Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCE 86-44/TT 12756 & CE 86-47 REQUEA FOR CITY COUNCP ACTION Date September 2, 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Services Subject: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF NTATIVqj TRACT 12756 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44 { "!/ Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception { to Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by the applicant, Jack Broberg, to the Planning Commission ' s action to deny Tentative Tract 12756 and Conditional Exception No. 86-44 for an 8-lot subdivision with variance to lot width for flag-shaped lots . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and Planning staff recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 5, 1986: MOTION BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44 BASED ON FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44 : 1 . Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. The parcel can be divided into parcels that conform to minimum lot width. 2 . Since the subject property can be divided according to regular established standards such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . PIO 4/84 huntington beach development services department 5TA f f REPORT-— P'� TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: August 5; 1986 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION. NO._ 86-44/TENTATIVE. TRACT #12756 (CONTINUED. FROM .JULY .1.5,. 1.986 PLANNING _COMMISSION MEETI G APPLICANT/ Jack Broberg DATE. ACCEPTED: OWNER: 16771 Moody .Circle June 16; 1986 Huntington Beach -, CA MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: REQUEST: To permit 'a reduction. August 5; 1986 in. lot width for two lots within a proposed ei4ht- EXIST.ING .ZONING: (Q)R2 lot subdivision LOCATION: 16852 and 16862 Bolsa GENERAL.-PLAN. Medium Chica Density Residential ACREAGE: 2 gross acres EXISTING. ,USE: Contractor 's yard and single family i The Planning Commission on July 15, 198-6, reviewed seven alternative j street layouts with the proposed tentative tract. With a straw vote, Alternative #2 (applicant 's revised request ) , Alternative #3 (Connection to Moody Circle with landscaping barricade at Pearce ) , and Alternative #6 (same as Alternative #3 but includes extension to the east for future access ) were retained. The Planning Commission directed staff to further analyze these three alternatives in terms of current and future traffic circulation (based on proposed. land uses at Meadowlark Airport ) . A meeting was held on July 22, 1986; with staff, City Engineer , two Commissioners (Erskine and Livengood ) , . Jack Broberg, Robert Skinner , Ken Moody and the Fire Department to discuss the feasibility of the three concepts . Concerns regarding the design of_ the proposed structures on the new tract were discussed. Mr . Broberg indicated an award winning architect has been contacted to 'prepare a conceptual layout which will be presented at the Planning Commission it meeting. The buildings will not be related to those on Moody Circle and will be designed with sensitivity towards the single family • homes to . the east and commercial development to the south . i A-FM•23A i I I The City Engineer discussed possible circulation systems for Meadowlark airport and whether access to Bolsa Chica was necessary. He indicated that whichever circulation system is proposed, • secondary access from Meadowlark to Bolsa Chica would be necessary. Primary choice for the accessway is Pearce Street. Pearce Street is the midway point along Bolsa Chica between Warner and was intended i as a collector street. In addition, this intersection is the most logical location for a signalized intersection. This would improve the traffic situation at Pearce and Bolsa Chica and help to regulate traffic. I Re-routing Moody Circle and/or providing access to Bolsa Chica from Meadowlark via "A" Street (Alternative #3 and #6 ) would increase the j level of traffic at "A" Street and Bolsa Chica which is highly undesirable. The effect of the "T" intersection on Bolsa Chica with additional traffic creates high potential for driver error due to several traffic conditions to consider when making movements along j Bolsa Chica through the two intersections ( "A" Street and Pearce Street ) . Limiting "A" Street to a short cul-de-sac street with eight lots minimizes the load of traffic onto Bolsa Chica at that intersection. j Regarding Alternatives #3 and #6, the applicant stated that the project would not be feasible if he had to acquire lot #6 of Tract #12206; and the owner of lot #6 indicated he is unwilling to sell lot #6 for street purposes . Thus, if the City required the re-routing of Moody Circle as a condition of approval and the applicant is unsuccessful in acquiring the lot, the City must then be prepared to initiate. condemnation proceedings to obtain lot #6 at fair market value and to make street improvements. A conceptual land use plan for Meadowlark Airport was submitted by a traffic consultant representing the airport property owner indicating possible internal circulation and the traffic impacts upon neighboring streets . Access would be :provided to Warner Avenue and Heil as well as a connection to Pearce Street. Secondary access j to Bolsa Chica from any development on Meadowlark would be -necessary and should be at Pearce Street. In order to monitor future development of the lots within the proposed subdivision, a conditional use permit is recommended. The applicant can submit one conditional use permit for developing the i lots collectively, or if the lots are sold individually, one j conditional use permit per lot must be submitted. This would enable the Commission - to review the overall building design, floor layout, landscaping, buffering techniques, perimeter walls, and such details as the number of mailboxes and electric meters per building. The following is a recap of the three alternatives: Alternative #2 (applicant ' s revised request ) : i This layout shows eight lots off a short cul-de-sac. The lots are rectangular in shape which eliminates the need for a variance for • I I Staff Report - 8/5/86 -2 ( 5802d ) I t • • reduced lot width and frontage. Access to Bolsa Chica would be • limited to right turns into and out of "A" Street . Moody Circle would remain unchanged. Alternative #3: This concept entails a connection between the proposed "A" Street cul-de-sac and existing Moody Circle to the north. A connection could be made by acquiring lot #6 of Tract 12206 and extending Moody Circle southerly to an L-shaped "A" Street within the proposed subdivision . The new subdivision would have eight lots and 28 apartment units , a reduction of two units . Lot #6 is currently vacant and conversion to a street would result in a loss of one lot and three units from the northerly tract . At the north end of Moody Circle, an emergency gate and landscaping could be provided. The driveways on the two northerly developments could serve as turnaround areas . Additional on-street parking would be created between lots #5 and #6 of Tract 12206. Alternative #6 : This alternative combines access from Bolsa Chica to Moody Circle and from Bolsa Chica to parcels east of the subject property and future Meadowlark Airport development. Acquisition of lot #6 of Tract 12206 for the Moody Circle extension and an easterly extension of "A" Street to the easterly property line would be necessary. • Staff Recommendation: Based on the Traffic Division 's comments and analysis, and the fact that the adjacent property owner is resistant to release Lot #6 for a street, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Exception No. 86-44 and approve Tentative Tract 12756 with the revised layout as shown on Alternative #2 based on the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44: 1 . Because of the size, configuration , shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. The parcel can be divided into parcels that conform to minimum lot width. 2. Since the subject property can be divided into regular established standards such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment .of substantial property rights . 3 . Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same • zone classifications . Staff Report - 8/5/86 -3- ( 5802d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 : 1 . The proposed subdivision of this two-gross acre parcel of land • zoned (Q)R2, Medium Density Residential , is proposed to be constructed having 15.0 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing. The proposed project complies with the Land Use Element and all other elements of the General Plan. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for Medium Density Residential was placed on the property. 4. The proposed "A" Street with eight lots will geneate a minimal amount of traffic onto Bolsa Chica and poses no significant safety. impact on traffic at Pearce. Any additional lots off the cul-de-sac and/or an extension of "A" Street easterly towards Meadowlark Airport increases the traffic load on "A" Street creating a negative traffic impact on Bolsa Chica. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: l.. Tentative Tract 12756 dated May 20, 1986,. shall be revised to conform with Alternative 02" . i 2. An 8" water main on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street shall • be constructed to connect to the existing system. 3 . Sewer , water and drainage systems shall be designed per Public Works standards . The sewer main shall be an 8" diameter pipe. 4. A cross-section of Bolsa Chica Street shall be shown on the tentative map indicating the required dedication and improvements. 5 . The curb and right-of-way radii shall be revised to Public Works standards . , 6. Access rights to Bolsa Chica, except at "A" Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 7. Left-turns onto or off of Bolsa Chica Street to and from the project site are prohibited. 8. Parking on Bolsa Chica Street will be prohibited. 9 . Landscape cut-outs dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach are required at the corners of "A" Street and Bolsa Chica Street and along Bolsa Chica. The irrigation/power lines shall be dedicated to the City from Tract No . 12206 and the proposed tract as necessary for the City to properly maintain the • landscape pockets and irrigation/power system. Staff Report - 8/5/86 -4 ( 5802d ) 10 . A fire hydrant shall be provided in the cul-de-sac and another • hydrant on Bolsa Chica spaced approximately 300 feet from the existing hydrant per Fire Department standards . ll . . Fire access lanes must be a minimum of 24 feet and located within 150 feet from all portions of the building perimeter . 12. The water main must supply a minimum fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute . 13 . A 6 foot high block wall shall be located on private property adjacent to the public right-of-way on Bolsa Chica Street and designed to match the existing northerly wall along Bolsa Chica . 14. Street lights , signing, and striping shall be installed per City Standards with no parking posted on one side of the new street . 15. All building setbacks shall be measured from the back of the sidewalk . 16 . All streets , sidewalk , lighting, walls and landscaping conditioned with this applicaton shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permits on the individual lots subject to approval of all City departments . 17 . All required parking spaces shall be provided on each parcel . • 18 . Common driveway easements shall be required when the parcels are developed to reduce the number of curb cuts on the new street . 19 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a conditional use permit shall be required for a master plan of development showing all site plans, floor plans , parking and elevations in compliance with the zoning code and the conditions stated herein . 11 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: i The Planning Commission may also deny Tentative Tract based on the following findings: I FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756: 1 . Approval of the subdivision would preclude access from Bolsa Chica to adjoining easterly underdeveloped parcels necessitating future development to obtain access from Roosevelt Lane. I 2. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of j development on 8 individual lots. I • ICI Staff Report - 8/5/86 -5- (5802d ) ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 • 2. Conceptual Land Use Plan for Meadowlark Airport 3. Staff Report dated July 15, 1986 JWP: SH:pb • Staff Report - 8/5/86 -6- ( 5802d) f 3 . Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject / property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications . 4 . Experience with similar requests for tentative tract maps with reduced lot frontages has resulted in excessive curb cuts and severe parking problems . MOTION BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 BASED ON FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher , Livengood, Erskine, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756: 1 . Approval of the subdivision would preclude access from Bolsa Chica to adjoining easterly underdeveloped parcels . 2. The subdivision of land into 8 individual lots will not allow for proper buffers and setbacks to the airport site and commercial center. 3 . The proposed subdivision creates lots which are within 400 feet of the Meadowlark Airport runway and of inadequate size to accommodate a low profile building design and necessary building setbacks in order to reduce the possible conflict between buildings and airport users . Due to the uniqueness of the site and its surroundings, it should be developed as an integrated project to allow flexibility in building design and to create sufficient buffers to the airport and adjacent commercial uses . 4 . The proposed subdivision does not provide adequate access to the adjacent northerly development pursuant to Section 9960. 2.d which is necessary to alleviate neighborhood traffic problems on Pearce Street by providing an. alternate access to Moody Circle. 5. The proposed map is not consistent with the zoning code because two lots are less than the minimum lot width required for R2 developments . ANALYSIS: Applicant/Appellant: Jack Broberg 22211 Eucalyptus E1 Toro, California 92630 Project Location: 16852 and 16862 Bolsa Chica (east side between Warner Avenue and Pearce Drive ) RCA - 9/2/86 -2- (6016d ) Proposed is an eight-unit subdivision for purposes of constructing 30 apartment units in the form of six four-plexes and two tri-plexes on a two gross acre site . The lots range in size from 6 , 300 square feet to 8,500 square feet which includes the sidewalk right-of-way. Access to the lots will be via a 256 foot long cul-de-sac public street adjoining the east side of Bolsa Chica Street . Each two lots will be served by a common driveway. Two of the lots are flag-shaped with less than the minimum 45 feet lot width which necessitated the conditional exception. Maximizing the use of the land occurs due to the shape of the lots . In June, 1986 , the City Council approved a zone change for the subject property from (Q)C4 to (Q)R2. The condition of the "Q" was as follows : 1 . The two subject properties shall be developed as an integrated development, either in the form of a large project or subdivided into smaller lots with a cul-de-sac street. The provision for the "Q" has been reflected on the proposed tentative tract map. The Planning Commission first reviewed the proposal on July 1, 1986, and had concerns regarding access to future development on adjoining easterly lots and the existing circulation patterns at Moody Circle and Pearce Drive. The item was continued and staff was directed to explore alternative street layouts . On July 15, 1986 , seven alternatives were presented to the Commissioners (see Planning Commission staff report dated July 15, 1986 ) , each with comments. Of those, three were selected for further in-depth review. At the August 5, 1986 meeting, three alternatives were reviewed. They were as follows: Alternative #2: This layout is a slight modification to the applicant 's request and shows eight lots off a short cul-de-sac . The lots are rectangular in shape which eliminates the need for a variance for reduced lot width and frontage . Access to Bolsa Chica would be limited to right turns into and out of "A" Street. Moody Circle would remain unchanged . A maximum of 28 units could be obtained. Alternative #3 : This concept entails a connection between the proposed "A" Street cul-de-sac and existing Moody Circle to the north . A connection could be made by acquiring lot #6 of Tract 12206 and extending Moody Circle southerly to an L-shaped "A" Street within the proposed subdivision. The new subdivision would have eight lots and a maximum of 28 apartment units . Lot #6 is currently vacant and conversion to a street would result in a loss of one lot and three units from the northerly tract. At the north end of Moody Circle, RCA - 9/2/86 -3- (6016d ) an emergency gate and landscaping could be provided. The driveways on the two northerly developments could serve as turnaround areas . Additional on-street parking would be created between lots #5 and #6 of Tract 12206. Alternative #6 : This alternative combines access from Bolsa Chica to Moody Circle and from Bolsa Chica to parcels east of the subject property and future Meadowlark Airport development. Acquisition of lot #6 of Tract 12206 for the Moody Circle extension and an easterly extension of "A" Street to the easterly property line would be necessary. In response to the alternatives, the applicant preferred #2 . He stated in regards to #3 and #6 that the project would not be feasible if -he had to acquire lot #6 of Tract #12206; and the owner of lot #6 indicated he is unwilling to sell lot #6 for street purposes . Thus , if the City required the re-routing of Moody Circle as a condition of approval and the applicant was unsuccessful in acquiring the lot , the City must then be prepared to initiate condemnation proceedings to obtain lot #6 at fair market value . Pertaining to the three alternatives , the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the safety of the project in relation to the Meadowlark Airport traffic and inadequate access to adjacent existing and proposed developments necessary to alleviate traffic problems . Due to the mandatory processing time and the unwillingness of the applicant to extend the processing time for further analysis, the Planning Commission acted and denied the request based on the findings outlined in this report. Following the meeting, the applicant met with staff to seek advice for developing alternatives . Staff recommended a revised layout, similar to Alternative #2, eliminating the need for a variance and that conceptual plans be prepared with a mixture of two and three story buildings with open space and buffers to the residential property to the east and commercial property to the south. In addition, the lot size was to exclude the easement area used for sidewalk and utilities along the street frontage. To date a revised layout has not been submitted. The applicant has appealed the denial of the tentative tract map because he feels his project should be treated independent of the adjacent northerly development, that the design will be unique and different from the adjacent northerly development and the lots will either be developed together or sold for individual development. On August 18, 1986, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance to institute a building moratorium on Moody Circle directly north of the subject property. RCA - 9/2/86 -4- (6016d ) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is covered under previously approved Negative Declaration 86-10. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Recommend Alternative #2 and refer back to the Planning Commission for further review. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Appeal letter dated August 13, 1986 2. Tentative Tract Map #12756 3 . Alternative #2 map 4 . Planning Commission staff report dated August 5, 1986, July 15, 1986, and July 1, 1986 5. Planning Commission minutes dated July 15, 1986 6. Planning Commission minutes dated July 1 , 1986 JWP:SH: kla RCA - 9/2/86 -5- ( 6016d ) RECEIVED a' O o CITY CLERK �'�s • CITY OF a UPTlkGGTOIJ BE_JAC},, CALIF. .� Aug- IZ 3 4E3 ; aG P,6w he 1oX.4ee,v .. �1 lel%Wl©W 740 Ga)sA9�e- 41Poo� 0AP- �/�✓J�vi�o /���.�i� o C-.Voly vEa&,lr/ GAL �•t® ,� ��G.?a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET ��� CALI-FORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 4, 1986 J. M. Broberg 22211 Eucalyptus I El Toro, CA 92630 / The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular \/ meeting held September 2, 1986, continued your hearing open at your request to October 20, 1986. Resolution No. 5159 of the Municipal Code states that a $30.00 charge will be made for continuation of an appeal at the appellants request. Please remit to our office. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt a (Telephone: 714536.5227) Sn-.)na G •r oF.Nu.... ten Ca. ., of p : ..=.; vet oZ C,,�a.i-:-ie�..;o► .Y- �a� � g, - e..+ �eC eL�t,1� ... 0ee4 �p ocy *sL.8(.,s�rip+ ♦i.� pip r•.L. Phpr ... •4.� siG:.,t et Ma ' 6wG�.uaEP i ?Ow.l 140 W Own'0.._.. r�— —A 9 �2t - RGa a�•4gS � ' I UO.J.T MGa70v I `6�I U� Rawat Nun h.ss ten $�n.r�+, C.A 9ZL49 r f � susDivir_C2 ___ • 11 I r 7,s MOW-9�4 i J ' h!a)Bao-29zZ vi W .? to b..- ��..,oved.` •' . ) I ��.70IT I By' 1�4t19 I9G�D0 cp -42W 1p I _ G I rt 3u-- A .07 I 3 q ,,,! B soo cp 'a • I y _„o• 1 . 1 aoz HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MAY 2 0 !9r > P.O. Box 190 > . Huntington Beach, CA 9264 -4 E `?. a c-i_Y ...r t- •�!; t ?a to-.xs t _ •-� ?� it cs�wr i • i=w i 2 iv ® _ ® © O ® ® ® ; fee © e ® ®- ® - Li�b+l SAT P�'.CR•,� ���vrR Sri IA �• ✓ > �. ICl/��.11�«� 11 ��y I zoo ,a Acr fh IT + 16 •� i i ALT ! 14 ` G $t7lV IOIJ / .tG. 30. 4 AC. yrar, G, ` s PAR. I 'Q — P.W. ,6;a-3/ Pva I Pa. i N S �• ' Q Z .r;7 T—VVT Ile 046 -1 C47 M a DSO• le• i WARNER _ = AVENUE f w.OvTERSOZ V AWE •n .�Mr -Aft. - - l63- _ - �LINE • 17©-2 17 N o, BOL SA cwc' STREET a •. (Ut (►1 14 `. MAIM'C/RQta, of V �' 2�o• �e__ is //_ L :A �- ���1• 11 to !• �y � .� r• / *:� ia.! .r � � © w � •O Ft I mot. i' L ROOSEvELT - � �ocsEvur � lANI� 'iurr p � If O ti J • �i �• O Y � 1 f•� h e U 0 O ® r INV f 1 . - 94 do✓ dal' 0 1 �i CIM, ~ L ) A. 178-23 "®OLSA Cy/CA s TREE r,• W �• ter ::;.•, ., :i.'s . LU ot 04 •� + :•y I FYI 7 •��q 1,+ f,) •(! ,.1 od AIM.//C/WA R•��� , a; a do MOOPY C.K 'fir. X. ----....•i ® �. : blooli JOB %o' 1 i� 1 (U, C • Or �� / 1 �♦.. .Ip ��� -gym 1"At A4694 i 1 It1�' IQ Y •� (�) l(h) *�' dt' of `•\ �j ® 0 do • ti \ \ 1.� .• wit" a '�i .;•.. b ! L ROOSEvEir 61 r w0 =71k, OD ON `'• l , 4 ' 2 Ii .5 i ,6 Heil Ave. i � ■1.6 S RVI_ S ■ ■ ■ 19 ■ H ing o ea 648 ■ ■ 4.4 ■ ■ TA Cyt CR ■ T RESIDENTIAL O J L Cat. TI I I I 1.2 7 ��o ■ 0 E .2 co ■ W t ■ T ' C7 SENIOR ■ CITIZEN �.p� ■ MEADOW CR v ■ 3.2 ■ ■ ■ COMMERCIAL■ 4.8 Warner Ave. 6.6 6.4 XX IN THOUSANDS T = TRANSITION AREA - OPEN SPACE/LOW DENSITY MEADOWLARK AIRPORT SITE RESIDENTIAL ■■I= CONCEPTUAL ROADXW CONCEPTUAL ROADWAYS AND ALIGNMENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR PROPOSED PROJECT (XX) .TRIPS GENERATED BY USE • 178-26 17 �:.•,r� v h o• OOL SA CwC,4 STR££T Mal HOOP • C�N • fit•`_. _.—L\1 •�.1• ••i.. ` 1 //a,� 411 Ilk l ® ® •«•' a`• .. , � _1•, rY.•1. -��, W � �© ll O tFFcal. "- �'r•. `:./` J/•• •/O • �� 'lrra 7 6NIl LMCt t l N• 1 11 ` Ci A't O C-A Q '•r�r .y Io i� r(1) o .�6 i®, icy ROOSEvar SL .• r%�.,r.r' _.__ -�:`. k • � ROOtIvF/I ' 41) nk y V a � ; N � i © t CI) — y U huntington beach development services department • SrAf f .REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: July 15, 1986 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44/TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 1, 1986) APPLICANT/ Jack Broberg DATE ACCEPTED: OWNER: 16771 Moody Circle June 23, 1986 Huntington Beach, CA MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: REQUEST: To permit a reduction August 22, 1986 in lot width for two lots within a proposed eight- EXISTING ZONING: (Q)R2 lot subdivision LOCATION: 16852 and 16862 Bolsa GENERAL PLAN: Medium Chica Density Residential iACREAGE: . 2 gross acres EXISTING USE: Contractor' s yard and single family On July 1 , 1986, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Exception No. 86-44 and Tentative Tract 12756 and directed staff to explore alternative street layouts connecting the proposed cul-de-sac street with Moody Circle to the north and/or extending the cul-de-sac street easterly for access to future development on adjacent easterly parcels. During .staff ' s analysis, several layouts were submitted by the applicant, the Traffic Division, Planning Commissioners, and the neighborhood group. Each one has its merits and some were only slight modifications to others. Categorization of these alternatives into three basic concepts are presented below with a discussion following each. Applicant' s Request (Exhibits "1" and "2" ) : This configuration is still requested by the applicant (see attached letter) and is most desirable by the Traffic Division (see attached) . An alternative_ to this layout is shown as Exhibit "2" which shows eight lots yielding 28 apartment units instead of 30. Basically it is the same configuration as Exhibit "l" but includes a longer cul-de-sac. The lots are rectangular in shape which eliminates the need for a variance for reduced lot width and C - � A-F M-23A frontage. Access to the adjacent easterly lots would be from • Roosevelt Street, either to the north :at Pearce or the south at Warner, when developed. However, modification to the cul-de-sac bulb could be made for future easterly access to Roosevelt Street. Alternative "A" (Exhibits "3" and "4" ) : These two concepts entail a connection between the proposed"A" Street cul-de-sac and existing Moody Circle to the north. As shown on Exhibit "3% a connection could be made by acquiring lot #6 of Tract 12206 and extending Moody Circle southerly to an L-shaped "A" Street within the proposed subdivision. The new subdivision would have eight lots and 28 apartment units , a reduction of two units. Lot #6 is currently vacant and conversion to a street would result in a loss of one lot and three units from the northerly tract. At the north end of Moody Circle, an emergency gate and landscaping could be provided (Exhibit "3" ) . The driveways on the two northerly developments could serve as turnaround areas. Additional on-street parking would be created between Lots 5 and 6 of Tract 12206. One suggestion received for compensation for the lot loss in Tract 12206 would be to create another lot at the north end for units ( Exhibit "4" ) . However, due to the width of Pearce Street and the driveway locations serving the two northerly apartments, the size of the lot would be limited to approximately 3,000 square feet (only 1 unit could be built ) . • Alternative "B" (Exhibits "5" , "6" , and "7" ) : This alternative combines access from Bolsa Chica to Moody Circle and from Bolsa Chica to parcels east of the subject property. There are several ways to achieve this, each based on different east-west "A" Street alignments. Acquisition of Lot #6 of Tract 12206 for the Moody Circle extension and an easterly extension of "A" Street to the easterly property line would be necessary. Each exhibit varies with number of lots and overall unit count . Exhibit "5" , which was submitted by the homeowners on Pearce Drive, contains 7 lots for 24 units with a four-way intersection. One of the lots would be used as open space and/or guest parking . Also recommended is modification to the traffic island on Bolsa Chica to allow left turns onto and out of "A" Street. Exhibit "6" shows 6 lots for 25 apartment units. Exhibit "7" has 6 large lots with 24 apartment units which would create additional open space area for landscaping . However, it would require revising the parking layout of the adjoining southerly commercial development and would eliminate parking spaces. Traffic Analysis : The Traffic Division has been informed of the alternatives. Their • comments are attached. Staff Report - 7/15/86 -2- ( 5628d ) i •Staff Recommendation: Based on the Traffic Division' s comments and analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Exception No. 86-44 and approve Tentative Tract 12756 with the revised layout . as shown on Exhibit "2" based on the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44: 1 . Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. The parcel can be divided into parcels that conform to minimum lot width. 2. Since the subject property can be divided into regular established standards such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. • FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 : 1 . The proposed subdivision of this two-gross acre parcel of land zoned (Q)R2, Medium Density Residential, is proposed to be constructed having 15.0 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing . The proposed project complies with the Land Use Element and all other elements of the General Plan. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of. land use at the time the land use designation for Medium Density Residential was placed on the property. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . Tentative Tract 12756 dated May 20, 1986, shall be revised to conform with Exhibit "2" . 2. An 8" water main on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street shall be constructed to connect to the existing system. 3. Sewer, water and drainage systems shall be designed per Public Works standards . The sewer main shall be an 8" diameter pipe. Staff Report - 7/15/86 -3- ( 5628d ) 4. A cross-section of Bolsa Chica Street shall be shown on the • tentative map indicating the required dedication and improvements. 5. The curb and right-of-way radii shall be revised to Public Works standards. 6. Access rights to Bolsa Chica, except at "A" Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 7. Left-turns onto or off of Bolsa Chica Street to and from the project site are prohibited. 8. Parking on Bolsa Chica Street will be prohibited. 9. Landscape cut-outs dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach are required at the corners of "A" Street and Bolsa Chica Street . The irrigation/power lines shall be dedicated to the City from Tract No. 12206 and the proposed tract as necessary for. the City to properly maintain the landscape pockets and irrigation/power system. 10. A fire hydrant shall be provided in the cul-de-sac and another hydrant on Bolsa Chica spaced approximately 300 feet from the existing hydrant per Fire Department standards. i i 11 . Fire access lanes must be a minimum of 24 feet and located • within 150 feet from all portions of . the building perimeter. 12. The water main must supply a minimum fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute. I 13. A 6 foot high block wall shall be located on private property adjacent to the public right-of-way on Bolsa Chica Street and designed to match the existing northerly wall along Bolsa Chica. 14. Street lights, signing , and striping shall be installed per City Standards with no parking posted on one side of the new street. 15. All building setbacks shall be measured from the back of the sidewalk. 16. All streets, sidewalk, lighting , walls and landscaping conditioned with this applicaton shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permits on the individual lots subject to approval of all City departments. it 17. All required parking spaces shall be provided on each parcel. 18. Common driveway easements shall be required when the parcels . are developed to reduce the number of curb cuts on the new street. • Staff Report - 7/15/86 -4- (5628d ) • 19. Prior to the issuance of . any building permits, a conditional use permit shall be required for a master plan of development showing all site plans, floor plans, parking and elevations in compliance with .the zoning code and the conditions stated herein. 11. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning. Commission may also deny Tentative Tract based on the following findings: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756: 1 . The proposed map is not consistent with the zoning code because two lots are. less than the minimum lot width required for . R2 developments. 2. Approval of the subdivision would preclude access from Bolsa Chica to adjoining easterly underdeveloped parcels necessitating future development to obtain access from Roosevelt Lane. 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development on 8 individual lots. • ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Exhibits "1" through "7" 2. Traffic Division Comments 3. Letter from Robert Skinner dated July 10, 1986 4. Letter from Pearce Street homeowner' s group dated July 11 , 1986 5. Staff Report dated July 1 , 1986 JWP:SH:kla Staff Report - 7/15/86 -5- ( 5628d ) 41 IS T R O (1) .0 0 0 G Q OI 774dC O © O •• + - ,STALLION - • t ✓BCr i / MKS , I,V IS N i is 614 " • u • - yr ur y. uw • +u .G 1_1 ft. r » ar J IS i6EL0/NG :CIRr" O 7 o . 3 o 23 II ,..sr j ! " Aw • 2j, O 10 r.r V i •�� .. - IN7 9Z75 ♦ i« NG. T6bS . 4 PEA RCE Ttt.Acf ` .Ia St.v �'OJSfrEt.* Lf yE I '/ f. nor i. P4/7 t�l (50) 052 W. g � � 1 �• 21 I _i— TRA CT ; :4, — — 4 t7) + 16 al i N ® ® d) 15i of � y y U 1 0 3 Ac. f f 30. i5 AC. 4 LA y 2C1 Z. 4 c PAR J x►�t i n9 W "► -- i (m ,r�lo�meht 3 h y o Hill f 9407 1 t 3 ,* vI ( P. 1I. !-3/ W r \ I h ,l � !iS• { S• 12Y' Iao' • C/C 11' .o 20121 WARNER v AVENUE (WIVTFRSBURG AVE.J ^ 29128 3 LESUE LANE '.• •• •^ - er —u•• j� r � rRAcr r2 3 / r �� i..:`/ Ci\ •,J T 6£CD/NG :CIRCLE o �! JI N ! , -�Tvn!to �'233 .... ; b w / f�z E) (5 S :9275 i r NU Mtn PEARCE -Are en �/ /jo 17 1@6 a i , 205 �FUTUOE�S -6 vX t3� -- c9 N �a 1• _o:ad �, as z•r: V IS IT o ;9 ; �2 CO P.,K :57-2 % j e7KA • �, 3 o' �U P.M. -3/ W`f H •s• O 7C� -s 29y,20 ^° WARNER �s AVER' e • M t63- -� — TA 178-26 178-23 ro ., tiro 0- BOL SA Ct1/CA c STREET r qD JaS_l= i M .y i AIRLAY C/RQE; s .»IHOOPY CA >o Jd ss• _ I �� 0 r x �� � M � �Ibo _ �L �• �� � t r \4 s GRAI ORCLE; . 8 In �� � 1 (7�A�L .r w♦f {• i. i i i . ROOSEV£LT -jri .RovsEVEcr LANE n q.� • rl r 7�R, 16 • Y A O O .. ® CO Cl r Ot zrl • A ti t' \ �• A � • 178-26 178 b a BOLSA CH/CA ,STREET 1 All J4, (iA W - -1- u 4 ti 1 oddkol Jam•. ry.I;�• �', W W "1 © �� r' • M' 4 so , O ti N _ r Al ♦' n \_ it i t : L i RDOSfVELT S/' o, ' — .�.v.,r./' .ys ' .:o ' ,1= A • r . 1 yyy (;L ♦ V V Y a ' p ILA 4' -.... idJ ttC \ 2 bib •V 1 Cok) D 1/LK,�, T�tir7�fl 7`1 U�' _ _ __.__r __ Y1_AcCtSL�._�.-...__ � � tJ 7"9 CL.G � oZ TKAF F IC FLOW S flC�'lic� �. NUTiI lSL �c�To1U/�EA� i� CA � j'E e- p � Y�o0D GIRLIE M oouY CtRcLE _ X-1-C:: AJ DC-:D !_- htR6� � ---- --- �D�A��ti ?' e .Q —�- I � HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JUL 11 (. � OXHI*rr --1-d Koss_VE, L-T" P.O. Box 196 '( 1 Huntindo Basch, CA 92648 PRO Po5c o /V ®. 1I 5 U 9 M i-rz'E v �} fJ D r )C-f'C iU I n iu o r= Nbkc-0Lv ti `P. S �'.-- j '�= N -c D M oa D 4 c l t?. c ( t 0 178-26 176O a o. BOL SA Cf//CA g,STREET, rem 1 ,�� W �� • , ) + lo cn L.L - 1�j © t j• t AMAP CNalA MOOPY Nic 14M It'a�! �• 1 1/a .I A ; r1(7, -�t� 6NIt P.NNCII� , to ;�' LMJ �• ~ 0).a M � At' _ ._.... ROOSEVELT Sr _ Iw..f.i' --._... yv `YMy M - • �aastvtcr LANI �„, 46 <77 ' V L! V PC / Y �. -00 . � ® �.� y : C a (ID OD i O w O \ A �. ` V 178-26 178-23 BOL SA CH/CA t srREET a � �m J h ��l r � �e. L'1 ♦ O � � r O v N VS L Q1 L • .0 .L s © ?o' /as^1,t - W U �� I a AIR/Ar CillaJq OOPY CA Ad Ir Ol w I-JM t. J/u J t ( ' ;(v� $ a 6RA1 C/RCIE4 • U � '✓' .y VVV Q .. i O e • ;� � i n�a � t � • e r o• °� • • 1 ROOSEVEL T iT /./.,t.s' , �e ' 1 Roosimar ) ' LANE ,r„o 1 90• `{ Y O J ti W t © n a r r _ N t ,, to � � C � w♦ 1 � f fffftr fffi C� ON, L • TO: . Les Evans FROM: Bruce Gilmer City Engineer Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Street DATE: July 10 , 1`F86 Bolsa Chica , S/o Pierce St. On Wednesday, June 9, I attended a meeting in the Planning Dept . with members of the planning staff ardi the proponents of the proposed developement on the side of Balsa Chica sot_tth a* the recently completed project t.y Ken Moody iwho was one of those present at the meeting) . The matter under discussion was the direction of the Planning Commission to the developer and staff to explore alternatives to the cul-de-sac design that was presented as the staff preference. This was done following substanti:_tl cbjs�ction by the Pierce Street residents. They object--d that the street as designed subjected them to unnecessary traffic imoac.ts when the airport property was developed. Pi*L-rce 3tre-t aJauld then be the only wav out to Bolsa Chica from the airport property. We reviewed several alternative plAns and e?:p1!:3red the c_ros and cons of each. Throughout the discussion I Maintained a single position regarding additional access points onto • Nolsa. Chica: small cul-de-sacs such as the one proposed were n acceptable as low traffic generators, and vwt7Ltld not seriously interfer with the operation of the arterial highway, but any suggestion to establish a second major arterie.l intersection near Pierce Street was operationally unacceptable and potentially unsafe. I was given three (3) plans to consi drr and CCIM'MFnt upon regarding their positive and negat i ve <ilspects +rom a traffic point of view. Copies are attached , mark-.ad A! -- 1 tnru .= My comments are as fctillows: Alt 1 = Original 8roposal_ This plan allows access by right turns into and out of the site under consideration. The amount or gene-rated traffic onto bolsa Chica at this point is small , and poses no significant safety impact on traffic at Pierce. The resi.d, nts of this new tract wot_tl d bEEl �Fg;_ti r ed to make th��i r turning movement to tgo `SOUt:1 UOI' Sa Chica at t�'t' Pierce .i. ntersecti or+ ;cam' U--tt_tr-n i . HC-tvaV:?r I the small number t:3•« generated trips -from the tract Would not signiticantly impact that intersection. This plan also fulfills the Planning Commissions promisy to the Fierce Street residents at the end of the existing cul-de-sac that the property south of that new cul-de-sac would not be allowed to generate traffic onto • Pierce Street. Alt 2 = '"h_iei•Mew Fteguest" • , The modification shown here closes the Moody Circle intersection with Pierce Street , and redirects all traffic directly onto Balsa Chica. A total of IS lots that ha?e 4 units each could be expected to generate 600 plus trips daily, or 60 in the peak; hour . That level of demand is mgoer•ate. We could anticipate demand to permit ie+t terns into and out of the new opening on Balsa Chica hcwever , which is neat desireable. In addition , the Pierce Street closure would be more proper 1 v done with a< cui -de-saa type end tray tment. _Alt_ _ - "Futu__r•e This plan is identical to Alt 2 with the addition of. a "stub" to the east boundary of the new tract to provide for a future connection to the property to the east. The proposal would "square off " the end of the street in anticipation: of the new connection. The same commarts as for Alt 2 apply with this addition; the "open door " option to make a major cognection to Balsa Chica at. :a point other that at Pierre Street is tDtally un.desi rc _,b l e and unacceptable in terms of traffic operation. The effect cf such a connection, would be to create a new "•T'" intersection with major traffic loading only a short distance South of the • Pierce intersection with similer trar+ic loading. That proximity of high use intersections on Major arterial highways leeds to high potential for driver error due to having several traffic conditions to consider when making movements into and out of the two intersections. T strongly recommend the continued position that the use of Fierce Street as the designated collector road into the area east of Balsa Chica is appropriate and serves the needs of the community at large. The existing homes to the north of Pierce have enjoyed its use since it was constructed , and the use by others as the area expands is no different than the experience ai other developements as they were constructed in our community. Furthermore, any future consideration for tra+f i c controls on Balsa Chita would be made at the Pierce intersection since it Serves both sides, a+ the Balsa Chica arterial . Fin;aliy , tc establish multiple inoersections aling a sin-lane major arterial highway has been demonstrably unsuccessful in terms of •traf4ic movement , evi iciency . safety , and additional citizen displeasure when having to operate their vehicles on the public --cad_- under these I conditions. 8 0 CD It J7JUW 0 J. 0 Los AV. I CAN" ` •• A1tT. .11f1! M't tsar . PEA = = JR:Yf I' �' ' Paw-I t o 3 1 52' y I Acr � 16 • n \M.LT i • 14 p / AG. 30.I5 AC. so r.Ad' y y' PAR 2 Oslo � p •3. Pdp 4911 ,64.3/ �: Pa 3 m Q • ..mot —.a•. T— ti y r � M•ti � ` �i � 1 � p .39; ` It 12 P.At /37-? ' 46 (4D7 .;r C) _ � 1 h .y ii1' ' t• .ss' w• �i Q I WARNER s •_ AVENUE (WANIEivWLM AW.J -� 1 r 1 I tl.,oy^4 -- -- 16 3- _... .... LESUE LANE f 'J7AIAMW •� ® 8 ® :.es Ac Olt © © �► ` © © 0 © © / © ® © © 3 6. Ac Mrs O _ ' �C�i�•iC •� JItVLr `: vocsfrf r LANZ • i1; ( 11' s1 tt�► /IYL ST/ape 60. 109 � J� Ir ®— ACTALT V ; m 1 S) � c '•,z 14 G �11 71V ION / aC. 34 .5 aC. ftemsf, Vie-) J ?: :49 + ; Pao.i � oaf Z •� � � I •Q 9-Y� Vas own � p f• PAP 4 : Pa V N m Qs,t' k —.,►si T— all" CIO 141 406 407 4p +;s w ., ♦ Ile . ++s• � +s+' ..,,• '�� � 1 %-mil WARNER _ AVENUE t,rwfi wE �n.,s/yJr �► 163- To wn 3 • Adak ® ® dw • r . +w •- O • �. ®- JrAc .. PEARCE = . ' .l• ( r. �,l."�� /PVT jfl „ >' fil)p6 �91� •O �J / 09 ACT } it 16 j I / AC. 50.15 AC ALT P4 4 / ;= PAli . ? J r awn"- r IV t Ism*-if li I, Ai 13 ' I• Cfl 53 ' it m its • 4p Ile Pr. i-!/ W 'J &.05 AC. z91 a WARNER i= AVENUE r w�nFAs�u� AVE J �� _.__...� Mr . James Paylin • Director of Development Services City of Huntington Beach NUNTINGTON BEACH pEVE1O MENT SERVICES July 9, 1986 JUL Iola P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Mr. Paylin: In response to the Planning Commission' s request to analyze altern- itive configurations for Tract 12756 I have examined five concepts and will comment on each, individually. Furthermore, I would also like to mention that I have met with members from the planning staff, engineering and public works as well as, Mr. Dick Nerio. .Our original configuration, which was supported by the planning staff, still remains the most desirable for several reasons . Primarily , this configuration (see config. A) allows the optimiza- tion of land use within the allocated density for the parcel. In addition , its .layout reduces off-site costs and therefore , equates total land cost with construction costs , producing a potentially profitable development. Configuration A also has the approval of Bruce Gilmer , head of traffic , as it does not adversely impact the • traffic situation on Bolsa Chica. This configuration meets with the approval of staff, engineering, public works and all aspects of the Tentitive Tract Map Act. The only deviation from City code rests in the need for a reduction in minimum lot width, which has no effect on the other lots within the tract or any surrounding properties . In conclusion, the Master Plan depicts R-2 throughout this entire area and will therefore sustain a density of (15) fif- teen units per acre. Thus , the property is zoned to a density of (30) thirty units (15/ac. @ 2ac. gross) . However, in order to ap- pease the concerns of the Planning Commission we are willing to offer configuration B as an acceptable alternitive . This configuration extends the cul-de-sac further to the east, elim- inating the two end lots . Although this alternitive reduces the total unit count by two units (30 to 28) it still permits (8 ) eight lots which also offset the original land cost enough to create a potentially profitable development. In addition, this alternitive eliminates the need for a conditional exception. Due to design similarites , configuration B does not adversely impact traffic on Bolsa Chica and .would receive suppaort from staff. One final con- sideration concerning this alternitive lies in the ability to con- tinue the street from the end of the cul-de-sac at some future time in order to access future development to the east. The third alternitive (config. C) involves running the street . directly through the property in order to grant access to future • developments . This alternitive also reduces the unit count by two units and allows for eight lots. However, several technical problems exist within the layout. Based on the meeting I attended with the Atcax-kme4 3,& 2 planning staff, engineering and traffic , this alternitive creates • a traffic problem if it were connected with Roosevelt St. Bruce Gilmer feels that the traffic problem created by this alternitive would aggravate the situation requiring residents to make U-turns down stream in order to double back and gain access , due to the . limited access off of and onto Bolsa Chica (right turns only) . This pr.oblem would be further compounded by the amount of traffic generated by the full extent of this configuration. He also feels residents would illegally attempt left-hand turns off of and onto Bolsa Chica because of the increased volume , thus requiring that the city seal off the traffic cut in Bolsa Chica. Another consid- eration rests in the fact that this alternitive requires the consent of two other property owners and relys on the assumption that these properties would be developed in a manner that necessitates such an access point. The traffic department would consider an elongated cu-de-sac , but this predetermines the exact layout of any future development to the east and could possibly pose similar traffic problems . I might suggest that it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to layout developments but, rather to determine there benefit to the community. I have discussed this alternitive with Mr. Nerio , concerning his future intentions. Unfortunately, I have not received any concrete response. Furthermore , it would seem more logical to create a mirror image to the east, taking access from Roosevelt . The final two alternitives ( config. D & E) were purposed by the citizens and the Planning Commission respectively. Due to there similarities in design I will respond to both at the same time. After careful analysis , I feel that neither has much merit. First, it is important to note that configuration D will not allow the (8) eight lotspurposed and , if in fact it would, two of the lots would require a conditional exception. As for lot layout, this alterni- tive would only allow (6) six lots , possibly (7) seven with a CE for minimum lot size . In general , the lot layout would be similiar to configuration E. From an economical stand point, this alterni- tive reduces profit potential by two full lots and drastically in- creases the land cost beyond equitable relms . By reducing the tract by two lots , the land cost increases by over 54,000 dollars per lot for the remaining six lots. In addition, the economics of aquiring the property required to punch through from tract 12206 are prohib- itive . In order to purchase the property, if in fact it were avail- able , the sale price. would have to reflect the value of the land plus the profit lost due to the elimination of a building. further- more , these alternitives would require a fundamental reshaping of the existing development to the north. The re-routing of traffic off tract 12206 would only create the same traffic problems previous- ly discussed. Not to mention, the added hardship to tract 12206 residents who would now be forced to make U-turns in order to access their homes when traveling south on Bolsa Chica, considering they currently have direct access . In conclusion, neither option has approval from Public Works/ Traffic and configuration E would even further .compound the traffic problem bringing all of the considera- tions from configuration C as well. 3b 3 Thank you very much for your cooperation. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me a (714) 840 - 2922. • Sincerely a Robert L. Skinner Project Manager / Authorized Agent Jack M. Broberg Developer ' I • ' p I' f rRAcr 1.. _. N. p O CO O O O ® ® W ® ® 3 i5 j ,. ,. 2.95 AG. 2 3 E-Hji _ o H p p p p p � n 2® Qs N U p 4 4 4 ® © 4 O © 4 1 PE�RCE �* 0q,vE S I' (ovr sr;t52' o I �,- ly � � 17 � 16 •.a � I i i5) V 25 \� ! C14 / AG. ' 30. 15 AC. •'S y zs ad• 3 y y I 56 V 1. vaa a pa j I 003 5 CV T OD 0 I i Ji ctl P.R!157-2 w I' H 2ov• �. �zo' ') 3 I^' I . M+ I ! P.A/. 3-3/. 2.85 AC. ! • POI t/ 'p •,� mac' 29129 " WARNER .3 _ AVENUE f W/NTERs SURG AVE 163- cEsuE taaE -ro Av1 OjC A4 A,/ In- T Jw L -.. ------------------- 'gyp •••.• - i t rill IDN '• � 1 ' � i unci 1� 2 �; � mI, Ad zor mplaeftw Fi » H a of 1:• AtR !® AG 16b•J P ARCE = = --- a •00ttrtir L/�! ' :l; ( wr !fr�� Iivr lr! i I all _ ACT CV .---- _._._ ... _its.• � i 14 / AG. 50. 15 AC � r A WWI I Q - - - PAA (V j 1 0 i 1 Z.&S AC. Iw• 3e se' WARNER• AVENUE (WlVrkRs'suRG AVE.) I 16 3-12 ES[/f [.tNE 7,0 A&I DL `• rpAcr Q Q Qt `Q ' (D Q, dt s •M 6 STALL ION 1 t GpCf / 78, O a ® � O 1p II I E~i • G !1 ® " 0 � r • ! t SCLOMS t C/NC!! / H ® O ® O O O _ 233 II U " M NO 7W5 P��RrE 00!of • i1. ��. ,a ss..al' l:CSfrft! G/.vE �. ` u 36 i9 !�(901 31 4 I Ca I ,,— —FIR A C T Lo I .JO / I7 � 16 •• G / AG. 30. 15 AC. F; l � 2 2 i PAR. 1 I f Paa QO CV a.. , ' _7 •�:Nam_ �, - (� (� ' 1 s � '•� -i•ti k4,6 407 120' . I "' �. W `I I 3 ,:� a� -P so' 2v1?8 " WARNER,I ._ AVENUE fWhVrkRSBURG AVE/ RCH -� i"a 163- � � LESLIE LANE TR Ar) Q9 MAcr ` r IY ® II M ® -1 ® I / ® r ® ©1� i , I OF Z O W N O O 1@ O r• _ Q a Z6EL0/MG :ORME s of 0 V 0 0 V Q 21 2.7•. p N .w j b / • � / U - _ 6 •I1 NO MW JR.•vE iJP!;vd —� ?oosfvcLr LAVE (52 r / a I5 M � v ` 7UOIV ION 3J. 15 AC �Altrtia1 i c) / ? ..v •.•3 .55 • 0 13 ' w O *• Q •Y_ _Js__ J jr..—i.� N j I; C47' • f i H �' Z.BS AC. 7C" vI je " WARNER •_ v AVENUE wIarFRseuRc AVE) � 16 3- LES[/E LANE • TO A.VI OG' Al I 49 •. �, f:AID. 'I STILL/Ow j Oft •• / r O / 0 Q ~ �� • H M � :�no/�r :C/9" 0 NO. Mrs AV AV5 P�QRrE Q0. * of ' ( ' M a „e sty •CCS[r'[tl LI.vF ; '' j flvl jr,- / 1 L 6� ® i9 I�.?SIl 51 L � J r / 1 y18 i —r R AGT jo -- -- / IT + 16 • _ JOS. e.90. • �_ + in AC.OD 30. 15 AC. . w ,a M 1 e PAR 41 o Alf /614 a " PAP a 't 04 3 l<� o, CVCIO 157-Z •, , r / 39. w 4T • 1 40 a k s�o +j • 120 ss — • 2 12 O' re, 29120 N WARNER I __ � AVENUE fW1,V7kRS8URG AVE.) ,� HUNTINGTON BEACH. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JUL P.O. sox 190 HH SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44 TENTEMENT TRA�QQtin T 1 756onBeach. CA 92W OWNER: Jack Broburg, Moody APPLICANT: Jack Broburg, Moody GENERAL PLAN: Medium density residential R-2 REQUEST: To permit reduction of lot width to allow more "Yellow Elephants. " LOCATION: 16852 Bolsa Chica Road REASONS FOR DENIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential North of Subject Property: R-2 used as Hotel Zone "Yellow Elephants" East of Subject Property: R-2, vacant, "Land Locked" r i South of Subject Property: 2-story, C-2, nice commercial 1125" feet height West of Subject Property: Medium density R-3 condos--2-story with large greenbelts Item 8 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE mentioned that parking is main issue, on-site par King only. I-Secret greements" between Moody and various recorded owners show willingness to bootleg extra bedrooms. Present use of this type of substandard lot is to park in street. On-site parking is not practical because of building size ( it ms assive) and design. We request staff recommendation on June 9, 1986, to be followed to have recorded agreement on each parcel stipulating: ( 1 ) Building height of 25 feet or less (2) Maximum bedrooms and units (3) Be approved by the Planning Commission. • I i I • ( 1 ) We feel property should be developed as large projects with appropriate greenbelts, walkways, and adequate parking for residents and guests. OR (2) Connect street to Moody Circle and place fire ggate (closed) at Moody Circle and Pierce and connect Road "A" from Bolsa Chica to Roosevelt Street; thus, forming a "T shaped street in an east-west and north- south configuration. (3) Since shape of lot is standard rectangle, no flag-shaped lots are permitted and no exceptions to zoning are needed. Common driveway only discourage residents from using provided parking and encourage on-street (crowded) parking. We concur with staff in requiring a conditional use permit to restrict number of bedrooms and parking spaces on-site prior to the issuance j of .building permits and limiting building height to 25 feet or less. Approval of this subdivision would "landlock" R-2 property on Roosevelt Street. In addition, parking and traffic on Pearce Street would aggravate residents further as well as depreciate homes and land values on Pearce and Roosevelt Streets. Moody should not be allowed to• develop lots further because: 1 . Proposed flag lots over-develop parcels and permit 4-story boot- legged apartments with inconvenient parking so residents park on the street. j 2. Since proposed flag lots limit traffic ingress and egress from property because of difficulty and inconvenience to new residents all parking will be on Moody Circle and Pearce Street. I 3. Proposed flag lots will adversely affect all residents including adjoint R-1 and C-2 zones, new residents will not have enough on- site parking accessible access. Building height limits of 25 feet or less would preclude any bootlegging of bedrooms and units. i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR REVISED PLAN In addition to staff recommendations to have property meet existing laws and ordinances dated July 1 , 1986: 1 . Building height limit of 25 feet or less would stop "Bootlegging." 2. Fire access gate to be installed at Moody Circle and Pearce Street • closed all other times. 3. Connection of Moody Circle and new Street "A" via new Street access. 4. New Street "A" to connect to Bolsa Chica Road and Roosevelt Street as alternate resident fire lane for R-1 development adjacent to North of property. 5. All backyards set back to conform to existing R-2 and R-3 to west of proposed property and be no less than 20 feet from nearest R-1 lots. 6. All required parking spaces shall provide easy access for ingress and egress. 7. Conditional use permits required for all building permits showing compliance with laws and no Bootlegging. (Controlled by building height limits) CONDITIONS FOR DENIAL 1 . Because of size, shape, configuration of lot, flat, rectangular land abutting Bolsa Chica Road there are no exceptional circumstances and property conforms to adjacent lot widths. 2. Since property can be developed as regular lots to established standards a conditional exception is not required in order for enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by others and applicant shows a willingness to • exchange deeds with Moody and others in order to disguise real intent of eventual usage of land. They plan on changing after approvals are granted. 4. Building height limits would prevent over-development of property and conform to existing R-2 usage. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL i 1. Previous owner Ken Moody and Janet Moody continue to show interest in property and are persisting in getting approvals for same type of buildings as the 4-story "Yellow Elephants" on Moody Circle. 2. Approval of subdivision would "Landlock" R-2 lots on Roosevelt and preclude alternate access to Bolsa Chica Road. Existing R-1 lots require fire access and emergency access from airport area. All R-1 i lots using access to Pearce Street need emergency and fire alternate access routes to Bolsa Chica Road. I i i • I • r.OMMENTS ON JUNE 9, 1986 MEETING J. T. Moody Company is still in control of project and conditional use permits are the only way to control this erratic builder who feels he's above the law and can fool the city easily. The residents are not fooled by his Hotel District of 4-story "Yellow Elephants. " Commercial marketing of Moody Circle shows commercial usage. Signs are used in a commercial manner and project should be separate from existing R-1 homes adjacent to subject property. A building height limit of 25 feet would limit enforcement problem of bootlegged units. • �d huntington: beach development services department • GAFF EpoR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: July 1, 1986 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44/TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 APPLICANT: Jack Broberg DATE ACCEPTED: 16771 Moody Circle June 23, 1996 Huntington Beach, CA MANDATORY -PROCESSING DATE: OWNER: Robert Curtis August 22, 1986 4952 Warner Ave. , Ste 300 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 EXISTING ZONING: (Q)R2 REQUEST: To permit a reduction in GENERAL PLAN: Medium lot width for two lots Density Residential within a proposed eight- lot subdivision. EXISTING USE: Contractor ' s yard and single family LOCATION: 16852 and 16852 Bolsa residence Chica ACREAGE: 2 gross acres 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Exception No. 86-44 and Tentative Tract 12756 based on the findings and conditions of approval outlined in this report. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Tentative Tract 12756 is a request to subdivide a two gross acre site into eight lots with access from a proposed short cul-de-sac street from the east side of Bolsa Chica Street. Conditional Exception No. 86-44 is to permit a reduction in lot width from 45 feet to 28 feet for two flag-shaped lots. If the subdivision is approved the applicant proposes to request appropriate entitlement for six four-plexes and two tri-plexes for a total of 30 apartment units . • A A-F M-33A • 3. 0 SURROUNDING LAND USEF ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: (.Q)R2 LAND •USE: Contractor ' s yard and single family residence North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: R2 LAND USE: Apartments East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: R2 LAND USE: Residential South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2 LAND USE: Office , West of Subject Property: • GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: R3 LAND USE: Residential 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is covered under previously approved Negative Declaration No. 86-10. 5. 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable . 6. 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. • y Staff Report - 7/1/86 -2- (5481d) i . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: �,...` On June 9, 1986, the Subdivision Committee met and discussed the proposed tract map. Representatives from the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Development Services Department and Planning Commission were present . Their main concern was the issue of parking. As indicated by staff, the revised parking ordinance requires all parking spaces, including spaces for guests, to be on site. Another concern was the review process for approving the proposed apartment buildings after the map is approved. In order to reduce the possibility of conversion to illegal units, staff suggested that either a letter of agreement be recorded on each parcel stipulating maximum number of units or require all future developments be approved by the Planning Commission . I 9. 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Last month, the City Council approved a zone change for the subject property from (Q)C4 to (Q)R2. The conditions of the "Q" were as follows: 1 . The tiao subject -properties shall be developed as an integrated development , either in the form of a large project or subdivided into smaller lots with a cul-de-sac street. The provision for the "Q" have been reflected on the proposed • tentative tract map. The applicant is proposing an eight-unit subdivision for purposes of constructing 30 apartment units in the form of six four-plexes and two tri-plexes on a two gross acre .site. The lots range in size from 6,300 square feet to 8,500 square feet . Access to the lots will be via a 256 foot long cul-de-sac public street ad.joining the east side of Bolsa Chica Street . Each two lots will be served by a common driveway. Two of the lots are flag-shaped with less than the minimum 45 feet lot width which necessitated the conditional exception. Maximizing the use of the land occurs due to the shape of the lots . Building permits for development on lots 2 through 7 may be issued following approval of the tract map without further review. Approval of a use permit by the Board of Zoning Adjustments will be required for lots 1 and 8 because they abut an arterial highway . Because of the nature of the project, its proximity to an arterial highway and adjacent commercial development, staff has included a condition that a conditional use permit be filed with a master , development plan indicating floor .plans, parking, elevations , and detailed site plans which would be reviewed and acted on by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits . Approval of this subdivision would preclude access from an identical size piece of land to the east, also .zoned R2, to Bolsa Chica . iowever, development on that parcel could take access off of Roosevelt Lane. Sc. Staff Report - 7/1/86 -3- ( 5481d) 10. 0 RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends a ..� pproval of Tentative Tract 12756 and Conditional Exception No. 86-44 based on the following findings and conditions of approval : FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44: 1 . The proposed flag. lots are necessary to permit the applicant to optimize the use of the parcel . 2. The proposed flag lots will not have an adverse impact on traffic ingress or egress within the project. 3. The proposed flag lots will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties and land uses. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 : 1 . The proposed subdivision of this two-gross acre parcel of land zoned (Q)R2, Medium Density Residential , is proposed to be constructed having 15.0 units per gross acre . 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well .as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing. The proposed project complies with the Land Use Element and all other elements of the General Plan . • 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land 4✓ use at the time the land use designation for Medium Density Residential was placed on the property. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . Tentative Tract 12756 dated May 20, 1986, shall be the approved layout. 2. An 8" water main on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street shall be constructed to connect to the existing system. 3. Sewer, water and drainage systems shall be designed per Public Works standards . The sewer main shall be an 8" diameter pipe . 4 . A cross-section of Bolsa Chica Street shall be shown on the • tentative map indicating the required dedication and improvements . 5 . The curb and right-of-way radii shall be revised to Public Works standards. 6. Access rights to Bolsa Chica, except at "A" Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. • 7. Left-turns onto or off of Bolsa Chica Street to and from the project site are prohibited. Staff Report - 7/1/86 ( 5481d) C • 8. Parking on Bolsa Chica Street will be prohibited. ✓ 9 . Landscape cut-outs dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach are required at the corners of "A" Street and Bolsa Chica Street . The irrigation/power lines shall be dedicated to the City from Tract No . 12206 and the proposed tract as necessary for the City to properly maintain the landscape pockets and irrigation/power system. 10. A fire hydrant shall be provided in the cul-de-sac and another hydrant on Bolsa Chica spaced approximately 300 feet from the existing hydrant per Fire Department standards. 11 . Fire access lanes must be a minimum of 24 feet and located within 150 feet from all portions of the building perimeter. 12. The water main must supply a minimum fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute. 13 . A 6 foot high block wall shall' be located on private property adjacent to the public right-of-way on Bolsa Chica Street and designed to match the existing northerly wall along Bolsa Chica . 14. Street lights, signing, and striping shall be installed per City Standards with no parking posted on one side of the new street . 15. All building setbacks shall be measured from the back of the sidewalk . 16. All streets, sidewalk , lighting, walls and landscaping conditioned with this applicaton shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permits on the individual lots subject to approval of all City departments . 17. All required parking spaces shall be provided on each parcel . 18. Common driveway easements shall be required when the parcels are developed to reduce the number of curb cuts on the new street. 19. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a conditional use permit shall be required for a master plan of development showing all site plans, floor plans, parking and elevations in compliance with the zoning code and the conditions stated herein. 11 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may deny Conditional Exception No. 86-44 and Tentative Tract 12756 based on the following findings : e Staff Report - 7/1/86 -5- ( 5481d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44: 1 . Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district . The parcel can. be divided into parcels that conform to minimum lot width. 2 . Since the subject property can be divided into regular established standards such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 : 1 . The proposed map is not consistent with the zoning code because two lots are less than the minimum lot width required for R2 developments. 2. Approval of the subdivision would preclude access from Bolsa Chica to adjoining easterly underdeveloped parcels necessitating future development to obtain access from Roosevelt Lane. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2. Proposed tract map 3. Subdivision Committee minutes dated June 9, 1986 JWP:SH:kla S .N. i Staff Report - 7/1/86 -6- ( 5481d) i i OR R2 ..� R2 R2 C4 R2 R3 fVAKU I 2 .42 R2 I MH RI RI R3 R2 aw on RI RIVA ROS R2 R2 R2 R2 `�"F � 2y f I � R w RI RI •w . ! !!Y! AZ At J 1� m aY a� (Q)MH RIB R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 FR - — I _ RI ( � • MILO 67. R3 .. RI y . :.::_:. :: :�RAP Mae 2 � � ROS F R3 R3 R3 R3 �' .a ,", ir10�-:.. t:: --ram` . C 2 C4 1 ;s KYl o PUT - -. R'3 �.. �... > -� ._..-- •-—�---• - --MlARNER RS (OIC4 RI PI R u R3 R3 � � - R. - R R3 C4; R2 R2 [ RI RI .� R3 Ra R I ,� u04 all R2 R3-19 C2 R2 a F RI RI RI RI smut RI R2 RI RI RI RI R it2 RI fit RI-CZ RI-CZ - Rl RI R3-23 t RI RI-CZ R3 R� RI • � ZI-CZ R- CZ RI s rt[waroeiN "' n, n� 75Co �9G ' 8fly— `1 HUNTWOON 1WH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION aro•+24 i99b -_ __ � _ ' TENTATIVE ! BRACT NO. 1275ro i OAF r Sro.,a o Cal', e.r..a. F 0u a w v.a pn of Le+\ 9'ocJc 5 T rod *►+Bb,s>,cap+ +ice �,.�, • !6 a9ro a.+«�°:�ec r,led seek 16 pp-,q-- ►bpi�.. •�.• vGG:K oG fi•� � R�cert3ar ei 1.04 Hof H�ks\\au•�ers ri k 6NG�wr6EP . rho w o-�-•_• 9 7=w r PEPR — � Gn MCC.uL •: C..IYYI�1 — — rtca a4.s9S gf�4D Qrr/1� K _ - JEw6t;.l Yw��Ow I2�D•J- = :�/' < 40.1.7 ►+copy 4641 !-ems Fm as I •! 2QYQ 964/ was C fir•-. C7/4 B�j 29ZZ ON (I .j +oUA bs y�.novad. U II 73.10 02, 11444 . I _ 1 3 �soCm o •.✓ pas 9Z©lP 4Uuers r Q - 4 W•ems 4 lN•*S 60 �i �nf d L:n6 e'LL Dsw f• ' \E• 3 u- �IQ a I I v r d � , BCC� 8200 to •® _ 4 �rJrrS B3oo w i .moo_ HUNTINGTON BEAC.4 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I1 �•p uE.—-;z-` ! 40-�i-671 �. MAY 2 019r� 7 1 5u+G I P.O. Box 19 . Huntington Beach, CA 9264 S F i • SUBDIVISION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1986 4 :00 P.M. Commissioners Present : Jean Schumacher, Frank Mirjahangir Staff Present: Bruce Crosby, Scott Hess, Tom Poe, Daryl Smith, Howard Zelefsky . i TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12756 Appliant: J. T. Moody Robert Skinner of J. T. Moody stated that the request is for an 8 lot subdivision on a + 1 .8 acre parcel for development in the future. Six of the lots are 8,OOO* square feet or more and two lots are 61300 square feet . The proposed access is from Bolsa Chica through a cul-de-sac with a 42 foot street and 80 foot turning radius. at the end to provide access of fire equipment. He said they would provide all off site sewer, water and stubbing each lot with cable, water and telephone service. Public Works Requirments and Comments: j Left-turns onto or off of Bolsa Chica Street to and from the project site are prohibited. 2. Parking on Bolsa Chica Street will be prohibited . 3 . Because of limited parking on the proposed cul-de-sac (multiple driveways) and the number of dwelling units to be built, on-site parking is very critical. Developer shall provide enough on-site parking to accommodate residents and anticipated guests . 4 . An 8" water main on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street shall be constructed to connect to the existing system. 5 . ;ewer, water and drainage systems shall be designed per Public Works Standards . The sewer main shall be an 8" diameter pipe . 6 . A cross-section of Bolsa- Chica Street shall be shown on the tentative map indicating the required dedication and improvements. 7. The curb and right-of-way radii shall be revised to Public Works standards. 8 . Access rights to Bolsa Chica, except at "A" Street, shall be • dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. t b � j • 9 . Landscape cut-outs dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach are required at the corners of "A" Street and B'olsa Chica Street . The irrigation/power lines shall be tied into the system from Tract No. 12206. Easements for the irrigation/power lines shall be dedicated to the City from Tract No. 12206 and the proposed tract as necessary for the City to properly maintain the landscape pockets and irrigation/power system. Tom Poe reported that the Fire Department would require an additional fire hydrant in the cul-de-sac and another hydrant on Bolsa Chica spaced approximately 300 feet from the existing hydrant . Fire access lanes must be a minimum of 24 feet. The water main must supply a minimum fire flow of 3500 gallons per minute . Howard Zelefsky reported that Development Services was concerned with the lot widths of lots 3 through 6 . Minimum lot width for cul-de-sac lots is 45 feet which is measured 20 feet back from the property line. Staff suggested the applicant reduce the number of lots to seven to meet lot width requirements. If not, the applicant would be required to file a conditional exception to the Planning Commission. Robert Skinner, representing the applicant, indicated that there probably would be a reciprocal driveway between these lots . Mr. Zelefsky advised the applicant that it would be helpful to the Planning Commission to supply layout, building footprint and conceptual plans for the Commission' s review. In response to Commissioner Schumacher, Howard Zelefsky reported that the Commission would not see the floor plans for each lot . if the applicant applied for a conditional exception. Commissioner Schumacher was concerned due to the problem of bootleg units in the City. A previous entitlement to Mr. Moody for a four unit project is now five units. The units are designed in such a way that once they are sold they can easily be converted to additional units. Daryl Smith suggested that the applicant be conditioned to submit a letter stating the buildings will only be for four units. Scott Hess said that was possible but created an enforcement problem. Tom Poe stated that the driveways will be red curbed and posted as fire lanes. He went on to say that if the Council approved the Fire Department Sprinkler Ordinance, the applicant would be required to provide an automatic springler system in any buildings over 5,000 square feet. ( 53.74d ) Subdivision Minutes - June 9, 1986 � e • F CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)53"Z71 August 7, 1986 Jack Broberg 16771 Moody Circle Huntington Beach, California SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44 IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 REQUEST: To permit a reduction in lot width for two lots within a proposed eight-lot subdivision . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44 : 1 . Because of the size , configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. The parcel can be divided into parcels that conform to minimum lot width . 2. Since the subject property can be divided according to regular established standards such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . 3. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications . 4. Experience with similar requests for tentative tract maps with reduced lot frontages has resulted in excessive curb cuts and severe parking problems . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 : 1 . Approval of the subdivision would preclude access . from Bolsa Chica to adjoining easterly underdeveloped parcels . 2. The subdivision of land into 8 individual lots will not allow for proper buffers and setbacks to the airport site and commercial center . CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 66-44 IN. CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 Page Two 3 . The proposed subdivision creates lots which are within 400 feet of t:^e "e -do la:i; =irport runway and of inadequate size to accommodate a low profile building design and necessary building setbacks in order to reduce the possible conflict between buildincs and airport users. Due to the uniqueness of . the site and its surroundings , it should be developed as an integrated project to allow flexibility in building design and to create sufficient buffers to the airport and adjacent commercial uses . 4 . The proposed subdivision does not provide adequate access to the adjacent nor-heriy development pursuant to Section 9960 . 2. d whirr to alleviate neighborhood traffic problems on Pearce Street by providing an alternate access to Moody Circle. 5 . The proposed map is not consistent with the zoning code because two lots are less than the minimum lot width rea_uired for R2 developments . I hereby certify that Conditional Exception No . 86-44 in Conjunction with Tentative Tract 12756 was denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on August 5, 1986 , upon the foregoing findings . Sincerely, James W. Palin, Secretary Planning Commission by: Florence Webb Senior Planner JWP: FW: kla ( 5652d-15, 16 ) August, 1986 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 86-44//TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 (EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCE FOR REDUCTION IN LOT WIDTH FOR TWO LOTS) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Tuesday, September 2, 1986 TIME : 7:30 P.M. APPLICANT: Jack Broberg SUBJECT: Appeal - .Conditional Exception No. 86-44/Tentative Tract 12756 ' .; LOCATION: 16852 and 16862 Bolsa Chica Street ZONE: Q-R2 - (Medium Density Residential - Qualified) PROPOSAL: Appeal to Planning Commission denial of a request to permit a reduction in lot width for two lots within an eight-lot subdivision. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered under Negative Declaration 86-10 ON FILE: A copy of the proposed project is on file in the Department of Development Services. 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 Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone ( 714) 536-5405 Dated: August 18, 1986 :w Of NOTICE TO CLERK T SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITE +711 2ZS� TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FROM: PLEASE SCH DULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE 2 DAY OF 198(,,::> AP' s are attached AP's ill follow No AP' s Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) IR ND NONE Has City Attorney's Office been YES NO informed of forthcoming public hearing? Refer toWS-S�& , Planning Department - Extension # for additional information. 5 * If appeal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . IS THIS AN APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ? / YES NO `` " it , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL EXCYPTION NO. 86-44/TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 ( Eight Lot Subdivision with Variance for Reduction in Lot Width for Two Lots ) Gc- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Ell nning Gn will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California , on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME dulyzl-, -4-986, 7.!30 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conff itiona Exception No. 86-44 Tentative Tract 12756 APPLICANT: Jack Broberg LOCATION: 16852 and 16862 Bolsa Chica ZONE : (Q) R2 REQUEST: To permit a reduction in lot width for two lots within an eight-lot subdivision . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Covered under Negative Declaration 86-10. ON FILE : A copy of the proposed project is on file in the Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Scott Hess, .Ass &*a--,- Planner at 536-5271. . A51 James W. Palin, Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission ( 5436d-4 ) FiUh i I('�U 1 BEACH p�`,_i ; -r?VICES I- _;J:, V Bach, =� Nuntin� _ _ .. • August , 1986 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 86-44//TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 (EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCE FOR REDUCTION IN LOT WIDTH FOR TWO LOTS) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Tuesday, September 2, 1986 TIME: 7 :30 P.M. APPLICANT: Jack Broberg SUBJECT: Appeal - Conditional Exception No. 86-44/Tentative Tract 12756 LOCATION: 16852 and 16862 Bolsa Chica Street ZONE: Q-R2 - (Medium Density Residential - Qualified) PROPOSAL: Appeal to Planning Commission denial of a request to permit a reduction in lot width for two lots within an eight-lot subdivision. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered under Negative Declaration 86-10 ON FILE: A copy of the proposed project is on file in the Department of Development Services. 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 Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone ( 714) 536-5405 Dated: August 18, 1986 . T 933-81-089 �. 933-81-098 Brough Alan J Salem Frank A 426 S La Esperanza 961 Sandlewood San Clemente, Ca. 9267Z l La Habra, Ca. 92631 933-81-090 Armstrong George A #1 Anderson St Surfside, Ca. 90743 933-81-091 Rivera Huntington West, John T 5512 Britton Dr Long Beach, Ca. 90816 933-81-092 White Marvin L 4896 Skipjack Dr ° 1 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-093 Fithian Robert M 6582 Rennrick Cir Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 933-81-094 Kelly Jane L V! P. 0. Box 1087 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 933-81-095 Gilpin Don E 5703 Lakia Dr ' Cypress, Ca. 90630 a 933-81-096 Wojtaszek Walter J 4908 Skipjack Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-097 Broker Bruce & Catherine 12 Hunter Ave Irvine, Ca. 92720 i Q 933-81-057 933-81-066 933-81-079 Ferris Kenneth Hargis Richard N Byrnes Robert C 4988 Bonita Dr 4947 Shark Dr 4901 Shark Dr j Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-058 933-81-070 Balaza A 933-81-Albin D Alb O'Farrell Ruth A Perkins Evelyn J 3647 Overland Ave 16839 Bream Lane 4897 Shark Dr Los Angeles, Ca. 90034 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-059 i 933-81-071 933-81-081 Hubbard George W Kropfli Peter K Jasper Herman B 9678 Chenille Ave 16841:Bream Ln 4895 Shark Dr Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-060 933-81-072 933-81-082 Molley Roy L Paul Frank A Stojakovic Dianne M 203 2nd St 16843 Bream Ln 4891 Shark Dr Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 83 933-81-061 933-81-073 933-81k Robert Phillips Keith D Cox Randall 1 1obczyk Robert E Ln 4967 Shart Dr 16845 Bream Ln 16832 �3ton Beaccudah, , Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca:92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-062 933-81-074 933-81-084 Giancamilli Nicholas C Han Kwang Young Mukanos Tim 4961 Shark Dr 16847 Bream Ln 16828 Barracuda Ln Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-063 933-81-075 933-81-085 Movsovich Libby-Ann et al Harlan Betty L Smith Roberta C 16826 Barracuda Ln 4957 Shark Dr 4915 Shark Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-064 933-81-076 933-81-086 Joanne M West John T Sogoian Samuel Barry Barr Shark Dr 5512 E. Britton Dr 3892 Sirius Dr 4955 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Long Beach, Ca. 90815 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-065 933-81-077 933-81-087 Helsop Ray D Stone Rick De Jarnette Ronile 4951 Shark Dr 4907 Shark Dr 16822 Barracuda Ln Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-079 933-81-078 933-81-088 Byrnes Robert C Johnson Dana A Goddard S Warren 4901 Shark Dr 4905 Shark Ln 16811 Barra uda Ln Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Hunt ngton each, Ca. 92649 j .. i 933-81-035 933-81-037 933-81-047 Hersh Dale R Selstad Kathy S Williams William E ' 4987 Bonita Dr , 4977 Bonita Dr j 16821 Snapper Lane j !Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 ' Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 i 933-81-036 933-81-038 933-81-048 j Townsend Robert F Hamm Richard A ! ` Shedlock Robert i 4981 Bonito Dr 21372 Brookhurst St Ste 524 P. 0. Box 685 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 j .Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 j Sunset Beach, Ca. 90742 933-81-029 jt 933-81-039 933-81-049 Rivera Huntington Jaffe -Andrienne I ' Furniss Stephen Graham Armstrong W C ! 4971 Bonito Dr Parker, Anthony C 16827 Bream Ln Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 15762 Silva St Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 j -; Lakewood, Ca. 90713 933-81-030 933-81-040 933-81-050 Hamu Kaino J Tongbai Baibul 25142 Wandering Ln Nissen Maureen H 1905 N. College Ave Ste D E1 Toro, Ca. 92630 4964 Bonita Dr Santa Ana, Ca. 92706 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 ; 933-81-031 933-81-041 Phillips Kathleen F Eriksson Lars 933-81-051 Guerin Patricia C 4978 Marlin Dr 3521 Heather Cir 4966 Bonito Dr j Huntington Beach, Ca.92649 Seal Beach, Ca. 90740- j .; Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 ' � i I 933-81-032 933-81-042 933-81-052 Norton Judy E Shaver Pamela Schreiber Max S Tr 4982 Marlin Dr 4961 Bonita Dr It 4949 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 i � 1 j 933-81-033 933-81-043 933-81-053 ;j Tullio James A Carley Marie A Tr Little Patrick J 5331 Glenstone Dr 16801 Shapper Ln 4972 Bonito Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-034 933-81-044 933-81-054 Williams Henry L Cessop Charles T Lang Robert P ' 4988 Marlin Dr #34 2660 Walnut Ave Suite B 4976 Bonito Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Tustin, Ca. 92680 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 } 933-81-035 933-81-045 933-81-055 Hersh Dale R Lopez Adolfo Ventling Cynthia 4987 Bonita Dr 16811 Snapper Ln 4978 Bonito Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-036 933-81-046 933-81-056 i Townsend Robert F Ingram Joan M Hamel Richard R 4981 Bonito Dr 16815 Snapper Ln 4982 Bonito Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 i 933-81-008 933-81-017 933-81-026 Chapman Ronald P Goeke Robert Frances Fed Natl Mtg. Assn 8192 Prestwick Cir 88 Seton Rd ; 4962 Marlin Dr { Huntington Beach Ca. %2646 Irvine, Ca. 92715 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 933-81-009 933-81-018 933-81-027 Felty Grace Ellis Kathleen D Lander Katie Anders 4918 Pearce Ave 4968 Pearce Ave Westberg Inv:--a Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 8071 Slater Ave #160 Huntington Basch, Ca. 92647 933-81-010 ' 933-81-019 1933-81-028 Pruden Clarence A Jr + Cummings Marie Patrice + Cannon Elane K 4968 Marlin Dr 4936 Pearce St 4972 Pearce St i Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-011 933-81-020 i 933-51-029 Garcia Eduardo Y Viscetto Emilie ' Rivera Huntington 5462 Bankton Dr 4976 Pearce St Armsttong W C Bream Ln Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 -. Huntington ngton Beach, Ca. 92649 933-81-012 933-81-021 933-81-030 Plechner Carol A Miller Howard H Tongbai Paibul 4942 Pearce St 4978 Pearce Ave 1905 N College Ave Ste D Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Santa Ana, Ca. 92706 s` 933-81-013 933-81-022 933-81-031 Phillips Kathleen E Valvov Kate H Stanton Richard E i 4978 Marlin Dr Kalpakoff; Karen E 4982 Pearce St 4946 Pearce St Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 , 933-81-014 933-81-023 933-81-032 Say Margaret J Warren George L & Dana L Norton Judy E 18542 Pueblo Cir 4986 Pearce St 4982 Marlin Dr Huntington Beach, California Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 92649 933-81-015 933-81-024 933-81-033 } Ashby Tom Thurman Debra K Tullio James A 4952 Pearce St Thurman, Ralph S 5331 Glenstone Dr Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 361 Canada Sombre Huntington Beach, -Ca. 92649 1 La Habra, Ca. 90631 .-a 833-81-016 933-81-025 933-81-034 Huang Gloria W Dalsimer Christopher T Williams Henry L 4440 Ironwood Ave 4992 Pearce St 4988 Marlin Dr #34 J. Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 i 146-241-03 & 04 ! 146-241-20 178-263-11 Moody Janet T Hsu Hong Yen Carl Spano 4641 Los Patos 12020 A Centralia Ave 16911 Bolsa Chica Rd Huntington Beach, Ca. _ Hawaiian Gardens, Ca. 90716 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 j c146-241-12 i 146-241-21 178-263-12 Winchica Community Water Browning Mark J I March John F Tr Bolsa Chica Water Co i 16771 Roosevelt St 6541 Crista Palma Dr P. 0. Box 103 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 j Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 Sunset Beach, Ca. 90742 146-241-13 j 146-241-36 .j 933-81-001 Nerio Masao Hsu Hong-Yen Erickson Robert F 9340 Bolsa Ave I 12020 8 Centralia Ave i 4892 Pearce Ave Westminster, Ca. 92683 Hawaiian Gardens, Ca. 90716 I Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 146-241-14 146-241-45 933-81-002 Law Jan Moody Janet T Ii Herbold Albert B Tr 16811 Roosevelt Rd 4641 Los Patos 16128 Tortola Cir Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 i Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 146-241-15 146-241-50 933-81-003 Oviatt Joel P Swaroop Stinder Nielsen Terry 4812 Hermanson Cir 5 Rue Chateau Royal 4898 Pearce St Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 j Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 146-241-16 146-241-53 933-81-004 Quine Richard V & Diana Bank Orange City Reed Diane M 2200 Park Newport #401 2730 E. Chapman Ave ` 4902 Pearce St Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Orange, Ca. 92669 Huntington Beach; Ca. 92649 146-241-17 146-241-55 933-81-005 Horton Irene M H A­--T PROPERTIES Manna Allen 20661 Suburbia Ln 3662 Katella Ave 4906 Pearce Ave Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Los Alamitos, Ca. 90720 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 146-241-18 146-241-56 933-81-006 Hsu Hong-Yen A C 0 Development Co Epstein Lester Alan 12020 B Centralia Ave 540 N Golden Cir Dr #300 4908 Pearce St Hawaiian Gardens, Ca. 90716 Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 Huntington Beach,; Ca. 92649 146-241-19 178-233-04 933-81-007 Kumagai Henry Ichiro Hiroshima Howard M Tr Curley Robert F 19021 E Canyon Dr 16851 Bolsa Chica Rd 4912 Pearce St Orange, Ca. 92667 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 rl i 14623342 14623343 14623344 Barnet Cohen Eugene Carrothers Werner Puttner 16721 Roosevelt 5091 Pearce St. 5081 Pearce H. Beach, CA 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 14623345 14623346 14623347 Harold Jackson Wayne Springer Frank Marshott 5071 Pearce 5061 Pearce 8732 Westminster Ave. #4 H. Beach, CA 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 Westminster, CA 92683 14623348 14623349 14623350 E Ii tt R e Donald Dodd John Tattam 5>031 �g ce 9 5021 Pearce 5011 Pearce H each, 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 MI, vl�a� L)--031 P&wv— pr, k07 qll(avq f2l'Z4 V-'a 6� U1, IXL W� aye S pz�50Mf *t 7r /27� ��Ya{ /) f��l 14623342 14623343 14623344 Barnet Cohen Eugene Carrothers Werner Puttner 16721 Roosevelt 5091 Pearce St. 5081 Pearce E�. Beach, CA 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 14623345 14623346 14623347 Harold Jackson Wayne Springer Frank Marshott 5071 Pearce 5'061 Pearce 8732 Westminster Ave. 44 H. Beach, CA 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 Westminster, CA 92683 ,y 14623348 14623349 14623350 E tt R e Donald. Dodd John Tattam 5031 ce 5021 Pearce 5011 Pearce H each, 92649 H. Beach, CA 92649 . H. Beach, CA 92649 Mi lCe bra�@o V10, Pr, Z. `2i'?,4 wa Q v i rte. Jack Broberg 22211 Eucalyptus E1 Toro, CA 92630 r01.zcs by Decree bl Inef SL., - o Cour Orange County. Cal,1o3,ma. Number A-62114. caleo 29 Se-w ,mbef. 1961. and I A-2t81. dated 11 June..1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA (l County of Orange 1 P„w•c hot" AO"^'N GO+wOG toy IM smas.'t q go w r poom Vuu ur I am a Citizen'of the United States and a resident of IJ� the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen V -years. and not a party to or interested in the below F PUBLIC NOTICE al clerk of the Orange NOTICE OF entitled matter. I am a principal 9 I PUBLIC HEARING Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DI NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, VARIANCE R OUEST I #2 OF CONDITIONAL printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, EXCEPTION NO.88-47 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY' County of Orange. State of California, :and that a GIVEN that the Huntington) PUBLIC HEARING Beach City Council will hold n/V Notice of a public hearing In the Coun-, cil Chamber at the Hunt- Ington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Hunt-1Ington Beach,California,on the date and at the time in- of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete dicated below to receive and consider the statements of copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, all persona who wish be p � heard relative to the appli- cationw. New Newport Beach. Huntington Beach, Fountain Valle described y, Au p g Y• � DATE: Monday, August 18. 1986 Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna TIME:7:30 P.M. ONE TIME APPLICATION NUMBER: Beach issues of said.newspaper for Variance Request #2 of Conditional Exception 86-47 consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of -Appeal LOCATION: 1.6301 Beach Blvd.(west side of Beach be- tween MacDonald and Holt) PROPOSAL: An appeal filed to the Planning Com- Augu s t 7 6 mission's denial of Variance 198 Request #2 of Conditional Exception No.86-47 to per- mIt a reduction In required 198 parking spaces for meeting rooms based on common use of the parking area for the motel rooms and meet- Ing rooms. 198 ENVIRONMENTAL; STATUS: Covered under Negative Declaration No. 86-28. 198 ON FILE:.A copy of the proposed conditional excep- tion Is on file In the Depart- ment of Development Ser- vices vices Office. . ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are Invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the as outlined above.All appli- foregoing is true and correct. canons, exhibits, and de- lscrlptions-of this proposal are on file with the`Office-of the City Clerk,.2000 Main ;Street, Huntington.Beach, Callfornia,for inspection'by cuted on August 7 , 198 6 'the public. - ' HUNTINGTON BEACH; at C sta Mesa, C Iifornia. CITY COUNCIL, By:Alicia' ;M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone(714)536-5405 Published Orange Coast Dally Pilot August 7, 1986 Signature Th006J G PROOF OF PUBLICATION ;, a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VkV 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 21, 1986 Chandulal K. Patel 19091 E. Colima Road Rowland Heights, CA The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its August 18, 1986 meeting made a motion to grant with modifications your appeal relative to , Conditional Exception #86-47. The motion failed to carry by a tie vote; thus the decision to deny of the Planning Commission prevailed. This is a final decision. Your are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from August 22, 1986 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office - 536-5227. ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, CITY CLERK BY Connie Brockway, Deputy AMW:CB:js Enclosure cc: City Attorney Development Services Director (Telephone:714-53632Z7) • i § 1094.5 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Part 3 Note 378 n.anded for new trial de no%,.. )'rescod v. nuine,l eonu, !.:.:inner had uo jurisdirtinn (alifornin l'u.•mployma•nt lus. .\ppeuls w. nm1 dial not dotermivar merits. Western Air (19i6) 1_'7 1'n1.11pir. 5-10. 57 1'..%.3a1 29. Lines He. v, tobieski (11181) 12 Cal.ltptr. 'rrinl eourt's judgment d.•n%ing writ of 710, 1111 C.A_'d 309. ninudnte to compel director of agricnitnre Tract that. letter discharging senior typ- to set aside him derision revoking lwation. ist clerk in offlce of comio clerk started er's license as aircraft pilot in huminesm of that she was guilty of misconduet in re- pest eontrol was reversed and came re moving public records f roua 11te files and mnnded to trial court with directions to nnttilating nod mecreting them on various remand ease to direetor for purpose of (lutes, wheream iu hearing before county t reiirnnsideriug the penalty previously im- civil service commission evidence wits in- posed, where it was found that some of troduced only as to what took place on the charges :Igainmt petitioner were not ane of the dates• did not require the. dis- supported by evidence. Wingfield V. 1 riot court of appeal on nl•peal from judg- Direcior of Agricultnre (1973) 105 Cal. went awnrdiog senior typi,l clerk writ of liptr.619,29 C'.A.3d209. mandate, after reversing; tl:e judgment of Vroceeditig for review of denial by emu- the superior court, to remand the matter misaioner of rnrporarioum of permit to to the c„mnussion for r.—onmideration, change voting rights of shareholders would was n mimilnril> of facts sur- would be remanded to superior court for rotimliug removal of the -1(wtunenus on all determination whether there .vns suhmtnn- of the dates. Pratt v. Los .kngelvs conn- 1ia1 evidence to support c,aumissioner's t'• Civil Service. (bmmissiou (1952) 238 fiudingm, where court improperly deter- I.2d 3.10.5 C.-k.d 11.1. § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and party defined; or- dinances or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agent\-, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, oi- of any commission, board, officer or agent th,. •-cof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed ',vithin the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decisi6b is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- arit to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The cornple(e rt,cord of the proceedings shall Ix- prepared by taus I(K-al .1"enc•,y or its conlulis':iotl, ho:11A, officer, or agent which inade the decision and shall be da-livered to the petitioner within 90 Clays after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for tianscribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tran- . .•ipt of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and ciders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 i Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record ns specified in Ruhdivixion (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes fi- nal as provided in subdivision (b), the tinie within which a petition pumunnt to Section 109.1.5 may he filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application fcr a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable. If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976, c.276, p.581, § 1.) Forms See West's California Code Forms,Civil Procedure. Library References Adminirtrwtive Law and Procedure C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodiex and «7_. Procedure 1 193. Notes of Decisions In general I that public employment relations hoard Exhaustion of administrative remedle% 2 had ext•Insivu jurisdiction to determine whet.her the unfair practice charger wort! justified; will. in view of tewchers' failure to erhnnst their administrative remedies 1. In general under the Itodda Act• trial court erred in Nehool I to: rd's ❑oilateral fret•zint: of granting writ of mandate to compel Nuper- It•at•lu s;thtrit•s after beginning of new iwentlrnt of district and others to raise st•hmd cenr. while e•,ntrnet negotiations salarit•N of ee.rtai❑ ttlacherx. Amndor Val- wcr• pending• arguuhly was an unfair I--v �••t',manry 1•:dtu•ators Ass'o %. Newlin practice in violatiuu of the lludda Act so (1970) 151 Calltptr. 724, M C.A.34 675 REQUEP FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 18 , 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 84-8 Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administratore'� C�S� P.fJk� t5 Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services , a Subject: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF VJ ` ANCE REQUEST NO. 2 OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-47 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: lzJ r- STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by the applicant, Chandulal Patel, to the Planning Commission 's action to deny Variance Request No. 2 of Conditional Exception No. 86-47 for a reduction in required parking spaces for meeting rooms based on common use of the parking area for the motel rooms and meeting rooms. RECOMMENDATIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION: Action and recommendation on July 15, 1986 : MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST #1 AND #3 OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-47 BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND DENY VARIANCE REQUEST #2 OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-47 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval-Variance Request #1 and #3 : 1 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-47, request #1 and #3 , for building encroachment into the site angle setback , and reduced landscape planter width is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of property rights . 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-47, request #1 and #3, will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Other lots that have a wider frontage along Beach Boulevard are less restricted by the sight angle setback . The 10 foot wide landscaped planter is consistent with an adjacent proposed development. PIO 4/84 3. The. granting of Conditional Exception No. 86-47 , request #1 and #3 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications . 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, location and existing adjacent developments, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications . The parcel is T-shaped with access to three streets. 5. The variance requests , except for reduction in parking requirement, under Conditional Exception No. 86-47 are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan . Conditions of Approval: 1 . The site plan dated June 25, 1986 shall be the approved conceptual layout with the following modifications: a. Show 10 foot wide planter along MacDonald Avenue to align with proposed restaurant parking layout . 2 . All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 must be complied with except conditions l .b. and l .c. Findings for Denial-Variance Request #2: 1 . The variance request for reduction of 12 parking spaces (based upon a revised site plan with 116 parking spaces ) as required for the meeting rooms would be inadequate for the proposed 101--unit motel and would increase on-street parking in the vicinity. 2. The variance request for reduction in parking is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights because the site plan can be redesigned by either reducing or eliminating the meeting rooms and/or the number of motel rooms to meet the parking requirements . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Variance Request No. 2 of Conditional Exception No. 86-47 based on the following findings and conditions of approval: Findings for Approval : 1 . Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, location and existing adjacent developments, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is RCA - 8/18/86 -2- ( 5860d ) • found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications . The parcel is T-shaped with access to three streets. 2. The granting of Variance Request No. 2 of. Conditional Exception No. 86-47 will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The meeting rooms will be utilized strictly by hotel guests and not rented out for public meetings or non-hotel guests. 3. The granting of Variance Request No. 2 of Conditional Exception No. 86-47 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications . 4. Approval of Variance Request No . 2 of Conditional Exception No. 86-47 for reduction of 12 parking spaces for meeting rooms is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of property rights . 5. Variance Requests No. 2 under Conditional Exception No. 86-47 is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Suggested Conditions of Approval (Added to Conditional Exception No. 86-47 ) : lb . Revise parking arrangement to add a minimum of two spaces . 3. A covenant , reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department, shall be recorded with the County Recorder assuring that the meeting rooms will be utilized solely by hotel guests and not for public assembly use or for non-hotel guests . 4. The driveway approach along MacDonald Avenue shall be shifted easterly to align with the restaurant driveway on the south side of MacDonald Avenue . ANALYSIS: Applicant/Appellant: Chandulal K. Patel 19091 E. Colima Rd. Rowland Heights, California Project Location: 16301 Beach Boulevard (west side between MacDonald Avenue and Holt Avenue ) On June 17, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 to construct a 104-unit motel with 750 square feet of meeting room area on the subject property with specific conditions . On July 15, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed revised plans for a 101-room motel with 500 square feet of meeting room area depicting changes as stipulated in the previous conditional use permit except for three variance items . These RCA - 8/18/86 -3- ( 5860d) • items, included under Conditional Exception No. 86-47, are as follows : (1 ) a portion of the building to encroach into the required front sight angle setback along Beach Boulevard; ( 2) a reduction in required parking spaces (14 spaces ) for meeting rooms based on common use of the parking ara for the motel rooms and meeting rooms; and ( 3) reduction in required landscaping along MacDonald from 15 feet to 10 feet. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission of the three variance requests based on the unique T-shape of the lot and that the deviations would not have an adverse impact upon adjacent properties . Justification for the reduction of parking for meeting rooms included the fact that the meeting rooms are strictly for the convenience of large groups who occupy the motel and not for meetings open to the public, or non-motel guests . Thus, the parking area required for the motel rooms could be jointly used for the meeting area. Eleven parking spaces are provided for employees which could be utilized for meeting room parking during afternoon and evening hours when the number of employees is at a minimum. In addition, approximately two parking spaces can be added to the site plan as a result of reduced landscape planter width along MacDonald Avenue and minor adjustments to the parking arrangement; thus reducing the parking deficiency to 12 instead of 14 spaces . The Planning Commission approved Request No. 1 and No. 3 but denied No. 2 because it was felt that: (1 ) the additional parking on-site is necessary due to limited overflow parking on the street (parking on Beach Boulevard will be eliminated based on the "Super Street" Plan) ; and ( 2) it would be difficult to monitor and enforce the requirement that the meeting rooms be available for motel guests only (meeting rooms could be used for other uses and rented out to non-motel guests generating additional traffic on-site ) . Subsequently, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission 's decision to deny Request No. 2 and requested the City Council 's consideration on this matter . After further review of the project, the driveway on MacDonald Avenue was determined to directly line up with a residential use on the south side of MacDonald Avenue. This configuration is highly undesirable because of the noise and headlight impact on the residential use created from vehicles exiting and entering the motel site . Staff recommends shifting the driveway easterly to align with the restaurant driveway on the south side of MacDonald Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This request is covered under Negative Declaration 86-28, previously approved for a 104-unit motel . RCA - 8/18/86 -4- ( 5860d) FUNDING SOURCE• Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and apoprove Request No. 2 of Conditional Exception No. 86-47, but with a 50 percent reduction in meeting room size to 250 square feet. The parking space deficiency would be 5 spaces, equivalent to 4 percent of the required spaces (based on overall required parking and the addition of two on-site spaces ) . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Appeal letter dated July 23, 1986 2. Planning Commission minutes dated July 15, 1986 3. Planning Commission staff report dated July 15, 1986 JWP:SH:kla RCA - 8/18/86 -5- ( 5860d) • Chandulal K. Peel 19091 E. Cod,4ma` d.c�gF Rowland Hei6t.T �= � 48 Phone : (818 ) 965-40,20 July 23 , 1986 / '• ,y. • ,tea; `,;- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . City Council :jam P . O . Box # 190 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Location : 16301 Beach Blvd. Subject Conditional Exception No . 86-47 Variance # 2 Request Reduction in parking spaces for Meeting Room Dear Sir : I would like to appeal Commission ' s action on conditional exception No . 86-47 , Variance #2 , to City Council to permit in reduction in required parking spaces for meeting rooms based on common use of the parking spaces for the motel rooms and meeting room. We are committed to purchase and build motel regardless of approval of this Variance #2 or not . We like to build Quality Inn on this parcel . Talking with Quality Inn , Inter- national , we must have a minimum of 500 s . f . of meeting space . If we can not get this variance , then , we will not have the Quality Inn name and we will forced to build Mom and Pop Operation , which is not good. Per code , 500 s . f . meeting space will only accomodate 33 people and it will be used by our motel guest only to support our Group-Tour Business . With your help , we can have this good name e . g . Quality Inn . Please help us and help City to have this good name in Community . Sincerely , Chandulal K. Patel Applicant