character of the building. Open parking spaces are separated in groupings of three (05P=0308) PC Minutes March 8,2005 Page 15 and four parking stalls with adjacent landscape planters such the parking area does not appear as a singular dominant feature of the site. Policy LU 9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The project provides for a multitude of rooflines, building offsets, massing elements and upper story setbacks that serve to maintain compatibility with surrounding single and multi-family residential development. All four units proposed along the street frontage are oriented toward the street, consistent with existing single-family development located directly east of the site, across Roosevelt Lane. Upper story setbacks incorporated into the design provide for an appropriate transition between the two-story single-family dwellings (30 ft. height limit) existing to the west and the proposed dwellings. B. Housing Element Objective HE 1.1.5: Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. Obiective HE 5.1.3: Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes. The project incorporates several design features that serve to maintain compatibility with existing residential development surrounding the project site. In addition, the project proposes development at a density that is practical for the site and just under the maximum density allowed, thus providing adequate numbers of housing units, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Housing Element policies. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. The tentative map tract map received and dated December 16, 2004 shall be the conditionally approved layout with the following modifications: a. A 26-foot wide public street easement dedication shall be required and depicted westerly from the existing centerline along the entire Roosevelt Lane frontage terminating at the southerly end with a 46-foot radius arc dedication for public street right-of-way purposes. b. A 2-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) dedication shall be required and depicted along the westerly side of Roosevelt Lane. c. A 20-foot half roadway width westerly of the existing centerline and full parkway width (6-foot) sidewalk shall be required and depicted along the Roosevelt Lane frontage. d. A separate water meter shall serve each dwelling unit. e. The right-of-way line along the Roosevelt Lane frontage of the adjacent property to the north shall be correctly depicted. f. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association for the project. g. The project CC&Rs shall restrict use of the spa to the hours between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. h. State mandated school impact fees shall be paid to all applicable school districts. (05p=0308) PC Minutes March 8,2005 Page '16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2004, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The height of patio fencing proposed within the front yard setback shall be 43 inches. Any request to increase the height shall be subject to approval of an entitlement plan amendment. No fencing or walls other that that depicted on the approved plans shall be permitted within the required front yard setback. b. The 10-foot sight visibility triangle required at the northwest corner of Unit 1 shall be delineated with six-inch curb and landscaped. c. The site plans shall be revised to depict a new six-foot tall block a long the north property line, consistent with the tentative tract map. d. The width of the drive aisle between Bldg No. 1 and Bldg No. 2 shall be increased to 26 feet. e. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. if the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. f. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT— DOWNTOWN PARKING Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Re nnual review o 'fl,*0Qwntown Parking Master Plan, documenting i ctivity and land use changes betwbeeCJVe 1, 2003 and June 1, 20 b ion: Downtown Specific Plan area (generally bound8d,by.Facific Co Hag way, Sixth Street, Acacia Avenue and Second Street) Proiect Pla n Santos STAFF RECO �TIONW. otion to: "Accept as adequate and complete the ann and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master.Plan and forward e City Council for their review." (05p=0308) LATTACHMENT 3 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTNGTQN FACH - - - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ron Santos, Associate Planner �j DATE: March 8, 2005 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 (Roosevelt Lane Condominiums) APPLICANT: Hank Jong—EGL Associates, Inc., 11823 Slauson Avenue, Suite 18 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 PROPERTY OWNER: Roosevelt Huntington, LLC, 255 E. Santa Clara Street, 4210 Arcadia, CA 91106 LOCATION: 16811 Roosevelt Lane (west side, north of Warner Ave., south of Pearce Drive) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: * Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 request: - Subdivision of a 41,054 sq. ft. parcel into one (1) lot for the purpose of developing 13 condominium dwelling units. * Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 request: - To construct 13 three-story townhome dwelling units with attached garages within the RM (Residential Medium Density) Zone - To allow patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height(43 inches) within the required front yard setback * Staff s Recommendation: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with modifications based upon the following: - Compatible with surrounding land uses and the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of 13.8 units per acre. - Consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Residential Medium Density on the subject property. - Complies with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Urban Design Guidelines. - Serves the affordable housing needs of the community by designating two on-site units as affordable to median-income households. r , v\ d'. ........................................................................................................... .. ........................................ ..... .i ] .. ... ..\iih♦ `i�tii\ f]i]] t�2•. \vie• "'iii-'�� \.. \�1...................ti .'.+x.a..'.atta\„x :!♦1 :`:i�?:;:'+:::::'::..4 \\ ,.�lvv „4 '.+`1::}::}:jiii:�4t:iy,:` ^''\:iii':^:^.,i. „i\ ':.;�.` :.;1,.v♦y �\..\ ..�\ ::.�'.'::i�'ii:\1 i\i:i'i:;i�.:�f iil,+`'i ^i\:("i. .�.v4': �:i:�i: ;:j �\'.:. :�2 is ,.'.,.,\\\l., .:\........................................... '.. .:\`2 :\;\,\\:�+ :;� i2=is=i:= : .. .�: v: t\\..' 4: � ti:i:;C?; :.:\;,;�`\;;\::i;:>...:i«:o:,q;,,i;.;, ,♦i:fi + NNI VICENrrY XMI Tentative Tract AUp No. !2/Conditional Use Permit 16811 Roosevelt BEACH ' r a r :. '. �, RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 represents a request to subdivide a 41,054 square foot parcel into one (1) lot for condominium purposes (13 townhome units)pursuant to Chapter 250—General Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 represents a request for the following: A. To permit construction of 13 three-story townhome dwelling units with attached garages within the RM(Residential Medium Density)Zone,pursuant to Chapter 210—Residential Districts of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance. B. To allow patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches)within the required front yard setback The project site is located at the southern terminus of Roosevelt Lane, at the bulb of the cul-de-sac. The 41,054 sq. ft. (0.944 acre),rectangular-shaped lot,is currently developed with a single-family dwelling to be demolished. The proposed tract map,which provides for an air-space-only subdivision(for condominium purposes),will not alter the existing single-lot configuration,with the exception of a 26-foot wide/46-foot radius dedication along the Roosevelt Lane frontage required for street widening purposes. The site is relatively flat and no unique topographic conditions or constraints exist. A total of four,three-story buildings are proposed, configured in clusters of three triplexes and one fourplex. Proposed buildings have an overall height of approximately 34-feet--4-inches, excluding a single tower feature on three of the four buildings with a maximum height of approximately 38-feet. All four buildings feature clay-tile roofs and a stucco exterior finish. The submitted plans provide for variations on three floor plan configurations, all of which feature an attached two-car garage. The proposed plan types and unit configurations are summarized below: PC Staff Report-3/08/05 -3- gmsr5) BUildifl," [Jii i t. Plan No. of Floor Area GE"I r I,-,C 1 1 A 3 1,900 388 2 B 3 1,862 500 3 B 3 1,854 495 4 B 3 2,142 501 l k L R M 8 C 2 1,679 419 9 C 2 1,609 414 10 B 3 2,040 501 H:1V ll 8 3 02 4� y 4 13 B 3 ,04 51 a TOTAL: 13 35 24,256 6,047 Vehicular access to each garage would be provided via Roosevelt Lane, a 24 (at narrowest)to 28-foot wide on-site primary driveway, and two secondary, intersecting driveways providing direct access to garages proposed along each side. All guestlopen parking spaces are positioned along the primary driveway at a 90-degree orientation. A four-foot wide pedestrian walkway extends the fall depth of the site, from the public right-of-way to a common open space area proposed at the rear of the property. A wrought-iron gated entry is also proposed. The proposed gate would extend across the primary on-site driveway, at a 20-foot setback from the front property line. Two common open space areas are proposed: one centrally located as a courtyard between the second and third buildings (from the street), and the other at the rear of the property. The latter area includes a spa surrounded by a plaster-finished, five-foot tall wall and landscape planters. In addition, each of the units are provided a private, fenced at-grade patio, and nine of the units are provided private balconies. The patio fencing proposed within the required front yard setback exceeds the 42 inch height limit by one- inch. The 43-inch height is proposed in order to meet the HBZSO requirement to enclose private open space with a fence exceeding 42 inches in height. The proposed patio enclosures are separated from each other by a minimum of eight feet, extend across approximately 30 percent of the site's street frontage and are setback a minimum of five feet from the front property line. The enclosures.are surrounded by landscaping on three sides (including the area between the fence and the public sidewalk)and are designed with a combination stucco finish and view fencing(the top 12-inches approximately). The applicant is proposing to meet affordable housing requirements by designating 10 percent of the total number of units(i.e.,two units)for median-income households, for a period of not less than 60 years—in accordance with Section 230.26—Affordable Housing, of the ZSO. The applicant has submitted a draft affordable housing agreement, based on the City's template, for review by staff and approval by the City Council. The draft agreement provides fox two affordable units on site (one two-bedroom and one three bedroom unit). PC Staff Report-3/08/05 -4- (Ossrw) ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: Residential Medium Residential Medium single-family Density— 15 units/acre Density(RM) residential RM-15) North and West of Residential Medium Residential Medium multi-family Subject Property: Density— 15 units/acre Density(RM) residential RM-15 East of Subject Mixed Use (M-sp) Meadowlark Specific Plan single-family Property(across (SP-S) residential Roosevelt Lane South of Subject Commercial General— Residential Medium vacant Property- 0.35 max FAR CG-F1) DensityRM) General Plan Conformance.- The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is RM-15 (Residential Medium Density- 15 units/acre. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Objective L U 9.5: Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens,the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low and moderate-income families. Polies LU 9.1.3: Require that multi-family residential projects be designed to convey a high level of quality and distinctive neighborhood character as discussed below: a. Design building elevations treatment to convey the visual character of individual units rather than a singular building mass and volumes. b. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit, which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards, and /or common areas. c. Site and design parking areas and facilities that are integrated with but do not dominate the architectural character of the structure. The proposed project is consistent with the goal to achieve development of a diverse range of housing types by providing for the development of 13 townhome style housing units consistent with the design and density standard established for the corresponding zoning designation. Moreover, the project PC Staff Report-3/08/05 -5- (05sr05) provides for a mixture of two and three bedroom dwelling units, and unit sizes ranging between 1,609 sq. ft. and 2,142 square-feet. In addition,two on-site units would be designated as affordable housing. The project is designed as a townhouse-style development whereby each unit has well defined, ground-floor entries, as well as distinct massing elements and other design features which serve to define the individual units within each building. Moreover, variations in the facades and rooflines of each of the four buildings are incorporated while maintaining consistency with the overall design theme. The project also includes an interior landscaped courtyard as well as a separate common area amenity(spa). All 13 units are designed with the garages at the rear of the dwellings,thus minimizing the impact of the parking areas on the architectural character of the building. Open parking spaces are separated in groupings of three and four parking stalls with adjacent landscape planters such that the parking area does not appear as a singular dominant feature of the site. Polic LU 9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The project provides for a multitude of rooflines, building offsets, massing elements and upper story setbacks,which serve to maintain compatibility with surrounding single and multi-family residential development. All four units proposed along the street frontage are oriented toward the street, consistent with existing single-family development located directly east of the site, across Roosevelt Lane. Upper story setbacks incorporated into the design provide for an appropriate transition between the two-story single-family dwellings existing to the west and the proposed dwellings. B. Housina Element Oh1ective HE 1.1.5: Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. Obiective HE 5.1.3: Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes.. As discussed above, the project incorporates several design features that serve to maintain compatibility with existing residential development surrounding the project site. In addition,the project proposes development at a density that is practical for the site and just under the maximum density allowed, thus providing adequate numbers of housing units, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Housing Element policies. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the RM (Residential Medium Density) zone and complies with the requirements of that zone, with the exception of the patio fences proposed within the required front setback, which exceed the maximum permitted height by one-inch. A conditional use permit to allow the one-inch increase in height is requested. A letter identifying code requirements applicable to the proposed project has also been provided to the applicant. PC Staff Report-3/08105 -6- (05sr05) Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The proposed project is in substantial conformance with Chapter 3 of the Urban Design Guidelines— Multi-Family Residential, both in terms of architecture and site design. In particular the project meets objectives for compatibility, building siting, vehicular access, circulation and parking; pedestrian circulation, open'space design,paving, garage design, fenestration and landscaping. A more detailed discussion regarding the project's design features is provided in the analysis section below. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332—In fill Development Projects of the California Environmental Quality Act, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,noise, air quality,or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The applicant has submitted a copy of a signed agreement between the developer and the Huntington Beach Union High School District that identifies the developer's obligations for funding school programs and facilities to serve students who will reside in the development. The agreement provides for mitigation of the projeefs impacts to school facilities on a fair share basis. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelogment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: The project was presented to the Subdivision Committee on February 16, 2005. Staff introduced the proposed subdivision including street access to the development and the townhome layout. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the recommended conditions of approval for the tentative map,received clarification on several matters of interest and requested that staff research issues related to the need for an emergency access connection between Roosevelt Lane and Airport Circle, site drainage, and whether any prior analysis of traffic circulation considered the lack of through access between Roosevelt Lane and Airport Circle. Discussion also focused on the desirability of additional right-of-way dedication along the street frontage and widening of the southern-most east-west driveway to allow for vehicle maneuvering. The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the proposed tentative tract map to the Planning Commission as proposed, with no additional recommended conditions of approval. PC Staff Report-3/08/05 -7- (05sr05) Issues identified by the Subdivision Committee requiring fizrther research or review by staff(not addressed elsewhere in this report) are addressed below: • Conditions of approval of the Tentative Tract Map for the Meadowlark subdivision provided for pedestrian-only access between Roosevelt Lane and Airport Circle. The Fire Department has also revisited the issue and determined that emergency access between Roosevelt Lane and Airport Circle is not necessary. ■ The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed drainage concept and made a preliminary determination that the site can be properly drained without significant site design modifications. ■ A traffic study prepared for the Meadowlark Specific Plan analyzed traffic circulation based on the existing, back-to-back cul-de-sac configuration at the intersection of Roosevelt Lane and Airport Circle. An environmental assessment/negative declaration prepared in conjunction with the Meadowlark tentative tract map concluded that no further traffic analysis is required. ■ The Departments of Fire and Public Works have reviewed the proposed subdivision for compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan and other applicable City standards for public right-of- way/roadway width. The proposed project provides for public right-of-way dedication in accordance with City standards and no additional dedication is necessary. • Staff concurs with subdivision committee comments that the code required minimum driveway width (25 feet)proposed for the southern-most east-west driveway might provide inadequate maneuvering area.for larger vehicles. Therefore, staff recommends, based on consideration that this driveway serves garages on both sides of the aisle,that the driveway width be increased to a minimum of 26 feet, as a condition of approval. (See Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 Suggested Condition No. Ld). The project is subject to payment of parkland in-lieu fees, pursuant to the requirements of ZSO Section 254.08—Parkland Dedication. (Parkland dedication is required only for subdivisions containing 51 or more parcels or dwelling units). The required in-lieu fee is equivalent to the fair market value of the land, which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated, and is based on a formula contained in ZSO Sec. 254.08. The in-lieu fee formula uses the per acre value of the property(as determined by an appraisal)as a factor. Staff has advised the applicant of the parkland in-lieu fee requirement and provided the formula for calculating the fee,pending the necessary appraisal. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Department of Public Works has recommended corrections to aspects of the submitted tentative map that are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval. The recommended conditions relate to required dedications for street widening and utility easements,water metering, and vision clearance for on-site circulation. The applicant has also been made aware of the standard City requirements and code requirements applicable to the project via separate correspondence. No significant site design modifications or plan revisions are necessary in order to comply with the recommended conditions of approval and standard code requirements. There were no concerns from other City Departments. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on February 24, and notices were sent to property owners of record, multi-family residential tenants and commercial tenants PC Staff Report-3108/05 -8- (05sr05) within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property,individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), the applicant and interested parties. As of March 3, 2005,no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. Application Processinz Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Tentative Tract Map: February 7,2005 March 29,2005 Conditional Use Permit: February 7, 2005 April 9, 2005 ANALYSIS: The primary issues to consider when analyzing this project are the suitability of the site for the type and density of development proposed,the proj ect's compatibility with adjacent uses, and the projects overall design and consistency with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. The following is a detailed discussion of these issues. Site Suitability The requested entitlements provide for a one-lot condominium (air space) subdivision of approximately 41,054 square feet of land, and construction of 13 townhome dwelling units and associated improvements. The proposed project is consistent with the RM-15 (Residential Medium Density— 15 units/acre) General Plan Land Use Element designation and the RM (Residential Medium Density)zoning designation on the subject property. The project site is rectangular in shape, topographically flat and accessible via an existing public street. No unique natural features or other site conditions serve to constrain development on the site. Existing mature trees on the site will be replaced two for one in accordance with standard code requirements. The project site does not serve as habitat for rare or endangered species and is not surrounded by environmentally sensitive land or land uses. The project site exceeds the required minimum lot width and area, and can be provided with the necessary infrastructure to serve the proposed development. The proposed development complies with all applicable code requirements, with the exception of the patio fencing proposed within the required front yard setback. In addition the project will contribute 11 market rate and two on-site affordable dwelling units to the City's housing supply,in an area designated for medium density residential land use. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence to be demolished. Parcels to the north and west are developed with two and three-story multi-family residential dwellings at densities and heights which are comparable to the proposed project. Single-family homes exist to the east, across Roosevelt Lane, within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. It should be noted however that the Meadowlark Specific Plan provides for smaller lots and higher densities (i.e., 13.8 units/acre) along the east side of Roosevelt Lane than the typical,RL(Residential Low Density)zoned single-family neighborhoods in Huntington Beach(i.e., 7 units/acre). The 13.8 units/acre density standard is comparable to the 13.76 units/acre proposed for the project site. Although the PC Staff Report-N08105 -9- (05sr05) proposed project provides for a different product type than the single-family development across Roosevelt Lane,the proposed project has been designed with upper-story setbacks, front/entry facades oriented toward the street,varied pitched roof lines,massing offsets and exterior finish materials and colors which provide for compatibility with the existing single-family residential development. The property to the south is currently vacant and zoned for medium-density residential use,but designated CG (Commercial General) on the General Plan Land Use Map. The inconsistency between the General Plan and Zoning designation must be resolved before development of this parcel. fending resolution of this inconsistency, it is conceivable that the property to the south could be developed with either commercial or medium density residential uses in the future. Any commercial development of this property would be subject to conditional use permit approval, as well as standard setback requirements and the City's noise ordinance, The compatibility of any development proposed to the south would be evaluated upon submittal of an entitlement application. The proposed project is in conformance with applicable code requirements and has been designed to be compatible with existing uses in the vicinity. The project's building scale, architecture, site layout and earth-toned colors palette will complement the surrounding developments. Project Design and Site Layout Staff believes the proposed development is well designed and appropriate for the subject site based on the applicable zoning, surrounding uses and the physical characteristics of the lot. In addition,the project achieves substantial conformance with the City's Urban Design Guidelines for multi-family residential projects. The project's architectural design provides visual interest and minimizes the perception of bulk by incorporation of projections and offsets in the building facade,varied roof lines,the use of balconies in combination with open trellis covers and decorative accents such as shutters and trim around the doors and windows. Individual dwelling units are distinguishable from one another and a substantial variation in unit sizes and floor plans are proposed. Staff also supports the design based on the use of quality materials such as a stucco exterior, wood shutters and trim, multi-pane windows, decorative railings, clay tile roofing, decorative garage doors and decorative paving treatments. The proposed arrangement of structures, open space and drive aisles provides for a functional and attractive design. Project features include varied setbacks, two distinct common open space areas, and designated pedestrian pathways providing for safe and convenient access between building entries, parking areas, common open space areas and the public right-of-way. Siting of the garages along the rear of the units minimizes the visual impacts of the proposed garages. The project also provides usable open space and landscaping in substantial excess of the code required minimum, as well as a site amenity(spa) which is not required by code. The spa area is designed with a fenced enclosure and situated away from the dwelling units so as to minimize impacts to residents. The proposed 43-inch tall patio fencing within the front yard setback is allowed by the ZSO with approval of a conditional use permit. The request to exceed the 42 height limit by one-inch will have no detrimental impacts to surrounding properties since the increase in height is minimal and the fencing traverses less than one-third of the lot width. Moreover, each of the proposed patio areas is separated from each other and from the public right-of-way by a landscaped area of a minimum width of eight feet and five feet respectively. The configuration provides for a varied setback along the street frontage, in accordance with the City's Urban Design Guidelines, and a green-space buffer adjacent to the sidewalk. In addition, since the top 12 inches of the fence is "view-fencing," the design will maintain consistency with PC staff Report-3/08/05 -lo- (05sro5) the objectives of the 42-inch height limit. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would limit the patio fencing to the approved height in order to ensure compatibility is maintained. Staff supports the proposed project's site layout,design, and architecture because it will result in a development that will be compatible with the physical character of the surrounding multi-family residential areas. SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 and Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 based upon the following: ■ The proposed subdivision and development project is consistent with the RM(Residential Medium Density) zone. The project achieves full-compliance with the applicable land use regulations and development standards. ■ The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Residential Medium Density on the subject property. ■ The proposed design and layout is compatible with adjacent residential uses and consistent with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. ■ The project serves the affordable housing needs of the community by designating two units as affordable. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 16682/Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 2. Site Plan,Floor Plans and Elevations dated November 3, 2004 3. Project Narrative dated December 3, 2004 4. Subdivision Committee Minutes dated February 16, 2005 SH:HF:RS:rl PC Staff Report-3/08/05 -11- (05sr05) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEOA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to section 15332—In fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that projects meeting the conditions described below, are exempt: (f) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (g) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (h) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (i) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. 0) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 16682 to subdivide a 41,054 square foot parcel into one(1) lot for condominium purposes (13 units) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density) on the subject property and applicable provisions of the zoning code. The RM designation provides for residential development at a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The project proposes residential development at a density of 13.76 units per acre. In addition the project complies with all applicable development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including minimum lot size and width,minimum on-site parking, landscaping, setbacks and open space, and maximum building heights. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is regular in shape, has no unique topographical or other constraints to development and can accommodate the proposed development in accordance with all applicable codes and development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project consists of residential development on a previously developed lot in an urbanized area. The project site does not serve as habitat for fish or wildlife,is not identified as a hazardous waste site (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.1 and contains no known environmental hazards. The project will comply with all Code requirements applicable to the subject site. 4. The'design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements acquired by the public at large exist within the proposed subdivision and all necessary easements will be provided pursuant to conditions of approval. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERNUT NO. 04-I6: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-16 to permit(a)construction of 13 three-story condominium dwelling units with attached garages on a 41,054 square foot lot within the RM (Residential Medium Density) Zone; and(b)patio fencing exceeding 42 inches in height (43 inches)within the required front yard setback, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The City and County water, sewer and storm drain systems can adequately service the proposed development without significantly impacting the overall service or system. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes, school enrollments or recreational resources. Adequate on-site parking is provided(in conformance with code requirements) and no significant noise, air pollution or other impacts will be generated on-site. The project will provide 11 market-rate units and two affordable housing units, thus serving to maintain a proper balance of housing opportunities in the City. The proposed project features quality architectural design, site layout and building materials that will ensure no detrimental impact to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed 43-inch tall patio fencing will have no detrimental impacts since the one-inch increase in height over the basic requirement is minimal,the fencing will extend across less than 30 percent of the lot width and the top 12-inches (approximately) of the fence is designed as "view fencing". 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed multi- family residential use will be established on a site designated by the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map for the type and density of development proposed. In addition,the project design is consistent with and complementary to existing multi-family and single-family residential uses in the vicinity,including the project site grade elevation,building scale, architecture, massing, building colors and materials. 3. The proposed 13 unit condominium project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including maximum density and building height; and minimum building setbacks, landscaping, open space and on-site parking requirements. The HBZSO authorizes fences exceeding 42 inches in height with approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RM-15 (Residential Medium Density-- 15 units/acre)on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: (05sr05) Attachment No_ 1.2 A. Land Use Element Goal L U 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Obiective LU 9.5: Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens,the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low and moderate-income families. Policy L U 9.IT3: Require that multi-family residential projects be designed to convey a high level of quality and distinctive neighborhood character as discussed below: d. Design building elevations treatment to convey the visual character of individual units rather than a singular building mass and volumes. e. Include separate and well-defined entries to convey the visual character of individual identity for each residential unit, which may be accessed from exterior facades, interior courtyards, and /or common areas. f. Site and design parking areas and facilities that are integrated with but do not dominate the architectural character of the structure. The proposed project is consistent with the goal to achieve development of a diverse range of housing types by providing for the development of 13 housing units consistent with the design and density standard established for the corresponding zoning designation. Moreover, the project provides for a mixture of two and three bedroom dwelling units, and unit sizes ranging between 1,609 sq. ft. and 2,145 square-feet. In addition,two units would be designated as affordable housing. The project is designed as a townhouse-style development whereby each unit has well defined, ground-floor entries, as well as distinct massing elements and other design features which serve to define the individual units within each building. Moreover,variations in the facades and rooflines of each of the four buildings are incorporated while maintaining consistency with the overall design theme. The project also includes an interior landscaped courtyard as well as a separate common area amenity(spa). All 13 units are designed with the garages at the rear of the dwellings, thus minimizing the impact of the parking areas on the architectural character of the building. Open parking spaces are separated in groupings of three and four parking stalls with adjacent landscape planters such the parking area does not appear as a singular dominant feature of the site. Policy LU9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures,including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The project provides for a multitude of rooflines,building offsets,massing elements and upper story setbacks that serve to maintain compatibility with surrounding single and multi-family residential development. All four units proposed along the street frontage are oriented toward the street, consistent with existing single-family development located directly east of the site, across Roosevelt Lane. Upper story setbacks incorporated into the design provide for an appropriate transition between the two-story single-family dwellings (30 ft. height limit) existing to the west and the proposed dwellings. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.3 B. Housing_Element Objective HE L I J: Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. Dbjective HE 5.1.3: Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes.. The project incorporates several design features that serve to maintain compatibility with existing residential development surrounding the project site. In addition, the project proposes development at a density that is practical for the site and just under the maximum density allowed,thus providing adequate numbers of housing units, in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Housing Element policies. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16682: 1. The tentative map tract map received and dated December 16, 2004 shall be the conditionally approved layout with the following modifications: a. A 26-foot wide public street easement dedication shall be required and depicted westerly from the existing centerline along the entire Roosevelt Lane frontage terminating at the southerly end with a 46-foot radius arc dedication for public street right-of-way purposes. b. A 2-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) dedication shall be required and depicted along the westerly side of Roosevelt Lane. c. A 20-foot half roadway width westerly of the existing centerline and full parkway width (6-foot) sidewalk shall be required and depicted along the Roosevelt Lane frontage. d. The project shall be served by a master water meter. e. The right-of-way line along the Roosevelt Lane frontage of the adjacent property to the north shall be correctly depicted. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-16: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 3, 2004, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The height of patio fencing proposed within the front yard setback shall be 43 inches. Any request to increase the height shall be subject to approval of an entitlement plan amendment. b. The 10-foot sight visibility triangle required at the northwest corner of Unit 1 shall be delineated with six-inch curb and landscaped. Ma c. The.site plans shall be revised to depict a new six-foot tall block long the north property line, consistent with the tentative tract map. d. The width of the drive aisle between Building No. l and Building No. 2 shall be increased to 26 feet. (05sro5) Attachment No. 1.4 e. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. f. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (05sr05) Attachment No. 1.5 I i I 1` ..� i- ; 71 -I-- - • - 1 L�II��J■ It■■IN I _milli. 1■ r �r If■■I■tll 111VA n ■L! 1i ■� 'S■ NI■■ ■ ® 011�1� ■�_ s �- ■■� ■■■ ■■N■w]G■t■■■ I■t�l�i � 1 ■■■■■■ ■■■II■ ■■ ■IEiiEN nop"■r"1 ■ f �7ezrJc� I! 1 1 a)Ai I r Clry of Huntington Beoch — NOV 03 2005 3.89W® Co..opru specs __ "�'-.^'`' l __�-_'—"_-�'•//1.�1 -.-..-.._'__---I A I 3,731sf GrouMaE7oa�ce 1 �� -m r® Balen.i.r.(2nd,3rd Fil.) t----—--_-.-.— F —— I 1 ,r 8.3d2 sf9'a19(Prapored . I I I I I I YopJAR Conformance Mal& Issue Re uiremenl Pro osW { E 1 Reddmid k5 rduhve r3tdµ i I 1 Ovdry 13(41954s04],aeoeq ' l I I ra.+lu 1 1 J IotCwAevgo SUE eesNe l2,A67sf(]oAAy 3[4,,P545Q 2QYETsn rle(rk llol¢H.I7WaP 3Y 34'4'(wrate6.TY ebe]E G,rbr (v Tow ds�—4u.eBw�carll 1 I I �C-3• 1 I I rw TW { I J Sq�re F.wL ]Y wg b 3sd o Side: Ir 0 2y 7Flrord+ 9 B' hrleld B' - Caiar 71r Fsin.ka«isa B.vingecomc 261d I I 1 PuklnC— 7Wi..rrempkd6ni WBvR" 7W9 J era 1 1 I 1 1 nerwle�mr. x�•Mwx.n�p,e xirtrgal I'-s•Min Sill]re ISM i'-P eSll E 1 nr 1 OPu spew tad: 78t6Ras7 Awl ...R34Ar .]Sp4.mdm d,asr,r Rluae: 1 I I xsarorzBeu.Be ua(a S.B: soar ap— 1 l 3B lddrcbae pnllr ueue 301d I 1 1 (Uak,14U.10.1t.m (ydex 3(hr U.1i 3srlr ualx s(s,r ' Udl T,lly: 3rar wi(I n: 3B3r Ildl$2. 3016 I I ud1 o: Mma ID( I i � ri;y 43 rldl.'ueB lrt[7DRY 37 l I E 44.ss a(0 51e(1Yy ]AndWeot fu[}ggy 1 i I (9.30.]i a auy "' 11tl lad.(ei""37 1&.I� W wirW i—Mb LS6• 24'.:n'n'cwr%h toh 7�1 M-..W- 13'1 Ti'Min6WinMe spefd 3'4' Ground Level S@Wnd Floor TAlyd Floor RECEIVED Oven sea o01m..a -- — ,nra,� —} Nov 0 s 2004 CI1yM Hurdln9lanBe9d1 Roasevat-Hi mlinglen Townhoml:s -1.0 naoseve{Idtunlingloo,LLC mom_ R ,sa,wrw�a.•.ew.u� ® .�rrRnpv+. e...r.n.,.e r�. 33 I City ai Hunlington Beach NOV 03 2m f - I �T.i3M- ]1V 1r N--n w ri 17 *4 W rJ Vd' W-H 1W 8=114' _r-r _ W-113M f_ u la n 194r -- a it I _ � O - I 1 I /p w4ro-W9iL__�I I R ®L 0 J9 'J L ' h � 0. MUMMIlAr Building Flmt now Plana — nooswaft-Hunlington To"homes �- • '• _. .1 A-1.1 °� RMWVOIMiuntingIon,LLO ATTACHMENT NO. t r City of Huntington Beach Nov 03 zoos g i T T 1 I I + , _I ]r-1 v1• I m�i lW "Im *4w r4W 1T]1+1' f 9,'9 - IIP-0' )�_113N• IS�10• 'lY-Tw t IT-T IR' N'-111h1• _ i I - I I 1 1 I - ° I � I DEL c t , ®❑ ® u ® ❑I I ® ❑ 9 ❑ ® ! a Om:jCj DJIDLI ❑ Q ❑ I WHIR ffq gg dd e1 gg V y A sulwina 8eoond Floor Plan Rom' RoosavatW tunE4lgton Towntwmss �.:`~ M -- A-1.2 RoaselvelhFluattington,Lt.0 ® Sim _- cn�u'."m.W.nl - � r C-dy of Hunlh,glon Beach NOV 03 2005 3W.� -_ 79%3 lfY IT-IP WdLa• r}•.,p aA'41ll' 33'-S• -A' 3P-I11f!" I ••� .187�1' a9.114' 1 I I I L0 --- Zal i ---- - - 1 IIIIM Bulgy rna Floor wens •a�•we irr� t Roosevelt-Huntinglon Townhomas Roosevelt-Hunlinglon,LLC •" -- ++m.0 w� � ewnnwnm I r city of Hunlinglon Beath NOV 03 Z005 T T I -----_-- . I _ _ ; 11 E ' -1 i - --- - -------- -------- --- Bonding Flood Plana ns.mx,,.• y Hooaevell•kiunEinglnnrownluomea •.-• 'm" -=-.- •• A-lA Honsovulk•Hunlington,LLC == ' r Cliy of Huniinglan Beach NOV O 3 2nn5 ® a -4- -- ------- - - O ` ❑ OwdEl I � ' ° LUIMP IL _ t - _ Cww ..-. DW" . l El a L--------------- — o ❑ 1v Flnt Pbw Plan 800cmPlow Plan vrAva-fa I \ TWO lq"Pin Ec--rr ��- - Roo"vell-WunlInglon TownhoMs rw.....W�.�+...as..aPw F -t!4 JS�-----�l1 ...r� ffi _�'n•..�^�.^r -- R00$SYDR-Huntington L.. 1.0 I` ® - �— 9 u'vn t CIty at Huntington Beach NOV 03 2005 I A 1 . 1 � 1 i - � 1 ❑ 11 I II 1 1 ! � ° m2w - _ y II I I I A � ❑ �w Rid Floor Man +Iw.t+e' Second Floor Man tn•.Pa" Roasavelt•Hunlingtwr Townhomes n ' = �`'—"� A-12 — -- Mclr,.nal.,.awo..u.�c.,,w Roosevelt H tMu MIan,LLCEVE u..wu uwa l r Clly of Huntlnglon Bench Nov 031a05 - - - i ❑ i i Ej ' } i 0 ❑ C�i:v I � � ! -- _ gg ! ° - I -J 1 I Third Fit"PIM Roosevelt Huntlnpt n Townhomes A-2.3 Ro .'*HumIngton.LLC ® m CITY of Hunmglon Be---h 1 � Nov 03 2005 ❑ o la MAI I I k 1 • i � �i � I r� I � � I _ Oulu bi Nr —mall I 1 Btlkl I Ip i` sum O l Fbsl Raw Rm w•.rs Second Flood non tx. TMddFlaotOjw •.rr Ronsevelt�tunUngtan�avmhumea i '�, ----- `==�ET�: p1..2.4 Roosevelt-MMIngtM LLC ; d xi " F , TY'_Ea a O IIII€lillii11WIiiiiilVllllrlllllllllllllll�lllldhlltjlall mli{I,III iliilllkllllllrr '<<IIIIIIIL --.--- 11111E1i!!,,II}IIIIIli11111 Ilifll illllllliipiEflUlulllil91111E �Il01111illllllk IIII11111U wl Illq Ililllli ..J11k1191111!! 1 w _ +911111111Eilllpgallq} I,vinrlliillliiull � Iklul - '"' 0 lauk "' � � �::. a.f I ! �� _� G _a off' � � ;i 'i U � � !�I-w.r� � ❑ I Gi = - ;-�a'�n�` �_ 4 U O p p .aaliu,,. 0 0 uun urns wnilii � IEi� illlillirll iitl�jlpll� uu lul'I � .,... I I IJI 'I . :! I •,ii '.,� ^1�1� IIII 41 O I!IIIllfillllE441IIIII:IIiIIIUIIIE,InlEhll_ ""° IIII"- illllElIIIII ;,;, IIII Illlil IIIEI+III 111111E[l;,lllllllllllllllllillllijl III{llilllllllll.IEIIIIIIIlfllllllllllli�111311 " IIIIalEllllllllllUlllllllllflll[IIIIUI ult Illl� - UIIIIII - .,. ilZVt +illlu!lµ IIIVh ))Ill �� -- illll}lllllflll'. . a •,-.I„..�„ ..,,-11-�-�- IIIIIkEliil€fllpl llVi3i '-• u111111i-III ilfl!ll '1 � rE11111�116dIIIIP; II'ilill[llllllfi 51 r. I!i?I!!Illl ®I ®� 1 I � , . ppprOM Warm-0G '-' Ym n,as ldv�i.r,6rTb T•! 14cA1MM LuvIu"'batrr��y 6ulldhxll Fael�l eeq E7e+mtlml f I f 0o O O pap O 9 �i ® I 4L;, nnim 1 1 f , CH3 Qn ECM XI � 1 f � l 1 I II ul YI �M.ra• . wµau.ayr. Roossvall-liuntinpton 7ownhwas A-4. Rooso Wt-Huntln®ton,I.tC �dreihG uY�� •^�•••^•••�•'• 1dYYr,1>>vu0.ti 1 {R.44�lup Clay of Hunlfngton Beath NOV 03 2009 E0 OR- 11 El a 0 OR T . o o a 1 f f \ / �UuI�R6l'86UI11��6Vl� ;y YyouoMr� RooaerehdtunlinglonTewnhomea °�"' " -- •• �" A-4. wak RooaerelVHunlinglon,LLC - cr r city of twangton Beach NOV 03 Mn5 T T T as HIHI Ono Do M13 Cu NMI am 00 Ulu Ep me _ ® l I I Lo ButldYlo N Eaat Bevallon iX•.fw' B I Ino H HoM We-tion I I El F3 me 0-4 no �u� in no xm a o a a I a 1 Buldhm!4"t Elevation __ _ w•.rye tlu ling N Soulh EterAtlon Raoaevelt riunHn>�ton 7awnhames - = liaaserell tiuntimgFon,LLG m COO of HunBngton Beach I � NOV 03 YliflS T -HR. 1819 Dori auu�*wYeeal ESe,wtMn w.r-0- BOHdlnu to florjh EMva!!em ,m.rc EM El in I i ° ♦ ♦ r ♦ ♦ r 8u!lNna l�Earl�ewNon 1w-.ra• BUMMn l4 94uth t;:t Mtm eq•+rr FmoservWl-H nlu tngglloonn TownWmes qq NrMrAliyWer�V.4liif �Wdy >� '�+� Raasevell-Hunlinglon,LLC "^� `y.�"�-"- ~•' '_ q.w..r...r.•e.rn1 0 ewuy Dot,.+nc. f Cltyof Huntington Beach tti14Y U3 2tti1T, ! I 6�a da4 Oa9 + 13 a a. 1... El 10 EN L 7 k.� Bmmm IV East"wallop na•onr BuR m IV Nallh E%wM nn T + I i I , aQo yflo a o V1 El El 13 Li ♦ ® - I 4 M 1 BreHdm lY]ggpj Elavatlon w• w 6i+ll�nn lV BaWII�.lava0pn r,+.�. „waawaYw•.• RoomwWwuMinglonTownhomee ` RooseudMunlington.LLC - -^^�—= �. _