HomeMy WebLinkAboutUse Permit 85-77 - Condition 20 Denied - No wood siding - Co ftp'
Aw04's 0 %A*M Adimtow wws at M1 kowim Maine UNC[L
"611 04 by Mcfee of the ran C
SUPW1o1 Cowl of Oow+ir. /►l'L'RU Gu pY C17
Caalvff", MMMOV A-at 10. aal*d ?I 5"100"DW 1941. 11014 -t 11
A-2401, " d 1 1 jww. 1K3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA tZt-rY C"t
Courtly of Orange •,,wc MOM4 &*qW%M" upow" A
1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of
County r I v r�
� the Co ty aforesaid.d, am o er tM age of e+ghteen ,
years, and not a party to or interested in the below
entitted matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the
NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general cirCulatlon,
printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa,
County of Orange. State of California, and that a
Nottce of PUBLIC llEAR1XG
of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete
copy, was printed and published in Ine Costa h+Meaa,
ftitwport Beach. Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley.
Irvine, the South Coast communities and La uns
Beach issues of said newspapw for t t t m�
to wit the tss *$) of
I
r
_._ . 198
. Ise
. 19b
l odart, under penalty of perjury, that the
foregoing Is true and correct.
Executed on
February 24
at Cot Mesa, California.
�r+►attxe
• CITY NUAITIN �V 3 A r'1�1
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92694
OFFICE 6f THE CITY CLERK
March 6, 19A6
I
I
Paul Thompson
5072 Tasman Drive
Huntington Bench, CA 92649
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting
held March 3, 1986 denied your appeal to Condition No. 20 of Use Permit
No. 85-77 and concurred with the staff recommendation to approve the
revised elevatiun plan of Use Permit No. 85-77 dated January 23, 198E wi* h
additional woodsiding on the building to accent the windcme and doors as
shown in .Attachment 04 of the staff report dated March 3, 1986.
this is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to pro-
Visions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of
California you have ninety days from March 6, 198b to apply to the
courts for judicial review.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our
orrice - 536-5227.
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
A1gW:CB:.Js
Enclosure
CC: City Attorney
Development Services Director
"hob TM 7"4n4m
RE UE FOR CITY COUNC IP ACTION
Do% Urgh�3. 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
&ArW"odby: Charles W. Thompson , City Administrator( �
p "wWby: James W. Palin, Director , Development Service#20F
APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ' S CONDITION NO.
USE PERMIT NO. 85-77
Corwitsnt wth Council Policy? X Yaa Now Policy or ExaWp m
Saftmmt of Imo, RocannwmwWion, Analytic, Funding Source, Altrrnrtivo Actions, ,t ttachmeatf:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE :
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by the
applicant Paul Thompson to the Planning Con- mission 's action to
clarify Condition t1o . 20 of Use Permit No. 85-77 by recltiiring more
stucco on the proposed photography building located on the south
side of Warner and "P` Street .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission action on January 22 , 1906 and recommendation :
MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE AND CLARIFY
THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL HO. 20 OF USE PERMIT NO. 85- 77 AND REQUIRE
MORE STUCCO IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY WITH SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Schumacher , Livenaood , Erskine , Porter , Mi. rjahangir
NOES: Winchell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Planning staff recommendation is to approve the revised
elevation plan dated January 23, 19861 with additional wood siding
on the building co accent the windows and doors .
ANALYSIS:
Appl i canL,/Appe l lant: Paul Thompson
5072 Tasman Drive
Huntington Beach , CA 92649
Request : An appeal to planning Commission Condition No. 20 of Use
Permit 85-77 requiring additional stucco on the
elevations of the proposed photography building .
Location: 8092 Warner Avenue (southwest corner of Warmer Avenue
and 'E" Street)
a-
On December 17 , 1985 , the Planning Commission approved Use Permit
85-77 and Conditional Exception 85-78 to construct a two-story
office building with variances to permit seven parking spaces in
lieu of eight , one compact parking space , use of the alley for
parking space turning area , a 0 ' side yard building setback along
the south property line in lieu of 101 , and less than 10 ' wide
landscaping in various locations along "BO Street and Warner
Avenue . Condition No. 20 of approval was imposed as follows:
20 . Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Design Review
Board for review and approval . Special attention shall be
paid to providing aesthetically plear :,ng, long-lasting
building materials and assuring compatibility with the
surrounding area .
On January 7 , 1986 , the Planning Commission discussed the expansion
of the Oakview Redevelopment Area as a non-public hearing item.
Commissioner Erskine remarked that typical surrounding structures at
Warner Avenue and reach Boulevard had stucco or brick siding , and
emphasized to staff to keep these architectural similarities in mind
when reviewing the design of new buildings in the area including the
recently approved photography building .
On January 21 , 1986 , the Design Review Board reviewed the two-story
office building elevations dated January 15 , 1986 . These elevations
indicated wood siding on three sides of the building . The Board
felt the building was compatible with the existing architecture in
the vicinity . in addition , they agreed that the small structure in
its location will not have the influence upon the Charter Center
area , will blend in better with the abul• ting residential and will
only impact adjacent Parcels . However , because of the Planning
Commission ' s interest of providing greater use of stucco on new
buildings in the proximity of the pakview Redevelopment area , the
Board voted to refer the elevations to the Planning Commission. for
clarification on type of materidls to be used on the exterior walls .
On January 22, 1986 , the Planning Commission reviewed the elevations
dated January 15, 1986 . They determined that stucco be provided on
all aides in order to maintain continuity and to be compatible with
surrounding properties .
The Design Review Board on January 23 , 1986 , reviewed revised
elevations dated January 23 , 19860 indicating stucco walla instead
of wood siding as requested by the Planning Commission . The Board
approved the revisions as reflecting the direction of the Planning
Commission .
Although the applicant submitted revised plans to the Design Review
Board, he was not completely satisfied with the Planning
Commission ' s action of the meeting of January 22 , 1986 .
Subsequently, he filed an appeal to the Planning Commission 's
action . The applicant desires wood or aluminum lap siding on three
sides of the building as depicted on the elevation plans dated
January 15 , 1986 .
RCA -2- ( 1283d)
r
Staff has reviewed the revised elevations dated January 23, 1986 And
is recommending approval of them as recommended the Planning
Commission with the requirement that additional wood treatment be
provided on the walls around the windows and doors .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
This pro uct is categorically exempt under Class 31 Section 15303 of
the California Environmental ()uality Act .
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable .
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Approve the appeal and the elevations with wood siding dated January
15, 1986 as originally submitted by the applicant .
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Appeal letter dated January 30 , 1986
2 . Front Elevation dated January 15 , 1986 (applicant 's request )
3 . Front Elevation dated January 23 , 1986 (as recommended by the
Planning Commission )
4 . Front Elevation dated January 23 , 1986 ( as recommended by the
staff )
5 . Planning Commission minutes dated December 17 , 1985
C . Planning Commission minutes dated January 7 , 1986
7 . Design Review Board ninutes dated January 21 , 1996
S . Planning Commission minutes dated January 22, 1986
9 . design Review Board minutes dated January 2.3 , 1986
JWP :SH: kla
401,
RCA - 3j3/16
I
r _ _
T ,N�
OUR REQUEST h,�f� I1PPPFAL C TrCt1M►fp
Y
x
KuorlhorCN �
elc�rly C r
To allow the building nt A092. Warner'�''hy u to be -guilty
with aluminum or wood siding. , �'J 47 �� �n;►
1 . First we went to the commission meeting on December 17 , 1985
and they said
" ( 4) The development uhall comply with all applicable
provisions of the Ordinance Code , Building Division,
and the Fire Department .
( 17 ) Roof materials shall be of non-combustable tile.
( 20) Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Design
Review Board for review and approval . Special attention
shall be pairs to nrovidinr esthetically plea.;ing, long
lasting, buildInP, materials and and assuring compatibility
with he a roundin area."
t s r �*
2 . We then went tc% the, Deis i gri !(ev iew board on January 21 , 1986.
Scott Hess told me the Deslen Review Board ' s recommendation
was to approve all of our plans . They felt we should go
to the Comission again because there was some talk of
stucco. They felt in good e0necienoe they could not approve
the wood or alualnim shingles . However, their reaomi Mat Ion
r!! for approval of everything I had submitted . I
$072 Taman Udine. Hurr hWun hmtt. ('A 92649 (71,4) MM.7(tgl
3 . We then went to the Commission meeting; on January 22, 1986.
i
We told them we complied with everything they had asked for
at the December 17 , 1985 meeting. They said that they did not
it 6r++
want P . We had to Fro back to the Design Review Board .
4 . We went back to the DcsiKn Review Hoard on January 23 , 1986.
Their recommendation is to approve our plans , but they will not
i
go afrainst the Commission .
5. We feel the proposed studio is in keeping with the surrounding
area and that aluminum or wood s id i ngr would fit i n . We
feel a stucco building with this design would be totally out
of place .
NOTE: The labels to notify the property owners for a 300 square
foot. radius are copied from original labels submitted to
the City Council at a previous meeting;.
NOTE: Please put on on your February 11 , 1966 meeting , or the
March 40 1986 meeting. I will to cut of town in between
the above stated dates .
Thank You
Respe fully Subeitted
r i
Paul Ttmpson
I�
I
map J.1%•t.Wit..w%.jLp
i
` � 1
•„ tAL,4gnr
itunte�tcx.
dab
• '• M
Irma
ML
• 1 �+i
I
IL
r
IN of
t- 17
NORTH ELEVATION
(WA,now Avg.)
mom �� Pot*w .
lw 'q'+.•) i
1;tO�"IC�"'f'�'JM �tT1.�C? C+d►�. �r-+It+3L.�R' �
—77
00,
.•��s,
G ; Ae
• ice- . _._._____. _.._....._. ._ti�.._. . . •_ ..
NORTH ELEVATION -"
(Wmowlt, Avg)
(Alo 09MMMM
=Lf*
a�ttt.�
rc-3 APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT' S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT
NO. 65-77/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-78
&221icant Robert Mandic/Paul Thompson
Use Permit No . 85-77 is a request to huild a two-story, 21730 square
foot office building on a 5, 305 squat O^ot lot with 50 feet of
street frontage which is leas than tt . #.:wired minimum size (6 ,000
square feet ) and frontage ( 60 feet ) . Conditional Exception No.
85-78 is a request to permit : ( A ) Eight parking spaces in lieu of
ten ( 9 . 1 required, rounded up ) , (B ) one compact size parking space
(none are permitted for a building this size ) , (C) use of the alley
for parking space turning area , (D ) a U ' side yard building setback
along the south property line in lieu of 10 feet , ( E ! lass than a 10
foot wide landscaped planter in v,ariou& locations along 4V Street
and Warner .
On November 27 , 1985 , the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied the
request because a building of 2 ,100 square feet could be established
on the property with sufficient parking area and conforming
setbacks, as conceptually presented to the Planning Commission in
conjunction with Zone Change No. B5-14 ; and because lack of adequate
on-site parking and maneuveratility would result in vehicles backing
out on "B ` Street and increased parking on "B ' Street .
Subsequently , the applicant appealed the decision .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
The proposed project is exempt under Section 165303 of the California
Environnenta Quality Act .
THE PUBLIC HEhRING 'WAS OPENED
Paul Haripton , applicant , spoke in support of the proposal explaining
that his business was: a photography studio where half of his
business is by appointment off premises , further stating that his
business does not create that much traffic. He added that he
disagreed with condition Ild requesting that a landscape berm may be
used instead of a wall .
Commissioner Erskine expressed concern about the architecture of the
building feeling that there should be more consistency with the
materials; in the proposal and the adjacent neighborhood structures ,
Mayne Penny, Architect , stated that the reason for tht wood material
was because the proposal is the last commercial project on this
street and the other side is residential reasoning that the
applicant was trying to reserve some of the residential style .
There being no further testimony, thi public hearing was closed .
Commissioner Schumacher questioned it it was possible for the
applicant to request a berm instead of a wall . Florence Webb of
staff stated that either one would be acceptable .
t�
P.C. December 17 , 1985 -7�
I
Commissioner Erskine reforrtd the Commission to conditions 117 and
Ot stating that he would like the roof materials be of a mace
permanent material such as tile and the north and south fact of the
building be of brick nr stucco .
He also asked staff if the Commission could make this conditional
use parmit apply to only this particular applicant and not run with
the land .
Tom Poe of staff stated that he recommends a condition of approval
to work with the fire department and the building department on
alternatives for the outside stairs .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
THE APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL OF USE PERMIT
N0. 85-77/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-78 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine ,
Mir ;ahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: porter out of the room
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-77 :
1 . The establishment , maintenance and operation of the
photographer office/studio will not be detrimental to:
a . The general welfare of, persons residing or working in the
vicinity ;
i
b . Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or
building .
2 . The granting of the use permit and conditional exception will
not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington
Beach .
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-78 : j
1 . eecause of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, rogarding size and shape , and corner location , the
strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive
the aubject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and under identical song classifications .
2 . Bvcr ,ise of the street corner dedication required, the granting
of a conditional exception is necessary in order to presorve
the enjoyment of one or nor* substantial property rights . i
PIC. b0cember 110 loss -i-
36 The granting of conditional Exception No. 05-70 will not be
materiati detrimental to the public welfare' or injurious to
property in the same zone classifications .
4 . The granting of the conditional exception vill not adversely
affect the General Flan of the City of Huntington Beach .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
; . A revised site Flan shall be submitted depicting the
mo::ifications described herein:
a . Reduce the building sine to no greater than 2 , 400 gross
square feet .
b . Relocate compact parking space at west end of building .
c . Rearrange parking stalla as shown on attached plan .
d . Provide 32-inch decorative screening wall or berm to code .
e . Trash area
f . Wheel stops
2 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall
submit the following plans :
A . Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public works for review and
approval .
b . Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan . Said plan shall
indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and
shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen
said equipment .
i
3 . Landscaping shall comply with S. 979 . 5 of the Huntington beach �
Ordinance Code .
4 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of
the Ordinance Code, Building Division , and Fire Department .
5 . Maximum separation between building gall and property line
shall not exceed two inches ( 20 ) .
S . Driveway approach on `36 Street shall be a minimum of twenty
fret ( 201 ) in width and shall be of radius type construction.
7 . The corner ROM ~ ;+dies Shala be 34 feet .
•. Dedicate 3 feet on •S* Street, to ultimate RON an Warner Avmna*
and 2-1/2 feet for the alley per ]Public Works Standards .
1'
S
i
v
1
i
i
j
9. All signs shall comply with Articles 976 of the Buntington
beach Ordinance Code. All fzee-standing signs shall be
low-profile , monument-type signs .
10 . Improve Warner , 080 Street and alley to ultimate ROM per Public
Worka Standards .
11 . All employees shall park in the rear parking area .
12 . Natur,,.%l gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities , water heaters , and central heating units .
13 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigota and water faucets .
13 . All building spoils , such as unusable lumber . wire , pipe , and
other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an
offaite facility equipped to handle them .
15 . If lighting is included in the parking lot , high-pressure
sodium vapor lamps shall oe used for energy savinga . All
outside lighting shall be directed to prevent 'spillage' onto
adjacent properties .
16 . The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal
driveway and parking easement (s ) between the subject site and
adjacent southerly property .
17 . Roof materials shall be of non-combustible tile .
18 . The south facing wall shall be maintenance free and
non--combustible and compatible with new development in the area .
19 . All customers shall be by appointment only .
20 . Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Design Review
soard for review and approval . Special attention shall be paid
to providing esthetically pleasing long lasting building
materials and assuring compatibility with the surrounding area .
21 . The number of stairs shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire
Department and Building Division .
C- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-58/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.
/COASTAL DEVELOPMFNT PERMIT NO. 85-31
A 1 Dana Blanchard
The proposed project ats of construction of a three-story
29-unit mini-suite motel w ager 's quarters . The conditional
Exception requests one parking s r suite in lieu of two as
required by 8. 9791 . 12 . 1 (9 ) , reduction parking spaces to 32,
and an excess of 250 of the units to contain hen in lieu of
3.9700. 13(e) . The zoning is Visitor-serving Cones Article
949 ) which lists hotels and motels as permitted user Sub o
approval of a conditional use persit and pursuant to the •tan
tot such users contained in the c4 District (Article 94? ) .
rxe beco" et 170 1945 i�o-
ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC REARING
D-1 -1 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17
rification on aNendwnt approved December 3 , 19 ,
re ding Oldtown/Towrlot Site Coverage . Applie o third
floo decks .
A NOTIO AS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY RJAHANGIA, TO
REQUEST C IFICATION ON THE AMENDMENT, AP OVED AECENNER 30
1985 , MAR G OLDTOWN/TOMNLOT SITE COV GE . (REQUEST: NO
DECKS ON RDOF F SECOND FLOOR WHERE THE IS 551 LOT
COVERAGE ) . STA WILL PREPARE A REQU TO SEND THE AMENDMENT
BACK TO THE PLAN G COMMISSION FOR REPORT PRIOR TO IT BEING
ACTED ON BY THE CI COUNCIL.
AYES: Winchell , iumacher orter , Mir jahangir
NOES : Livengood (d not derstrnd the motion ,
procedurally)
ABSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN : Erskine
MOTION PASSED
D- 2 EXTENSION OF TIM FOR CONDITIONAL US PERMIT NO. 84-31 AT MAIN
AND FLORIDA FO 48 UNIT SENIOR APARTM TS.
A MOTION BY RSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHA R TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITION USE PERMIT No. j
84-31 B THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, zsaki Porter ,
Mirjahangir
S: None
BSENT: Rowe
ABSTAIN: None
ION PASSED
D--3 PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON EXPANSION OF i
OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Commission reviewed the report . A survey area encompassing
the entire Beach Boulevard corridor within the City' s
jurisdiction will forthcoming.
commissioner Erskine remarked that while driving east on
Warner towards Beach Boulevard he noticed the areas
surrounding the proposed photo shop project . All the
surrounding structures had stucco or brick riding and that he
hoped staff, at the design review, would keep these
architectural similarities in mind and require some
attractive, permanent , non-wood riding for the entire project .
pC Minutes 1/7/16 40it -
DssICN REYICN BOARD MINUTIB
Date : January 21 , 1986 - 2 : 00 P. M.
Board Members Present : Smith , Godfrey , Martinez , Adams
Staff Present : Ness
Design Review No. 86-4 :
Elevations bf Efie- Roto raphXBuilding on Warner Avenue and "BO
ree ae Permit No . 85-77/Conditional Exception No .
Staff presented the proposed architecture on the two story office
building . Proposed building materials includes grey concrete i
shingles , light grey 1 " x 6 " shiplap siding on three sides of the
structure , zero property line side has stucco, burgandy 1 ' x 6'
framing stripe around the building, and small pane glass windows .
Staff indicated that the Planning Commission stipulated in their
conditions of approval that the Design Review Board review and
approve revised elevations . They wanted special attention paid to
providing aesthetically pleasing, lon-j lasting building materials
and compatibility with the surrounding area .
Wayne Penny, architect , was present to answer questions . Mr . Penny
felt his elevations were approved by the Planning Commission and
therefore was not ready to discuss any changes to his elevations .
The Board reviewed the proposed elevations and felt the building is
compatible with existing architecture in the vicinity, which does
not conform to any common theme ; there is a lack of architectural
consistency within the area . The proposed architecture makes a good
transition between the office building to the west and residential
to the east .
Board member Glen Godfrey indicated that the intent of the
Commission was not to permit all wood on each side of building ; they
desired a combination of wood siding and stucco . He requested the
Board to take the Planning Commissia-'is recommendation into
consideration . Discussion regarding the Commissions intent took
place .
Board member Martinez indicated that he wanted to review the
architecture in this area by field inspection before commiting his
vote .
The Board recommended approval based upon the buildings color and
materials as presented because the small structure in its location
will not have influence upon the charter Center area , will blend in
better with the aoutting residential and will only impact adjacent
r
parcels. Further discussion ensued, there were varied thovghta
ragatding the olevations such as a combination of wood siding and
stucco# all stood aiding at all stucco# the Board did not want to
override the Commission intent and recommended the applicant obtain
clarification from the Planning comminvion .
ON NOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY GODFREY, THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REFERRED THE SLEVATIONS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
CLARIFICATION ON TYPE OF MATERIALS TO BE USED ON EXTERIOR WALLS OF
USE PERMIT NO. 85-77 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-78 , BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Adams , Godfrey , Smith , Martinez
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
SH : jr
( 4251d )
i
i
i
5:�
L ArB 214/ft
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - ivic Center
2000 Mair. Street
Huntington Beac , California
TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1986 - 7 : 00 PM
CULL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: �
P P P P P P
ROLL CALL: Rowe , Winch ell , S macher , Livengood, Erskine , Porter ,
P
Mirjahangir
(Commissions Erskine was present from 7 : 25 PM until
9 :00 PM)
A. CONSENT CALEND
A-1 Minu s December 171 1985 Planning Commission Meeting
A MOTION AS MADE BY LIVENG0OD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO
APPROVE INUTES OF DECEMBER 17 , 1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES , Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Porter ,
Mi r jahangi r
h S: None
SENT: Erskine
RSTA:N: None
MOTION PASSED
D . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS :
9-1 Paul Thompson , Paul Thompson photography, requested approval
from the Commission on his proposed elevations for a photo
store located at warner and mom Street . He felt he was
meeting all conditions of approval of his Use Permit which was
approved by the Planning Commission , be was before the
Planning Commission because the Design review Board did not
approve his elevations because of the use of wood siding as
opposed to stucco. The item was tabled until Commissioner
teskin• +hived.
upon r mmissioner drsskine 's arrival the need for additional
stucco was discussed and it was determined that additional
stucco is needed in order to be compatible with the 1
surrounding area .
MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE AND �
CLARIFY THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 85•-77 AND
REQUIRE MORE STUCCO IN ORDER TO MAINTA_'N CONTINUITY WITH
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Rowe, Schumacher , Livengood , Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES : Winchell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
B-2 Bill Holman , Huntington B-!ach Company, asked for pernissi o
speak later on Item D-1 (not a public hearing ) .
B- 3 Lorraine Faber , Amigos de Bolsa Chica, asked for ission to
speak on Item D-1 . She stated that the public not know
what is being proposed and that there was rea oncern . She
requested that there be a public access to and a public
hearing on the item.
B- 4 Richard Short, opposition to Item C-1 anted to speak against
Item C-1 again because the public h ing was closed. He
asked for conformance to the Gene Plan and ;presented a
resolution prepared by adjacen eighbors to the property site .
i
B-5 Lance Berry , opposition to em C-1 , stated for the record
that he was not against for projects, just against high
projects .
density
.
B-6 MOTION WAS MADE B CHUMACHER SECOND BY LIVENGOOD FOR STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOL ON FOR DORIS FERGUSON, DED'CATED, FORMER
CITY EMPLOYEE THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : owe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood. Porter ,
Mirjahangic
NOES : None
ABS ; Erskine
A AIN : None
MOTION PISSED
I
i
PC Minutes - 1/22/06 -Z-
I
D951GA NICVIN OOARD NINUTEB
Dati : January 23 , 1986 - 2 : 00 P. M.
Board Members Present : Smith , Godfrey, Martinez , Adaris
Staff Present : Hess
Design Review No . 86-4 :
Elevations of the Photography Building on Warner and 41 Street (Use
PermiE Ro . 85-77/Conditional FXCU, on No. U5-70 )
Wayne Penny presented revised elevations with stucco walla instead
of wood siding as requested by the Planning Commission .
Brief discussion ns ensued .
Board Member Smith made the statement that the Board was reluctant
to approve the revised plan , which included mostly stucco walls , but
felt the direction sent by the Planning commission limited the
latitude of the board to approve anything other than what was
presented to then today .
The Board felt this elan could have included more wood siding .
Board member Martinez 's position was that a combination of wood
siding/stucco was more appropriate in order to provide a transition
between the residential to the east and the building next door
including other structures to the west . Other board members were in
agreement with ouch treatment .
Brief discussion ensued .
ON MOTION BY GODFREY AND SECOND BY SMITH , THE DF_SIGN REVIEW BOARD
APPROVED THE REVISED ELEVATIONS DATED 1 /23/86 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Adams , Godfrey , Smith
NOES: Martinez
ABSTAIN: None
SH: jr
( 4251d )
PuMieh 2/20/96
11141101 OF Ptrt= Nod=
APHM TO RJOKM aC1 'I 103r M Cr
tM PMM IGS-77 i Mr29 ITZGML M "S-78
!R�'L'tCR IS HEMY GMM that the Hunti.ngtcn Beach city C.amil will hold a
public Imm ing in the Ciaunci l C hanibcr at the Amtirrgtcn beach Civic
Caanter# 2000 Main Strict, Kmtirngtcn Brscfi, California, an the date +end
at tbo t ia* indicated Wow tc rncei ve and consider the statemAnts of all
For sorw who wish to be heard relative to the application described below.
IDM: Mmfty, Mhrch 3, 1%C
?Two 7:30 P.M.
EMMFICMCU NUMM: COMITICri� 620 OF USE PMUT @5--77 a C�ITICIN7+L
._r�_.. EXI.' TION 85-78
I0.71t'!'ICH: 8G52 WUm.r Avenue (southwat corner of Warner Avenue and
"B" Street)
�.I An appeal to the Planning Ccmission's reguireaent for
addi t icnal stucco on the elevations of tht pressed
1*.otograp*.y tx:i lding (LIP E5-77 G CIE 8✓-76)
ITIV PC04D PAL BTATtIl5z The pscipossd pro5act is categorically exert
from the prcvisices of the C.alifonAa
Dwi rorwantal Quality Act .
Cat Flu: A cop}► of the request and a legal descr ipt i cn in an file in
the Department of Develapsrnt Services.
ALL Pf3G'M are invited to attend said hearing and •xpresa► �
opinions or submit evidenc* for cc upinet the a-plicstien as outlined
above. All applications, exhibits, and dercriptians of this proposal are
rn file with the office of the City Clark, 2WC Main Street, Hmtingtan
Bead-•, Cali fo:nia, fot 1rmgzect icn by tt.e public.
HLWrl K7MN BEAM CITY C OU CIL
B}•: Alicia M. Wet'.twor th
Ci ty Clerk
AwMe (714) 536-5W5
Dated Peft-uary 18, 1986
•
Date;
NOTICE OF PLUS[,= NEAMIWG
aez"L a - pj&uw-�
i +
App i ca t Wi us+ er
w
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington
Beach Civic Center , 1000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , California ,
on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider
the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
i
---^--ter
TIME:
APPLIC7ITION NUMBER ; 431AG 99! QE 7 earff AW . 6
pPLICANT:
LOCATION: JIM
t
lt...SS&E. T: A"
toµ T046 *ATW"
IINVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
4 W- V
&Rea 1946 4b
� � y
4N FI ,F: �
i s an
file in the Department o O S ces .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against: the application
as outlined above . All applications , exhibits , and descriptions of
this proposal are on file with the orrice of the City Clerk , 3000 j
Bain Street, Huntington Bench , California , for inspection by the i
public.
James W. Palin , Secretary
' Huntington beach Planning Commission
Phone ( 714 ) 536-5271
(0240D)
A � z
AwnJim Ili! A
� mum �,lg" tCO/'tA MW�C.A 9262
MWYNOM iNAiCN CA 12M!
i 0 �/
141-lam!! 1i7-321-Oi 161-321-22 '
wKwe emu" r , N *GlgsI AICNANP ava" W. GRIGIM, M" La11ulRr,
MMW rt'.Cd CA 92641 N CA 926A7 NUNTI'MIGN WWII CA 92"A
(?�w
107-twi3 167-321-07 c� �'3 .l I 161-321-23
TUM NVIV& WI11rXR CWA w4►E, STEPKaN C I a" or NUNTiMiC!'tm w-#.CN
1011 A STR►IM P.O. sox 244 MWYWrON •FACM CA 92646
MtLMOl�ON OWN CA 92647 SURrSIDK CA 90743 c/o CITT MALL
101-1OD-Sl 167--321-O8 ; 167-324-01
Mob= OCUN Y:vi DI:1T1tICT ROWZs STEPHEN C CITY OF NUWIW7rt►N RP.ACN
11021 11 C1t NLVD. ON P.e: box 244 MUNtIWrrON REACH CA 92646
MWINGTON PWK CA 92647 SURlSInK CA 90743 c/a CITY KA0.
107.100-67 167-321-15 167-324-02
ITNIiA1111`, JAXI< .a SCHLEY, LAWRENCf D , SECURITY TITLE 1HS11KANK:K CO.
P.O. wx 245 6692 HAKBOR KEY CIRCLE P.O. 1011 Is99
RAN AIDM CA 95249 11UNTINCtOW BEACH CA 926411 l SAN DIM CA 92112
c/o TRUST/PT 140
101-l00-i• i 167-321-16 167-324-03
RIM" JAKr R ANOWI,ROBERT E SECURITY TITLE: INSURANCE CO.
P.O. 1101 2411 3357 NUNTON AVENUE + P.O. 301 1589
6AN ANDIn CA 95749 ROSEM M, CA 91770 SAN DI(<,GO CA 92112
t C/o TRUST OPT 144n
161-32L-Ol 167-321-17 167-324-04
"mice mmT R UEAL, UORRIS UL1.0A,JORC1 i 1.11NIVINA
126" LAMILA LWL 17A62 A STREET 17031 A STREET
G000 GWJ CA 92641 HUN7'IWITOH BEACH CA 92647 HUN*!NCTON REACH CA 92647
i 167-321-02 167-321 -18
167-324-05
DI 59 MA, WILLIAM
I1mrA1i, YI .A • SCKl.1!Y� LAwRttiCE D 13417 GRANDARA AYF:NUr
MI RmA AV6111Jt 1120 PACIFIC COAST IIWY
1amy CxrT CA 92625 HUNTIW:TON NtACH CA 92648
� IA M1RAbA LA 906311
. ! 167-324-06
161+321-03 167-321-19 jilt
fwmtIiN LTD LM M1AKA 9 DUMt I NW
10I65 i1r0amma rITNR;lIT 192i0 ROSKTOM AvlaMlit 1 A !
�� 4A 6O7+o 1 CR;KR 1 Tos CA 90701 r �� ;
• tit-3f4-�1
�69�361-44 161-3Z1-2O L4= RU R
r 1 ! J TN LICONAC I, CRAIG K P.O. m 9611
13 N ON sri' ` POWAIN VMAAY CA 92 M
4 i CA W"3 11uMttWNW NAM CA 9t"I
• � ia1-321=!M• its
ib�-331-i2
MR ML
0
Gamma Tc. CIIDZ, /TMso CWL 6 1m N
8142 "AM Cie=
1MM6� #A owl mwtMMa = uACN CA 12647
,� 3l6�1! 167w331�33
11us L T16 CANTO, VAT997 US
M=4v AWN= It-1 11132 MA.1OM1 CiNlCI•9
04M a" CA MMf1'IMTQN B=N CA 92647
167-331-03 167-33 1-34
ORLIUA19 LAWR M K J TA RU T L, AL JR
1313 21MVI81N calyx 6541 WALTON DRIVE
VALLU M CA 6Z026 KUNTINGTON am" CA 92647
167-331-04
��r, POSIT L
� f
aw'"0E01M SZACN CA 92647 i I
161-331-05
GUM 'VIEW MUTUAL WATER
17062 A S'I'NIEET ;
N=IXrTOM BEACH CA 92641 + j
c/o WAL, DORIS ;
161-331-07
MUtVAM, LAWRENCE J TR j
1213 RIVERVIEW DRIVE �
IALLBROOK CA 92029
i
167-331•-06
WLLIVAN, LA'WA NCE
1215 RIVERVIEW DRIVE
PALLSROOE CA 92028
167-331-29
CERTgZA, ANG9LES P I
$372 SN RKWSWRY AVMIE
W19 MIN'STER CA 92663 '
161-331-30
M 6. LAIATMZ PARR PLAC3
L88 ANMC= = CA 900S 7 �
wZT MM ,
li7-311-31
♦NN WNISe QTTIS A d
GQtt"MIA 21IRM
I;t
i
Relish 2/X/06
mwm Or rim mumm
--Is ammosym fa or
=tat t# 4nm that tlrr tfaartingtan ar ch City ftwil will hold Al
howi" in tbm ftmil *w6w at this Huntington Bee h Civic
2OW Main Street, a mtingtaa Dead, Cali fprnia, as the dalb ar d �
at thm time indicated taalm W receive and cmaidrrr the stateomnts of all
peons— *ra Irish to be beard relative to the appliaatian dascribsd below.
tmg MCt &y, March 3, 19 .
Tw8 700 P.M.
EM 11VICMICU NLIf it: a3WITICIN 020 OF USE PENUT b5-77 i OMZMClAL
EXMPTIOI 85-78
I031 cm: 8092 �inrrasr Avenue (southwest corner of Vkuner Avenue and
"B" Street)
PODFCM: An appeal to the planning Cmmissian's reMUrewnt for
additions: stucco cn the elevations of the proposed
photography building (UP ►'.5 -77 i C'E e5-7b)
D ION FMTAL 9Z71!'i X: The prqpoead project is categorically exempt
fray the provisions of tree California
IIwircimmatal QLmlity Act.
cm PUR: A copy of the. request and a legal description is on file in
the D"xtment of Development Services.
ALL are invited to attend said hearing and express
apinicne or suboit evidemm for or against the applieatim as outlirad
ire. All applications, oxhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
an file with the office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntingt,on
Be&&., California, for irapection by the public.
HLKPII+it'MN BEKW CM aO=IL
By: Alicia ". Waltw zth
Ci ty Clark
F'hcm (724) 536-5405
At4d FdZVA rY 18, 1906