The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutConditional Use Permit 86-51 - Tentative Tract 12896 - Magna tt C j. AWRarued 10 Publish AdveroserveAls of all 11►n ,� Q►4+�:;uQlnp Dubf+t notice& by Decree of the Superior Court „t Orange Counlr, t C&111101N, Number A-62 V. waled 29 September. 1961. and A•24431. dated 11 June. 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA -ra'', , County of Orange ►ub.c ►a11CA •d""W� co.aa bt 1M M 04"1 IsW ++ r pvM1 ►: 1a owes c1*.� "W;ft J A N 114 1987 ! am a Citizen of the United States and,a resident of CITY OF`NUI�TINGN : M BEACH � .l ? ISTRATIVE OFFICE r g. •g . .' ofa �. MtN the Cou-nty aforesaid• i am over the age of el httsen U 1140 years. and not a party to or interested In the below ;, rucwtw> � entitled ma+ter. I am a principal clerk of the Orangead r�►kyMww'oe�• Coast DAILY PILOT, with .which is comb!ned the �'�'!9lMTf►�.y $��,t �....._.-.�.-..-,�, NEWS-PRESS. a newspaper of general circulation, <'cae� ha � P t i,c� "1.j .; ` t✓_'L ' printed and published in the City 'of Costa Mesa, a-44011 'e'r rvr nrrYt; . 1 r�► m iq 'Z County of Orange, State of California, and that a '+�+ Public Hearin Notice of 9 qWkv" IO sakis1EWftrihM.i�- i dKoW DYiM?N of which copy' attached hereto is a trua and complete " " hMtt it411►t+�•RPy* copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, ► �,,,,,�"-i,, ; Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valllo aA�:` ' - Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna 44rlN21107* r~t�o +,.te Beach Issues of said newspaper for One time tant+Q"bcstmathe to wit the issue(s) of f s r��A��'1r.&tyc� . l LL .. 09 still ate January 8 1987 uffid sw t� '.Iy2 tnt3 'tl idtarrt ti 198 C �'T•�' W�P, 198 +cEN, tf�0 f�R6.Nfa,ti ' 198 b=' ►w >Qeilir'MI90r'^, t 1►' C+�r�i sit 198 la�v '�My1M! lrl' �!'�sr1• '1G�Y� 'i3y.��i�t.�. I'declare,-"undfar penalty of perjury/ that the t L foregoing' Is true and-correct. P . �y EX66Uted on ianiiarst R_._ ► 198 '�._ at Costa.Mesa Callfornia. n •� , signature ' .R C, R�l1�Of Qi� 1.tCATWN ��Zc • y b , S . gin The on al - plan included 113 units, all three-story ( two living . . , 'aeval.s above garage) , grouped ' in four , � five and si.,c unit, buildings. ur;it sizes range from 1 , 422 ' square feet to L'693 : square feet with two requested pertaininglus, a family room,to building zetbtickse4b� ilc iniabulkreits , wesre , g lements and open space area. Several changes to the original plan have been made which are reflected in '-he plans dated December a, 1986 . They include a ' two-story building type abutting the Rl zoned properties anI a total of 109 units . A matrix comparing the original plan and revised plan with the Code is presented as Attachment No. 1 . The following issues conc:gr,rling the December a, 1986 plan were brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting : Fcur-[Unit Building Types Along the R1-Zoned Properties: The revised plan shows three 5-unit building types and four 4=.unit building types adjacent to the abutting RI-zoned properties . Same neighbors expressed concern over the bulkiness of the new 5-unit building types 30 feet from their rear property lines . A greater setback of 35 feet would reduce the visual impact of the 5' unit building tripes . Or, one unit from each, 5-unit building cop,ld be relocated to other buildings to create uniform 4-unit buildings adjacent to R1 properties. Architectural Com ap tibility with Surrounding Structures : Architectural flavor of the ,proposed condominiums is "Cape Cod" with blue and beige simulated wood riding and charcoal grey asphalt shingles . Dominating surrounding architi!ctural material is stucco .galls with a variety of roof materia l•s ind treatment . Consensus, ©f. s the homeowners i stucco walls and miss;•on tile roofs . After further evaluation of surrounding architectural 3tylese the combination of , masonite and stuccoed walls would be more compatible with surrounding developments . Garage Setbacks : One special. permit Zequest Includes a reduce3, number of;-,garages having a minimum 20 foot setback from the„ driveway. , staff feels this special permit is ,acceptable because the pxo jest, meets. t•.he`'gu,est parking ,requirements and the spaces are evenly distributed throughout the -development and less driveway area allows for greater landscaping . Thirty units have the ?0 foot setback creating `an additional 60 parking spaces . The Code requires that an additional 25 units (50 spaces) contain the 20 foot setback . Traffic Impacts : A memo from ,the City Etigine,er .indicates ;that the intensity. of„the project and .,the proposed entrance, and exi t from the project 'onto �. Garfield Avenue should easily accommodate : the anticipated traffic. volumes. volumes. '-Garfield )venue is a primary -arterial 'designed 'to handle high traffic . Volumes. }, RCA -- 1/20878- (7081d ) E� • .61rera th, pr'oJ6ct is aesthetically pleasing 2nc wisl 'provide a quality living environme'nt ,�for itu occupants . Staff' recommenc3a :approval Faith the ' o'ditions impcsLd. :t rEnV7RONMENTAL STAT US: The proposed 'project is covered 'Under previously appLoved `•:P.ilat,ve eclaration No. 80-11 . f FUNDING SOTTRCE Not applicable. 'ALTERNATIVE ?ACTION: ' � _.. yew Due L':o the concerns of neighbors and the Planninq CommisrionF .the' City Council may refer the Tentative Tract and Conditional Use. Permit back to the Planning Commission and direct the ap!lic:ant to revise the plans in accordance with the following: 1 . Redd_,_ 5-unit building types ad 'acektftomRl-.v oi;en P to Rties: to ' � rooErti�s 4-ui it%s and provide agvai:ied setback ' ldi� q ned properties . 2 . Elevations shall be rev. sed illustrating stucrued walls and mission tile roof treatment . 3 . Reduce the n,,,-,nber of special permits by providing : a . 50% of units with 20 foot garage setback: f.rom drive ;aisle. h Setback all. buildings the proper setback `from Rl-zoned properties. Co ti 40 foot building separation between opposing second and s' third floor rear building facades. {Y d . A minimum 20 foot aetbick to solid n` minimum' private -patio wa:;.ls al.o ,g • „ Garfield Avenue. e. Delete or reduce to 42 inches in height the wrought ''iron fence along Garfield Avenue. f . Four foot offsets in -front building . facades of the s ' nIf: ; building types . { 4 . Additional la`ndsca a pocket's shall be;;provided betw�uen' ,garage doorrs alone: the rear of. buildings 3 ' through 9 . 5 - P`r oxide dei:ai led landscape plan. 6. 'Provide detailed: grading plan j;`. RCA 1/ 20'87 _9„ i (170g,i t)' ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Zoning conformance matrix 2 . Appeal .letter dated December 24 , 1986 . 3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated December 16, 1986 4 . Staff Report dated December 16, 1986 f, JWP :SH :kla 4. I 'i ►MCA .. 1/3148' -10� t oo3.d). _, ATTACHMENT N0. 1 The following is a matrix reflecting a comparison of the zoning code requirements and the revised condominium project plan dated' December .8, 1986. Revised (Dated Issue (Section ) Required Original Proposal 12/8/86) Density-Units 119 units max. 113 units 109- units --Bedrooms 302 bdrms . max . 309 bdrms . 295 `bdrms-. ( 9150. 4 ) Site Coverage 50% max, 28 . 9% 32. 6% ( 9150 . 5 ) Ji Building Height 350 max . 30 '-•31 ' from Same for. ( 9150. 6) existing grade to three story average roof pitch; bldgs . 25 '-27 ' from berm. New two story bldcjs; 22 ' from exa sting grade :to average roof, pitch. :' : Front Setback 20 ' min . for any 0 ' setback for . 0 ' setback ( 9150. 7) bldg. , wall or wrought iron fence;* for wrought fence exceeding 20 ' to private patio iron 420 in height walls; 34 ' to bldg. fence* face. 13,!.-.16' . to private . patio 20' =30 ' to bldg. -walls , Interior Yard B1dgs. 31618 : 42 ' (All bldgs . had 301 * Setback (9150. 8 ) aidgs. 4 , 5, 7, 9 : 33. 7 ' a greater setback 30' * (ltl ' min. i Bldgs . 10-15: 10 ' than min. req. } 11 .,51-34' increases 1 ' for every. 2 '.6` of bldg. length, exceeding : i 25' ad,iacent t0 1 *Special Permit Request 1 Reviser'"'' ( Da ted Issue (Section ) Required Original Proposal 12/8/86) Bldg. Separation ( 9150. 10) (a ) Front to Front frame 35 ' 93 ' ` 1 1 1 / de (b ) Rear to Rear 40 40 at grade level 34 at grae I between garages ; level 'be- 34 ' between upper tween floors* garages - in one area ; elsewhe'r.e the setback has increased . * (c ) Side to Front and/or rear 20 ' 271 + jo ' + , (d ) Side to 'Side 20 ' ( two story 201 (grade Same bldgs ) ; 25 ' ( three elevated min. 4 ' story bldgs . ) in between bldgs . ) th ) Dwelling unit 15 ' to 101 on a Same* to open parking horizontal plane* space ( i ) Dwelling unit 15 ' 6 ' to 131 on a., 1S ' to driveway horizontal plane* ( 2 situations) ( j ) Garages to 51 ; 50% must be 20 ' 81 ; 18. 5% with 20 ' 5.' &81 ; 2.7.. 5$ travel lanes setback* ( 3�0 units ) with; 201 setback* . Bldg. Bulk (a ) Max a units 41 S , & 6 unit Same ( 9150 . 12 ) side by side bldgs . ' 3--stor y bldg:: A-unit (b ) 4 off.�et �n 4-t�nxt , ., front bldg. 0 offset ( 12 bldgs),* -,s-tory Bldg; facade for every O ' offset '( 4 2 'units blogs )*Iv 4 ' -•; "offsets ( 2 !' . •bugs) r 5-unit, 3-story' bldg s 0.' off set - (7 .. ldgs )* story,, bl 1 t` • ., , • y i { c set 6 9Q ; *Special 'Perfiit .Request ' 4 ti -- T 27 Revised ( Dated ' t,r Issue (Section) Required original Proposal 12/8/86 )., 6-unit, 3-story: Bldg : 6-unit,3 4 'offset ' ( 5 'bldgs) story bldg : 41offsets : ( 4 bldgs), 4-unit , . 2--story bldg .- 4 ' . offsets ( 4 bldgs) 5-unit, .,2 story. Bldg : 4 'offset's ( 3 bldgs) 4 (c) one story drop All three-story 31 units for 1/3 units bldgs. * are , two- in each bldg. stories ( 37 units must (286:0 ) be two story) abutting � ' Rl zoned property; some end . units 'o'n 3-story bl"dgs. have 1 5 ' average setback from 2n"d to '3rd. 1 floor* . 'Open Space (a) Min . common open h P P ( 97.511. 13) spice sq. ft. ; 90,400 sq. ft. 84, 457 sq.ft.`u 87? 200 :sq. ft. (revised) 90, 249�ota1 sq. ,i ft. (_60 _888 3q. with y. m fn . ..dimension y< of 20 1) Al ' *Speoial Perfiit Request " is f { Y r tt S�.t.'y � _ .. ,..... ....y, •-...•+.J— - ' .-_•.... .... . .,.•. n..0„i:i� '+• f^�•tV'teR rtw� .'}' ^_.'��+rgK'isK.�/i= r,�Cb.:�+tW#,'et9rtWtA� - CITY - OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 000 MAIN STiI ,4 2 � � EET .. CALIFORNIA 92648 '• OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ii January 22, 1987 Magnc Corp. 120 W. 5th Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 {' Attn: Doug Mason Ci ty t The Ci _ Council of .he Cit ofHuntington' c y y, Beach of its regular meeting held January 20, 1987 granted your appeal to ,the Pl anning Coinnission . denial of Tentative Tract 12896 and Conditional Use Permit 86-51. The City Council approved TT 12896 and CUP 986-51 with modifications and conditions. Please contact the Department of Development Services for further infor- mation. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:C©sjs cc: Tom i3ruttomesso Magna Corp. 2001 E. Flamingo Rd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 i ,. ITdq+lt , =i�em1 � 'i REQUES . I=OR CITY COUNCIL CTION Wto January 20, 1987 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 T i ATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 Consistent with Council Policy? [ j YPA New Policy or Exception Stfr,.;'nent of Issue, 11w.ommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alter d1MWnBPUr4(;tL STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 04?0- r.L . L Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal filed by .Doug Mason of Magna Corporation, applicant, to the Planning Commission ' s action to deny Tentative Tract 12896 and Conditional Use Permit No. 66--51 for a 109 unit condominium project with special permits on a '8 .03 ~ gross acre site'` located on the south side of Garfield Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard . At the December 16, 19.86 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission considered and denied a motion to approve the project with amended donditions ' ` pertaining to architecture, building bulk and parking. The Planning staff is recommending approval of the request with modified conditions . RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Commission Recommendation : i Planning Commission action and recommendation on December 16, 1986 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER , SECOND BY HIGGINSe TO DENY TENTATIVE ` TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86--51 WITH ADDED FINDINGS, 'BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES.: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter, Higgins NOES": Livengood, Pierce, Mirjahangir ABSENT : None ABSTAIN : None FINDINGS `FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 86 1 . The p,ropsed 109 • uni"t condominium . project will rbe detri ental to t:he. general; h-ealth,::,welfaze, ,-,safety ;.and ,convenience ,of; persons, rg g e neighborhood,,: or to;,ahe . - residin� or wo�rkin 'in th value of,The •ro` ert , and '.improv6men`ts in' the :.nei hbortiood 'due _ P P y p, o �. pe 9 - p � e+-o ...thee amount o� , s ecial :permits re ui•red t� rocide th development is 'proposed. * �'he site .is 7 .96. acres in sizE for .purposes of calculat3.ng ns 4 iy 2 . The proposed 109 unit condominium project will not be I ompatible with surrounding single family residences- to the east and south ber use of the Jack of conformance withthe requirement for architectural compatibility which is required by the ordinance code. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMITS : 1 . The nine requests for special permits will not promote u better living environment nor provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing architect-pare . of nine special permits will be detrimental to 2 . The granting P P , , the general health, welfare, safetyand convenience of the neighborhood; and Oetrimental to the value of property and/or improvements of the neighborhood. j 3 . The special permit requests are not consistent with . the objectives of the planned residential development stiidards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible i with the surrounding environment. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL• - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12890' : 1 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density j of 13 . 7 . units per acre and type of. development proposed . The building bulk and three-story height from existing grade is not conducive to the site . Staff Rec.-mmendation: Staff recommends that the City i Councl apreditional. Use • Permit No. 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896 as modi fiad; by. staff based on the following findings and conditions of approval : FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 : 1 . The proposed subdivision of this 7. 96 acre parcel of la.nl zoned R2 , Medium Density Residential , is proposed to be constricted having 13 . 7 units per gross acre. 2 . The General Plan basset forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation of this type of housing . 3 . The property was previously sti?,V -�-J for this intensity of� land use at :the 'ti-ime the land use:. do Ignatzon, and the ,R2 PD zoning designaticn-'were placed on the subject property . 4 The tentative tract is consistent with the goals and policies' o`f the General Plan. RCA 1 /20/B7 -2-- i 7o 8d 1 -I 5 physically e for the prop relatively proposed dencitjand fl at Proposed density, is 13 .7 units per acre which allows for adequate building layout, open space and traffic circulation. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 86-51 : 1 . The 109 unit condominium project will not have a detrimental- effect upon the general "health, welfare, safety and conveniercie of persons residing in ,the area or detrimental to the value 'of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due to building orientation, landscaping, open space, circulation and parking. 2 . The 109 unit condominium project will be compatible with surrounding uses because of building setbacks to adjacent ,Rl residential uses and building design. 3 . The 1.09 unit condominium project with special permits does conform to the provisions contained in Article 91-1 Planned Residential Development Standards . 4 . The 109 unit, condominium project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Medium Density. Residential designation of the General Plan Land rise Map. FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT: 1 . The orientation of each dwelling unit onto common landscaped areas along with private patios for each unit help to ensure maximum privacy for the residents within a project of thin density. 2 . Through the use of landscaped planting materials, aesthetically pleasing architecture, and special design and construction techniques, .surrounding uses will have a minimized impact 'on the proposed project and, in turn, the proposed proj'c,ft will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general". The two-story building design with a minimum 30 foot perimeter setback will minimize visual and noise impacts to the adjacent R1-zoned ro erties . P P o 3 . Through the use of private and c" 'mmon " open ; space areas and maximizing the use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, the proposed project will provide a better living environment. 4 . The lot , size,. de'th, frontage, street the use ' of- a 'special permit s'tall oer ,desf a' d , the- proposed "project °a r:e,'`prripos'ed -- bC'const xucte _features of;, d ' . r ea , withotheCitc ' as.twellaasa3n •.comp] ianceSwethf the Stnk`' on file ply y pip P e: Map 'Act p and supplementary City` subdivision 'ordinance: ,} RCA 1/2087 -3- �t (7081d ) i : 5. The following special permits for deviations to the r,,`q,.z1 ,,-ments of Article 915 are necessary for an improved situ layout '.."Dnd design : a . A 34 foot building separation between opposite second - and third floor rear elevations (driveway side ) in lieu of 40 feet . b. Six foot to 10 foot setback frog, dwelling unit to driveway and parking spaces in lieu of 15 feet . c . 27 . 5% ( 30 ) of the units to have a 20 foot garage setback from drive aisle in lieu of 50% (55 ) . d . Thirty-one units (28 .4% ) are two story units clustered adjacent to R1-zoned properties in lieu of one-third (37 units ) being two story scattered throughout. the project . e. A common open space area of 90, 249 square feet with 29,361 srjuare feet distributed in areas with less than a 20 foot i dimension . z . Solid private patio walls with a 13 foot to 16 foot front yard setback in lieu of 20 feet . g . Interior yard setback from R1 zoned properties of a minimum 30 feet in lieu of 33 . 7 feet and 42 feet . h . Six foot high wrought iron fence with landscaping pockets i'n front setback . i . Four buildings do not have a 4 foot offset between each two units in front building facade. 'j CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 86--51: f 1 . The site plan and floor plans received anO dated December 8, 1986, shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein : a . Undulate the 6 foot high wrought fence along the front property line with landscaped pockets . b. Setback building f2 a minimum of 34 feet from Garfield Avenue. ce Set-back two-- unit, .S-unit building g } p j„y ui � types es adjacent to Rl y properties a minimum 35 feet . d. Six, foot hram � hest d long common pro • .- pert+y , linea. as measured, 4 i g h1�ck�. way 1 jaceti , .grade... , Block :,to, be: smooth • s 1.- P f ini. and compatible , olor with;co, dominium development . txve block near,'t:o i h �,w �n ncmum two .coarses d�cora . ,` , y Doane or, other haterproofing,;method as 'determined ,by ""oils Engineer and approved by,``the 'Cl t~y of T Hunting ion Beacb . RCA 1/2087 y4- ( 7081d) e . Additional landscape pockets shall be provided between garage doors along the rear of buildings 3 through 9. f . Erriched ' .oncrete treatment shall be provided at the entryway and throughout the development . 2 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant r.hall .Submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. The irrigated landscaped area shall have its own services ) and meters) with approved backflow devices. c . Minimum 24 inch box trees shall be provided along all four perimeter setback are�i& of the project . 3 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking � • facilities, water heaters , and central heating units . 4 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 5 , All building spoils , such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, 'and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 6 . if lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used ;for energy savings . All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 7. Prior to. approval of a g, ading plan, a truck route shall .'be established to be reviewed and approved by the Development ,Services Department and Public Storks Department that addresses � ! number of trucks, truck route, dust cont,_,ol , etc. i a . Truck deliveries shall be limited to Monday through Friday only, between 7 : 00 AM and 8 :00 PM. 8 . CC&R ' s shall be submitted for review and approval by tti•e City Attorney and Development Services Department in accordance with Article 915, 9 . Construction ,hours shall be as prescribed by. Section 8 40 . 190id) of the Huntington Beach Municfpa' '.Code _ except :that working hours shall be limited to 9s00' AM to 8 : 00 PM �'on Saturdays. 10 . A maximum of 109 units and 302 bed. rooms shall"be allowed. 11 . The elevations 'c3abed December 8, �Y 198a'", .,shall ��be nevus .4; dep�_cting a combination . of stuccoIand:` masonit�p .walls : acid , thick-buitt i"'vaiigated,.cliarcoal gt ?y• asphalt "shih' '16s and approved by the Planning Commissilbn. 2087 • RCA 1/ :,',;, i, 7 0 81 d) i 12 . The 50 foot deep entryway shall be straight and aligned with Valley Circle on the north side of Garfield Avenue. i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -- TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 : 1 . Tenative Tract 12896 dated October 7, 1986, shall .be the "conceptually approved" layout. dnd shall be revised to conform with the site plan dated December ,_, 1986, with modifications 1 e ' descrihed herein. The revised Tentative 'Tract ma shill he reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits . 2 . Garfield Avenue shall be constructed with R foot wide .sidewalhs (Tentative Tract Map shows narrower widths in cross-sections, which is wrong ) . 3 . The on-site sewer system shall be Private, but constructed to Public Works Standards. I 4 . The on--site water system shall be public, and shall `be located in vehicular travel ways only. 5 . Each unit shall have its own individual water service anc'- meter with approved double check backflow device. i 6. The swimming pool/recreation building shall have its own service and meter with approved backflow un.vice. 7 . Parking shall be prohibited on Garfield Avenue, 8 . Access rights to Garfield Avenue shall be dedicated to the City except at approved entrance to project . 9 . Garfield Avenue ahall be re-striped to accommodate left- turns of turns in and out of the project . 10 . The on-site private streets shall be designed to the City' s -� private street standards and the 24 foot width does not include the gutters (see Standard plan ) . 11 . rf the entrance is gated , the seco. rity gate location. shall be approved by the Department of Public Works, Development Services and Fire Department and shall have an approved turn-around. 12 . All missing or damaged public improvements shall be constructer] t per Public Works standards. 13 . A, pavement evaluation of Garfield A' venue shall be ,conducted by .:a gualified firm and the results submitted to the City. The`° 1, , developer is responsible to 'construct the rek-.edial improvements required. t RCA 1/2087 -6- (�Ofi1d} 14 . Hydrology, and hydraulics for the site shall be approved by `6he Department of Public Works and Development Services. A11' ' surface water shall drain towards Garfield Avenue. a . Grade difference between the subject site and adjacent R1-zoned properties not exceed 18 inches . 15 . Utilities n.Z Garfield lien~--, shall be bored unless otherwise approved by the City Ens peer . 6 . Autocratic sprinkler systems MUST be installed throughout t ail '. buildings to or pl with Huntington Beach Fire De artment and Y p Uniform Building Code Standards. 17 . A fire alarm system MUST be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards . The system MUST provide the fol-' owing : a : Water flow valve tamper anu' u�ouble detect-ton . b. 24 hour supervision. c . Annunication . d . Audible alarms . 18 . Firs extinguishers MUST be installed and,. located ia the Recreation. Room to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Sta!,, to ds . ;t 19 . Four ( 4 ) fire hydrants MUST be installed prior to combustible construction. Shop drawings MUST be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by ;he Fire Department prior to installation . 20 . If security gates are installed, they' MUST be designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 403 . 21 . Show additional dimensions on plans for 17 .x 45 foot, fiie . access radius turn to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 401 . All streets must be installed with all weather surface prior to combustible construction. 22 . Names of sti:eets MUST be approved by the Huntington Beach 'Fire Department prior to use to comply with Fire Department Standard 409. 23 . Tentative Tract 12896 will be required to detain a 6-h6ur : 100-year sf:orm volume on-site. ANALYSIS : The applicant has been working dil'igenEly with the 6d`3a6ent homeowners and,.stsf: to create ,a balanced _project, which ever attempts, to satisfy eve Coda y yone' s con e.ns and al viable project 'in y ' competitive marketplace . RCA 1- 2OA7 -7- 7 9l 0 a t ) . �.....:..,,....\... r+1�Fw.IwM.4.YMn,•:/n.YL.:,..vw.....-".s.,.: .—.. ........w+:..: -... .>.. ..1'.•-.r.... . . . .1.1....v- ........ ,. . _ Revised (Dated Issue ( Section) - RequiredP Original Pro dsa1 12/8/86) .. patio area 250 sq. ft. ( two bedrooms) ; 300 sq .ft. ( three bedrooms) ; Total patio area : , q. q. 35 35 31 100 sq. ft . 36, 080 sq.ft. , 6 sq . --Min . patio Ft . dimension: 10 ' 14 ' loft: + ( g ) patios cannot count towards open space; and common open space 20 ' + '( 60, 880! area must have a sq. ft. ) ; min, dimension of less than . 201 . 201, ( 291, 361 sq.'f t . ) *; Total as required: 118, 300 sq.ft. 120, 537 sq . ft. 125;884 sq .' ft . " ' Main Rec. Area 10, 000 sq.ft. Mina 25,130 sq.ft. 152 ( 9150. 14 ) ft. ; Min.,. Cnit Floor 9O0 ( two bdrm. ) 1, 422-1, 535 sq. ft . Same ( 9150. 15 ) 1 ,100 ( three bdrm. ) 11606-11693 sq: ft . Parking 226 enclosed spaces 226 garages ( 9150 . 17 ) (original ) 218 enclosed spaces ( revised) 218 ,garages 57 guest spaces 68- ( 47 throughout } (original ) & 21 in f.ront ..of: garagez setback 201 ) 55 -guest spaces 115 (,55 �E ( revised ) throughout ' ! and 60 lfi t fk6nt' of 1 'garages ri. E ' setback {( *Special Permits • c 'r a' {'� j l �,•,I 1 i 1 / '"a I ' -1 Y _ �1 i _ sal+•,n: stir ccr-.;t, Ary December 24 , 1986 729 •Y6Nc9t9t99 City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92684 Dear Council Members: On December 16, 1986, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission denied the application for Conditional Use Permit Number 86--51 in conjunction with Tentative Tract Number 12896 that had been requested by Magna Corporation We respectfully appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City of i Huntington Beach City Council for the reasons set forth -below as referenced to the "Findings For Denial" contained in the City of Huntington Beach Planning Division correspondence dated December 17 , 1986, a copy of which is attached. t. FIN,DINGF4 FOR DENIAL GONDITIOm,AL_ usE PERMIT NUMBER 66-51 We believe that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission supports the c.jnclusion that the proposed development will contribute , in a positive manner to the surrounding ,community j and to the value of the neighborhood property. This conclusion seems to be adequately supported by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Division Staff and by, the remarks of the residents of the surrounding community that made public comments at the Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, this specific development has been approved by the City of Huntington Beach twice in the past. EINDINGS,F_OR-DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMITS The special permits requested. resulted primarily from specific directions to `us fron the Planning Commissioners during .our, first meeting before them. They requested that we work with Staff aid the residents of the neighborhood. property to eliminate certain objections that they had to the development. We met with the residents on three separate occasions and with Staff on several other occasions to discuss their concerns. As ,a result ,-of',; the inp at- we received from Staff and the residents, we - made substantial revisions to the original site plan which resulted in several conditions that require special permits. Despite. ,Pur ;r efforts . in this regard, the special perynits requested were used as a. finding for denial. f! N +1 ... J .. W<s.... . .... „...,.. '.trt" C •. ;i +y�.''.Yy.....'»' ,..,',�..`+L•.lt"it'' ..:...r..+.ai[itlti=.. 4. ' . December 24 , 1986 City of, Huntington Beach City Council Page Two ' I � ,FI,,.L1D7NGS FQRDE DENTAL TENTATIVE TR� ��MBFR 12896 The type of development proposed is precisely the type of development for which the site is zoned. The density of the proposed development is less than the requirement of the city's zoning core. For example, in terms of overall density, the zoning code allows a maximum of 119 units and 302 bedrooms. The proposed development has 109 units and 302 bedrooms. In addition, the zoning code allows up to SO$ site coverage. The proposed cevelopment has 32 . 6% site coverage. In farther support of our appeal, we incorporate herein - bar. pP Pp � P reference the tape , of the December 16, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Staff Report regarding the p• prioposed development and the Planning Commission Minority Report related to this matter. We request that the .City Council consider- the evidence presented in these documents when evaluating our appeal . Sincerely, MAGNA CORPORATION DOUG M SON vice President DM/lsb Attachments Vi «:..•++rr«.+rr Vs•��LMR?V � i . .. . .. ,i:..w..�:+fin—�..-.. .�...___—_ Publish 1/8/87 NK ricF. OF PUS AC E&VdW AP'Pp.Ah 'M 'PLMWM 02MISSIM D IIXI W Tnnnm `I'RA►cr 1289G & COWrPICNAL+ USE PEii rT NO 86-51 Rt7TICE IS FMREBY GIVE that the Huntington Beach , : 4 ng CJ.ty (b ncil will hold a public heering in the Council Chamber at the Hun+ington Beach Civic . Center, 2000 Main Street, Rmtingtan Beach, Cali Fr; a, an t-he 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. Tuesday, January 20, 1987 TIME: 7:00 P.M. SUBJECT: Appeal to Planning Commission denial of Tentative 'Fact 12896 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 ' {` APPLICAi/11PFELLMr: Doug Mason, Magna Corporation I=TION: 8.03 acre site south of Garfield Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard ZONE: R2-PD (Medium Density Residential Planned Development) PROEMkL+: To develop a 113 unit 'residential. condom-niur.► project with special permits, %bich include deviations to building bulk J requirements 1 ENWRCN D?M SI'AMS: Covered, under Negative Declaration No. 80--11. ON BILE: A COPY of the propraed' ect and legal description is on file in the Departti ent of Development Services. ALL INTERES M POLSONS are invited to ettand said hearing and express > the,, application as outlin ed opiniona or submit evidence:for.or against tl ; above. `AL1 applications,, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are' Cityon�'f ile with the of 2000 Main Street, Huntington Bea hF California, for einspection'thee teiekpublic. � I3 MINGMN BEACH CITY MINCIL o i By: Alicia M. Wentworth i City Clerk , Dated s -Decembex 3t) : 19A6 r; � 1 r 1' t •:1 Q 1. CID ' ( NOTICE OF PUl IC HEARING f i'� s tot TENTATIVE RACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. NO. 86--51 (113 Unit Condominium Project with Special Permit Requests ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach P1-a� -�vari- s3-en 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 . . -r- :. DATE/TIME : ; , , Am WZA�u APPLICATION NUMBER: �� tali Tract 12896 and Conditional Use Permit No . 86-51 nAPPLI"CANT .. Doug Mason, Magna Corporation LOCATION: 8 . 03 acre site south side of Garfield Avenue appro:;imately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard . . ZONE: R2-PD ( Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) REQUEST: To develop a 113 unit residential condominium project with special permits , which include deviations to (wilding bulk requirements . ENVIRONMEANTAL STATUS : Coverec under Negative Declaration No. 80-11 _ i jt&a AeSC.rI PIV, � ON FILE : A copy of the proposed project is on file in the Department of Development Services , 2000 Main Street , Huntingtor, 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 aVplication as outlined above. .If there are any further questions please .all Scott Hess , Associate Planner at 536-5271 . James W. Palin, Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission (6480d-9 ) ;t rt' f al �i � `y 1 _� ) f z,� f �itt+r tikk �` f � y t1N1•� X 1/ y �l; rir �Mt { t t `., t h.ttt �+ ry '�• ' ) .jtr 1f Tti rY' 7 ; NOTICE TO CLERK. TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEXING ' ; . ITEkAJIM& I " TO: CITY CLERK S ' OFFICE DATE: 'FROM; '1 PLEASE• SCHEDULE TICE' FOR THE -�, A PUBLIC NEARING USING THE `ATTACHED LEGAL NO , DAY OF 198' •. s ,are attached AP 's will follow No AP`s Initiated by: Planning Commission D rtment P1anning Ppa. • Pc :i tiara * -Appeal �. Other Adoption or Environmental Status. (x) ONE Has City Attorney` s Office been YES ' NO ; informed of forthcoming public hearing? 1 y t1 Refer to �' �_ PI anning , Departmert = Ext naian • ..�,. , for additional infarrnatio�n. z t;. * I f R ,` please transmi t: ixact wording to be requi red in the'`1 egal . ,w IS THIS AN APPEALABLE• DE`l,ELOPHENT ':(COASTAL ' V LOPMENT PERMIT• ? 1f�.^tJ 1 lr.it'•YY 4t F11s�tS. i ) ..'..� y , !_;'.y ,.r.. t C ' '.. 1 -, ,. ,., ..s. ':•. _;' St t i,t7 �.i i. t �r< { t�R i��\a ��fS� �r.,�,3�� t i°t��l•fj�: 'i t�tl+t :A. 1 _: >r 1'. i '>t .`' :�' .,, t t , 'r 7 1, ,y y '�•�r�, ._S>' t ♦t ;7 1. ,fSr.��:{!'�t rt..,.i 1'--,5 .�< -•.':. 1 ::;„ ,:•`.' ,,t t 1 .,1' J ! � 1.{ �.It I.;Y-t rIS`• }✓ ft. rt 1�1}t a � :pit yi� lif•j'2'• i' i>+ yk \ Yy f�� '�. ; 1 (1, •1 1. Ir 1 i +'•• r 4 .' tk ,, j� 4 i., 1 �,« �It••r ? >'S Y�t l� r ,� •S.s��,i �.} eY p��Sf �..lf t.l: r q /Y; y „ ,r .7�1 t� dt• y .t � at.ti r ).s, t �.. ',) .. c �� 4 ,�.j, :,t4 'h. �.=.tFi t y •;�' .� .: r \. �. )'r'+t .,%;' r 1 ,+.` 1 y ,, � 'n 1 l k'. : .�.,�., t.,. �fA�r•`rv,". 't .� t tf � c :� '� � •� t :'! >. fit,�` ' ;; .''� is,.t' � *La � ,'� `,1 j� �r� s „ti > : ! '{ ''? S� yi ,�t,4, ��,. t•,,r,• :• .,yam -.: ;,, ., ,.; . t,w� :�.� 1 r fir+ ,,.t� c. Y, ,,.i• .rt �r,)a 7 , ,s .t t .,j :r'.' =f ! ;r,, .��i TT }a;:,,. -..,.++t :,,•::-, Y ,!dR.. .,a1•,. !>.';, :;� � '- � ) 1 ��:: �t t t �" , c'�S'4 �,�,`e - i :.�.:. 4 F 55 ..lr, r., ;y J+-4 ,�a:f. ,1 t ,t r {f.,:, n 4 1 d. :f '+= S .a: t 1. � 1 � t,LY` 1 ; 1•�,+.,�. �" 4r1'�1 wtY,�• r y, tt tt �+''...i. la `.7`. r ). .'.1't�.t ::r*. IL':;:' ".: n ,..4' .v `, 4 Y," s 7 iS Z, �. .,fit 1 t� �,. •},' ,p� 4. ,��• t rC� i; i,;>ta+.;�+V e,�, s,,,4c,. .x i• ., �> .:. ,.�. t? :.r, t„,„t ..t;.G f. '1. ,u .r '�, .'e^ .�• y t t��- � .`':i .�15,.: � r?�� \'t.r < �.y aiy 1�'.,, H:« rS. + r,1,� 1r,r... 7 ... ,.v,.•'•Y .:: r <'.:. a �i� t ti�r'.. 7, � . 15 ,. : i a ka .Y.1"_fk {`N �f�; � L .`_�, �t.:,� SIi. ♦y. ) Ir s , r 1 tT 'e� r f �Z l t zz� !:�' ?�;'Yt�\ `��„�,'t,. ;�'„! t jt1;' t �•�.}� r 7;;+t,� .n��rtM,t`1ir�'3 .�"�47�i: 4aym4 H%_ Davila 'Peter C hristey Th&110 B. Vargas , 8161 .Putstwick Car. Nu092 ichester lane 92646 1904.,;Colchester.'Sie .Ihmdngt�on Beach, CA 92646 15 9 , , thihL". ton Beach,; CA 92646 53-022�)l ? 3"023-�03 153-023 05 1. - . 1 Jerame B..-Saynor Phillip D. Cozad Fmbert M. nave 8163 Prei6dck Cir i I9102 blchester Lane 6851 Glen Drive Huuntington Beach, CA 92646 Ountringtnn Beach; CN 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 153-022- 02 153-023-04 153-024-00 Walterturn 9 H.. 1 Richard D. Holben EugeneJ. Kenner 5 8165 Prestwick Cis 1 19112 Colchester Iane P.C. B= 90894 HunY-.ington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Long,Beach, CA 90809 153-022-03 153.023-05 153-024-07 George L. Haines Robert G. Deck Fobert M. Drake 19122 Colche ster e � Lan l 081 Colchester Lane 8 9 202 Prestwick Cir. Ilurikington Peach, CA 92646 Huntington Preach, CA 92646 Iuntington Beach, CA 92646 153-022-08 153-023-06 153-024-08 ► Fanald P. Odes llieodore M. Brewer El.i H. Schor 8192 Prestwick Cir 19132 Colchester Iam 19091 ColcIMster Irne h{ ntingtai BeacY,, CA 92646 Iiunti.ngtc n Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 43-022-09 .153-023-07 153-024-09 Matthew B. lBeucler Albert L. Cooper Tae Wk. Kang 308 -Ile Iupita 19142 Colchester Lane 19101 Colchster Lane f San Lus Obispo, CA 93401 Iluntington Beach, CA 92646 'KiunUn.gtor; Mach, CA 92646 153-022-10 153-023--08 153-02Q-10 Valerie. P. Dierken Ibbe t K. Jayne Ralph Lmbazdo 8161 Deauville Drive 19152 Colchester Lane 19111 Colchester Lane., Huntington H+�.ach, CA 92646 Iuntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 . 153-022-11 153-023-09 153-024--11 Edward F. Gowen Millard L. Hosfelt James A. North 8163 Deauville Drive 8161 Uummr Drive 8159 Wadebridge Cir Hwitington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Bea6.h, CA 926461 153--022-12 153-023-10 153-024-12 James E. Hei Li Dennis D. tlebb Samuel Peter Sngardia B1bS 1peaubille Drive 19001 Colchester Lane 9802 Kings Canyon Drive Huntiiigtoci Beach, Gl 92646 Huntington F3each, CA 92646 Iuntington Beach, CA 92G45 153-022-13 153-024-02 153-024-13 ' City of Huntington Beach Iiarold C. Ilirsch Chung Jung,Ilmg, City Kal.1 19011 Colchester Lane 8141 Wadebridge;.Cir Ilunti tom Beach► CA "92646 Hun tiunfi:irxlton Beach, CA 92646 n9 tington Beach, CA ` 92645 153-023-01 153-024-03 153-024-14 John M. ;Foi*= Michael L. Johnston zY .h. Curran 21972 Annette.Ave. 19031 Oolchestez Lane 813 1 146debAdgd Cir 1 EJ. Torn, CA 92630 Ilunt:iJ-)gton Beach, CA 92646 I m � tan Wach, CA 5264 153 L4 023-02 153-024-04 . 153 0 1S Phiilp.Sartino 1how!) C. tic�p�.ina � Carl A. :�t.`pv rson E 8121 Wadnbririge-Cir 8151 Dartmoor nrive 92646 11unt34"9 P.O. gt'�• -16 153-024-27 153-01-49,25,26 Huntington Be�a_h, CA Ht.nti.n tin Beach rM ton Beams, CA925413 153 - f ( { John L. Canq:)agna Gary R. Raasc:h I)rm l d F. Treeve 8111 Wadebridge 8141 Darbroor Drive 18921 Carolyn St. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntingtin Beach, CA 9264-.1, 153-024-17 153-024-28 157-402-19 Albert E. Smith Rzhert L.Visser Louis J. F.en*,at 8101 Wadebridge Cir $131 Dartrxor Drive 18931 Carolyn Lane Huntingtcn Beach, CA 92646 Huntingt-on Beach, CA 92646 liuntisrIton Beach, CA 92646 153-024-18 153-024-29 157-402-20 ' Russell T. Skat:tum Rickard E. SUar Faye P. (buyhtxy 8102 Wadebridge Cir 8121 Dartnmr Drive 8221 Garfield Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Hanti.ngton Beach, CA 92646 ,. 153-024-19 153-046-30 157--402-26 f .. Tatrde E. Atwell Lawrence Dli.ngberg George SarrIerson St.bir s 8112 Wadebridge Cir 9111 Dartmoor Drive 8201. Garfield Ave. Huntington Beach, CA liutnignton Beach, CA 92646 ituntinrton Beach,. CA 92646 1.53-024-20 153-024-31 157-402-27 Tyler Brinker Road Inc. Evelyn J.. Meyer 8122 Wadebridge Cir 123 Peacock Drive 8191 Garfield Ave. Nuntin#nn Beach, CA 92646 San Rafael, CA 94901 HmUngtin Beach, CA 92646 153-024-21 153-041-04 157-402-28 Manuchehr I7arani 5542 Southall Ter R. ie.11y Lamy Lir3wic}: Irvine, CA 92715 P.O. Fiox 1907 1005 12th St. ' 153-024-22 import Beach, CA 92663 Huntingtcn Beach, CA 92646 153-041-05 157--402--29 Dennis B. Watson Carl R. Steverson Joseph 11einz 19846 Waterview Lane p.0. Dox 335 9535 NonT ndy -Way Huntington Beach, CA 92648 iL:ntingtan Beach, 0 92648 Cypress, CA 90530 153-024--23 15-1-041-09,10,12 157-402-30,31 John F. Randalph James R. Bnzmfield Lanny E. IAxMck 8152 Wadebridge Cir 25322 Maxims 1005 12th St. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Mssicn Viejo, CA 92691 Huntington Beach, CA 153-024-24 153-041-13 157-402-32,33,34 Charles W. Walker Sy',via .Mmn rick Atlantic jtichfield Cu. 8158 Wadebridge CU 228 1-W- n St. P.O. Bert 2679 hUntingt:.in Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach. CA 92648 IAs Angeles, CA 90051 153-024-25 153-041--14 157-452-03 PaciFic Southwest Fealty Nil s}a C. Ha ivaa. 721�S Gramercy Drive P.O. Bork 2097 2503.1 Sa�sa ito Drive U�g Ange7 es f.1t 9L�005 n � Los Ang..les, M 90051 L:guna ,ills,, A .92653 1-18 153-024 26 153-04 157-45244 00 CA" 9207 157=452-05 . • Mdo 11ori e 1741 Mas\.C—ri A CI • 1 Oosta Mesa, CA 92627 p ..157-452-06 ; Ping I" Chu ! , 20332 Carlsbad IAne Huntingtrn Beech, .CA 92646 157--452-07 Philip zisak,is 16351 Tufts lam Wntington Beach, CA 92647 i 1.57-452-20 21 SurfnLiur K. Bhatia . 16220 Ranchita Drive j Dallas, T:•C 75248 157-452--22 18982 Valley Circle Inc. 695 Tom Center drive costa Mesa; CA 92626 1.57--452-23 i Geo a A. Buccola P.O. Box 1385 Newport Beach, CA 92660 157-452-36,37,38 i 1 Muttall Uchizono Associates 2925 C•:11egc Ave. , Suite A-S Costa Mesa, CA 92626:: ;:Magna Corpocation 120,'W. 5th Street Santa ins; CAA '92701= At in: Doug Mason _} .y l Ha'sna Corporation 2001 "E. Flamingo Road' 1.143 Yegaa,Nevada 89109 Attn: 'T6m .Bruttomesso 1 1 . i to n , c i y _ Y tti �1 M--� '..". _ L T , .: — �e' ti `_ ' a, r. ' 4.,.,. .; . ,. a :7 1 ^i�,�Y'ir E;.'� ►+�TF.i.hd�'?�;i1 LZS.+tjr. t-1a i. ...r! s 3!�,?.,4.ter,:, i. L J t CITY OF HUNTINGTON , BEACH � - - - _ i•�r'r+ Irq S�Air ... - r r•�worr�.�W��rr�W�� ■�.. rr�.g1.Wrw�� r P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BOILOING DIVISION(714)53"241 PLANNING DIVISION 17141 s3e-si7i December 17, 1986 Doug Mason Magna Corporation 120 We4t 5th. Street Santa Ana, California SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PER14IT 'NO. ` ' 135--51 I REQUEST: To develop 109, three-story condominium units-.with MM special permits. {1 LOCATION: South side of Garfield Avenue a east of Beach noulevard approximately 3Q0 feet DATE OF ACTION: December 16r 1986 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 : 1 . The proposed 109 unit condominium project will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or, ' to the i value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood due • to the amount of special permits required in order to develop. 2 . The,-, proposed 109 unit condominium Project wi11 '.not :be _ .t compatible with surrounding ' single fan.ily residences to the east and south because of the lack of c m onferance• :wj th the ordinance 'cade and the lack of architectural compatibility-,with the surrounding area . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:,- SPECIAL PERMITS : ` The nine- requests for special e. ' *1 . g p p. mits will not` promote a better ' living environment. nor :provide better land p7.anning . techni5ues with maximum use Hof aesthetically pleasing architectute. • 4. r '-> '+'i J 1,x t t i,,; * ty, `Y,lfMl • 1 •-..1..•.. +,. .J't- l .... '� .,.�.,. .Ts 2, ;. - = -- — - - - _.. !'a ..a, t."r$. ..�:.YT/a �N { 1 ------- - ----�-'.. .....�.�..- ..r-- — ..:..r...�.n,. .-. . >,,c�..•„,,^r^37T7..� ,.. ..�..�......r ...,a ..-,... .....M/.LC$.7*i"wyivnssr� TENTATIVE TRACT 1289'6 ' At1D CONDITIONAL USE P, ERMIT 'NO. 86-51 - PAGE TWO 2. The granting of nine special permits will be detrimenhal to the i generral health , welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood; and detrimental to the value 'of property and/or improvements of the neighborhood. 3. The special permit requests are not consistent with the P p objectives of the fanned residential development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment . FINDINGS • POR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12896 : 1 , The site is not physically suitable for the �' proposed Y , � • ro osed density of 13 . 7 units per acre and type of development proposed. The building bulk and three-story height from existing grade is not conducive to the site . I hereby certify that Tentative Tract 12896 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86--51 were denied by the Planning Commission of the City. of Huntington Beach on December 16, 1986, upon the foregoing findings. Sincerely, James h1. Palin, Secretary Planning Commission by r Florence Webb Senior Planner JWP: FW: kla • 1 }. S } S ; •K•. y i y '7 ,�• 5•i 7 I '{ , Y +•2 j'>e 1•:•1 't'i• �. x i2.+ ,94 .w' .. ., �.,i _ 'it .Yv.. a. , •.. ., ,. . . ., 1 ,gin., .. e•fAi....,... ..t. + - .. DRA .1 :. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C�-1 TENTATIVC TRACT -128996 AND CONDITIONAL'. USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 APPLICANT, MAGNA CORPORATION At the Debember ' 2 ,,, 1986 ' Planning Commission meeting, this item was 'continued as requested by the applicant to allow time for ,Ian redesign. In sddition, the applicant waived the mandatory, processing time. COnditonal Use Permit fro . 86-51 in conjunction with Tentative Tract 12896 . is a request to develop 113, three-story condominiums on a 7 . 94 ' gross acre site known, as the old Edison Maintenance Yard property on the south side • of Garfield approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Revised plans depicting 109 units were received on December 8, 1986. Major changes include a reduction of four units from the total unit count and the inclusion of two--story buildings abutting the RI zoned properties . Guest parking spaces are evenly distributed throughout the project. End -'units on buildings along Garfield have an average 5 foot offset between second and third floors. Also, some special permit requests have been reduced or eliminated and new ones added. The applicant has worked with staff and the adjacent homeowners to create a balanced project which attempts to satisfy everyone ' s concerns and an economically viable project in today's condominium marketplace. At the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 1986, all seven special permit requests were denied by straw vote . The applicant, was advised to revise the project to substantially conform with the PRD Standards. 1 , A 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the front property line in ; lieu of a 20 foot . setbackf no change except fence will contain landscaped cutouts. This is more 'desirable and provides greater security. 2 . A 34 -foot bu,�'lding ,separation" between opposite second and third floor - rear elevations ( driveway side ) in lieu of 40 feet; reduced to 'only one area between buildings. . 3 . ;from dwelling ,unit to arivewa � Six feet�•to 10 feet setback f ,. Q between dwelling units and 'driv�ewa ded nd or parking> spaces in lieu y. ..- of l feet, feet raV or ara es from' drive. aisle 4 � ProVide1 20 •feet setback f ' : . 9 9 � e for •lEi. 6$ ( 21) of the units in lieu of 50% (55) ; An ' reased' to 27051 ( 30 units) t DRA ,F PC Mi nu t es ,, ., 4 16987d) t } DRAFT 5 provide no. offsets i ' twelve front building facades in C,a'.n .5 , , un t ,building, types in lieu of 4 -`feet; only four buildings <. have no offset. 6. All . three story units in lieu of one-third ( 3.7. units) ,'being two story; 31 'units ( 20. 4% ) are two-story but clustered adjacent to R1 zoned properties . 7. 9- common open space area of 84, 400 square feet in lieu of:. �. 0, 400 square feet ; a common open space area of 90, 249 square . feet As is ;provided but some areas contain less than a 20 foot:, dimension (87, 200 square feet is now the required open space) . Additional special .permit requests are required with the revised plan as follows: private 8. Solid p patio walls , 6 feet in height, with 13 feet to 16 feet front yard setback ,in lieu of 20 feet . 9. Interior yard setback from R1 zoned properties of 30 feet in lieu of 33 , 7 Feet and 42 feet . Staff presented revised plans which depicted a reduction in the overall unit count from 113 to 109 and the creation of a two story building _ype along the east and south property lines adjacent to the existing single family homes . Staff pointed out the intent, of the special permits allowing deviations to the code is to provide a more aesthetically pleasing development .. The concerns of the adjacent neighbors have been addressed therefore creating the requests for the special permits. �i Staff also, because of the concerns of the Commission regarding the requested special permits , presented an additional site plan 'prepared by staff, that if agreeable with the developer. and the , . Commission, would- eliminate six of the nine requested special permits, but would reduce the unit count from 109 'to 105. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -Staff recommends that thePlanning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896 as modified• b'y staff based on the ,' findings and conditions of approval THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Bruttomesso, . applicant, spoke in support of the development,. He stated that he has spent a considerable amount of tine under- several constralnts "(wishes : of the .-Commissioners voiced at the ,previous meetings , concerns of,:adjacent ',neighbors , :.codes of. the, �Cit Y "af- Huntington Beach, s and demands of 'a. competitive market, I 'and 'has majorcome 'up with g p They lane.. have reduced theede•nsityc havesreducedhthe height ofthe units along - PC Minutes - 12/16/86 -3- C6987d) DRA ... ... the south and east property lines to two stories and removed the • berm, acid have set back the-..end units to create more movement in the building . He feels that ,they are proposing. a . high quality development that will be geared to the. .upper end of the market. He Stated 'that he , agrees . wiuh all conditions and recommendations from staff except,-for the, requirement For the retention of .the storm water" from a -100 year flood for six hours . He does not 'feel . that . this condition should be imposed because there is not an existing '- storm drain ;systen, on the property to. work with, the. nearest - storm drain- Is :31'000 feet from the pro jecL . Stan' 'Uchisono, architect for the project , reiterated. the comments made .bythe applicant . He feels that all of the concerns - have been met and the major impacts have been mitigated. i Chairman .Livengood asked the applicant if he supported the .newest plans presented by staff reducing the unit count another 4 units. The applicant stated that he has already lost 4 units from the original plans that requested 113 units and is not in favor of losing any more , therefore would not support the new proposed plans. Russell Skattum, 8102 Wadebridge Circle, spoke in support of the development as revised by staff. He stated that there is a good working relationship between the adjacent neighbors and the developer. lie did, however , readdress his concerns of the. project. He ,stated that he agreed with the applicant in opposition to the requirement for the retention of the 100 year flood water for six hours . He is still concerned with the fire dangers presented from this project , the intensity and density of the . pro ject, the traffic i impacts from the project, and the compatibility in the .,design of,;:the project with the adjacent neighborhood . He further stated that he would like to see the condition requiring 4 fire hydrants on the property increased to 5 hydrants, he would like the construction- hours changed to give the adjacent homeowners some relief from the noise on the weekends, and would like a further meeting with the f contractor to discus: landscaping along the property lines adjacent to .the single family homes . Ho fully suppor.ty the new ,plans proposed by staff that would ,eliminate most of the special permit requests. Philip Bertino, 8121 Wadebridge Circle, spoke in -suppor;t; of the development and the cooporatior, that .the adjacent homeowners,-have: :l had with . the developer . He did however express his 'displeasure -anc concerns regarding the traffic report presented by the � City . Engineer., He ; feels that the traffic ,problems created 'by `this project will be monumental . 4 Larry Curran, 8131 Wa'debr.idae Circle, stated, that the dev ` 6 , eloper has • •:, . ,A� been very- responsive .tn the wishes ;of he :adjacent .,homeowners.. 9 - 'i Since he will have a five unit buildin behind:,his house, ] 30 :feet _ from his '`backyard, he feels that, the roofline of the buildings will -i be too• ,bulky and - displeasing. He also-feels .that : the, gradin of ",the property may cause adjacent problems with flooding in the acent single P 7 .r family homes that have basements . DRA T .T +� Minutes - I2/16/86 pc q- s 9 ,,y DRAFT Tomhruttomesso, applican Ht, readdressed the . concerns expressed by the . omeowners . He stated that 'the entire project will be � fire sprinkled eliminating some of the fire problems and that the five 'Unit buildings 'are' going to be set.•back: an :additional five feet than the etateduthatihebcannotgafford to dose another 4 units and therefor rovidin some d6si n relief. He .furthe re cannot support the new proposed plan by staff. There _ were 'no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Les . Evans, City Engineer , explained to the commission that as a result, of the -overflowing of the flood channels that occurred in . 1983,'the `City Council has been imposing the condition to detain a , 6-hour ' 100-year storm volume on-site on large developments. He feels that the condition could be eliminated on, this project because there is no storm drain system on the site or adjacent to a flood control channel . It would require the installation of a reservoir on site that would be filled during a storm and then pumped out, which would not be safe . Tom Poe, Fire Department, stated that his department is requiring that all units be fire sprinkled and the development include four fire ,hydrants. He felt that this would be a sufficient number of , hydrants on the property. Ch airman Livengood felt that the Commission had given clear direction at the previous meetings regarding the project ,and that the developer was still asking for a maximum project with nine special permits and not respondong to the Commission' s direction they provided to substantially comply with the PRD Standards and by denying by straw vote the request for 7 special permits . He then asked that each Commissioner make his or her comments regarding the proposed development. Commissioner Schumacher stated that ahe feels that this .project ,is too intense and that the special permit requests are being stretched to,-the limit . She feels that the deviations to the code should be considered as conditional exceptions , which would require a stricter criteria . She asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney. Attorney Sangster stated that after .referrif ,g to Section 915021, a Special Permit Request was the proper procedure to take action on this proposal . Commissioner Schumacher further commented that she feels ,that 'there should exShe , also feels that allcofet eounits onq y p g ' parking in residential -, areas. h al 4 .the property line of the single family homes should bet stories and 4-Unit buildings and that the developer should: conform to code -in,: all instances. She was in favor of the new plans proposed by staff . Commissioner Porter stated that he was not as concerned with -the requested special permits as he was with the bulk .of the. structures, the height, and the architectural, compatibiaity. He further. atated RAF PC.. Minutes 12/16/86. 69e7a a � DRAF j as thought the relationship between ` the . d.. p ' _ { ' velo per and ; the om j ou acent h eownera had been excellent.,,and,,.that the cgmpromige hey tha t� �he. th had reached concerning the .,removal ` of the three story structure and ber m along the property ':line of the single :family -homes_ wa Acceptable. He 'does - feel that the design of the ,development warranted-more of a 'contrast ,in an area that would , be -better ,served ` with something more compatible. Commissioner Pierce stated that he felt this development was more ., oriented toward family type living and that he felt !;the architecture , was acceptable and would be saleable in today 's market. Commissioner Higgins had concerns regarding the storm retention ' condition He felt it was a rather extreme expenditure to :impuse on the developer in a situation that wasn ' t typical and that didn ' t j warrant the condition . Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he did not have any problems with the proposed building material and the compatibility of the architecture. His main concern was a workable solution regarding the drainage. Scott Hess explained to the Commission the revised layout that would eliminate 5 of the 9 special permits. A: MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY 14IRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT .NO. 86-51, AS SUBMITTED ,BY THE APPLICANT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL AND REVISED CONDITIONS SUBMITTED BY STAFF AND THE DELETION C? CONDITION NO. 23 REGARDING THE STORM WATER RETENTION. AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER,— t TO ADD 'A CONDITION TO PROVIDE AN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE CFIANGE,;WITH A MORE COMPATIBLE ROOFING MATERIAL FOR VISUAL RELIEF .AND TO =REVISE SITE PLANS SUGGESTED BY STAFF DEPICTING 105 UNITS WITH 4 .UNIT, 2 STORY BUILDINGS ALONG THE R1 PROPERTY LINES. AN AMENDMEVT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY SC'HUMACHER, SECOND. dY. LIVENGOOD, TO DELETE SPECIAL PERMIT No . 4 REGARDING THE 20 FOOT . SETBACKS- FOR GARAGES FROM DRIVE AISLES FOR 18. 6% ( 21 ) OF ,THE UNITS ` IN LIEU OF 50$ % 57 ) . The following votes on the amendments were taken ; IN FAVOR Or-,,DELETING CONDITION #23 WITH FINDINGS REGARDIN G THE STORM `. ` . RETENTION: AYES . , Schumacher Porter Liven good, Higgins, Piet �Rowe , � y � 99 Piercer. , Mi.rjahangir . . NOES : None AMENDMENT MOTION PASSED R— A r PC Minutes 12/16/8b , f D�AEJJ TO REQUIRE MORE COMPATIBLE' 8LE ARCHITECTURE: "AYES: Rowe , Schumacher, For'ter NOES: Livengbodf Higgins, Pierce, Mir juhangix AMENDMENT MOTION FAILED TO : REVISE S ITE I PLANS. SUGGESTED 13Y' STAFF ALL'O '" WING A MAXIMUM OF 105 ' UNITS, TWO'�STORY, Q UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY', ALONG THE R1 PROPERTY LINE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, porter NOES: Livengood , Higgins, ' Pierce, Mirjahangir AMENDMENT MOTION FAILED TO REVISE SITE PLAN DEPICTING TWO--STORY, FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY, ALOUG THE R1 PROPERTY LINE : j, AYES : Rowe , Schumacher , Porter, Livengood , Higgins, Mirjahangir NOES : Pierce AMENDMENT 'MOTION PASSED r DELETE SPECIAL PERMIT NO. g REGARDING THE 20 FOOT SETBACKS FOR' GARAGES FROM DRIVE AISLES FOR 18 6% ( 21 ) OF THE UNITS IN LIEU OF "-50% (57) : AYES: Schumacher , Porter NOES : Rowe, Livengood, Higgins, Pierce, Mirjahangir AMENDMENT MOTION FAILEb . Commissioner Pierce stated that the only amendments to his motion that he would be in favor of would be the suggested additional conditions fro m staff, the deletion of condition #23 regarding the sterm. `retention , and the revised site plan depicting two-story,, four-unit' buildings only, along the RI property line. The motion was restated : p . A NOTION' WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND' BY 'MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT .12696 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NO. '66-51' AS ' SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT,• .,WITH,:.THE' ADDITIONAL ,AND' REVISED . CONDITIONS , SUBMITTED, BY 'STAFF, -,THE1'DELETtON ,OF CONDITION' NO. 2,3 REGARDING' THE 'STORM. RETLNTION `AND 'TO REVISE -,THE -SITE -:PLAN DEPICTING ALONG THE~FOLLOWING ,VOTE : � _ .E R1 PROPERTY��L;INE, BY-TWO STORY•, FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS ONLY, TH , AYES : Livengogd, ' Pierce , Mi�rjahangir ,f ' NOES : Rowe , Schumacher , Porter, Higgins s ABSENT: None , ABSTAIN: , None r 'MOTION FAILED PC;f Minutes - 17/16/86 :" ,�,+ .'... .. „:f, . .;`, .i �':... . '..:.. ...; •.. :'� fir: 5 ir RA Chairman , Livengood stated that; the motion to approve ,with minor changes ,would 'provide ;protection and flexibilIty to,, the , ad jac"ent: ` alread ' s o residents .and developer. He felt :Chat ;too: much valuable .time ha d Y been spent n thisheadcacentneiahborsper, . architects, , staff, commissioners and g. , to not take Positive action. , A MOTION WAS `MADE BY ,PORTER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO ,DENY TENTATIVE 7RACT12896 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 86--5.1 WITH ADDED FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: Rowe, Schumacher? Porter,. Higgins NOES: Livengood , Pierce, Mirjahangir ABSENT : None ' `ABSTAIN: None f j MOTION PASSED �I FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-51 : �« 1 . The proposed .109 unit condominium project will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of , persons residing or working in the neighborhood, `or to the value of the property and improvements in L•he neighborhood due R to the amount of special permits required to provide the development as proposed, S ' 2, The proposed 109 unit condominium project 'will. not be compatible with surrounding single family residences `to the east and south because of the lack of conformance with the ' requirement for architectural compatibility which is required by the ordinance code, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -- SPECIAL PERMITS : 1 . The nine requests for special permits will not promote a better living environment nor provide better land pldnni'ng techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing y` architecture. g g p permits will be detrimental, 2 , Thee- rantin of nines special _,. ' 1 to , .; the general health , welfare, safety and convenience, of the neighborhood; and detrimental to-,the value: of property and/or improvements , of the neighborhood. , 3 . The special , permit requests, are not ,.consistent "with the achievineeaodeveio menteadactedetoithedtercaincandsren'dards �.n 9 P P om'a t ible 1,. with 'the surrounding environment. FINDINGS FOR DENr:.L - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12896: r 1 ,' The site is not physicalll ' suitable' For the proposed density . of 13. 7 units per 'acre and type of development propo 'ed . .,. =:The , 'building bulk and three-story freight from existing graide'; is not conducive to the aIte. , PC Minutes 1zJi6l8h -e- -�� ,f16987d h'`: r A S {1 hunts Tan baa�h �eveiopment servicob departrreer+t . Sr r P T0: Planning Commission PROM : Development Services , DATE : December 16 , 1986 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE, TRACT 12896 AOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 90. 86r51 . (CONTINUSD FROM DECEMBER 2, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETrNG) APPLICANT: Doug Mason DAT E 'ACCEPTED Magna Corporation CUP: October 23,' 198.6 120 test Sth . Street TT : October 23 , 1986 Santa Ana, CA MANDATORY PROCESSING -DATE OWNER: Retirement Fund Trust of wa.1ve the Plumbing, Heating and Pining Industry of Southern California ZONE: R2--PD 1456 E . Hill Street ' I Long Beach, CA 90806 . GENERAL PLAN: Medium .. Dens y Res.rdential �,. REQUEST: To develop 3,13, three- story condominium units EXISTING USE : Vacant with special permits LOCATION: South side of Garfield ACREAGE: 7A net acres. approximately 300 feet 7. 96 gross acres ` east of Beach Boulevard 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: t Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-51 and Tentative Tract 12896 -as modified: by staff based on the findings and conditions of approva1 outlined in this report . 2 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: At the.;:December , 1986 PlanningCommisaian mee ing, hie item' s wa continued as, requested by the applicant to allow time for plan rrocessin time . .At the.:meetin concerns from. neighbors ..reg ardin In _ addition,tivn, the, applicant, waived, the' mandatory, ,. . traffic; fire safety, and -fire re' sistan Abu ldin materials w"ere :.`9 :raised. :Als1.o; four-unit building types adjacent tb t e R1; zaited properties Ahstead of five-tiinit types was requested. r4 � A•FM•t3A r 1 F ii •:Several ad jacent ' homeowne' ,,,,. applicant :• r rs the and 'stafL ,met on December 90, 1986, to review revised plans of the. proposed condominium,, project. The majority of the key:rissues . ,outlined in the' December 1986 staff . report were resolved 'and incorporated into the revised plan. Included' in the plan was a mixture of two-story, -4,�and 5 unit building types 'setback 30 feet from the Rl zoned propert_JL:is . Some 5aunitnbuilding type etan'd recommendedill had conversionof regarding 5cunitss f the M 9 YP } types into 4-unit types adjacent to their Rl-zoned properties. 3 . 0 ISSUES. AND ANALYSIS: Revised Plans depi6ting . 109 units :were received on December 8 , 1986 . `Major changes include a reduction 'of four units from the total unit count and the inclusion of two-story buildings abutting the R1 zoned properties . Guest parking spaces are evenly distributed throughout the project . End units on buildings along Garfield have an average 5 foot offset between second and third £loons . Also, some: special permit requests have been reduced or ► eliminated and new ones added. The applicant has worked with staff and the adjacen.. homeowners ,to create a balanced project which attempts to satisfy everyone ' s concerns and an economically viable project in• today 's condominium marketplace . Attachment No . l is a matrix which compares the proposed roe`p project ct with the cone. In reviewing the revised plan, two s ro design concerns arise that can be easily reconfigurated resulting in�, an enhanced project . First is the reduced building setbacks from the R1 zoned properties . The applicant is requesting a special permit for reduced setback from 33 feet to 30 feet for the two-story four unit t j building types and from 42 feet to 30 feet for the 'two story five--unit building types as a compromise for `pzoviding two-story buildings as requested by the homeowners . A mixture of these;. t r ,, staff. r'mends r z building types will cY,eate ,sone variety; howevertaf ,recu the- fYve--unit building types be setback 35 feet ( an additional 5 buildingundulation in the greenbelt area buffering the Rltfromethe condominiums and offset the straight • line -.driveway, effect in the rear. Secondly, the buildings along Garfield are: much `61oser -to the ,street i re nest For reduced. front and setback four: the ~`x�yaecal ' plan and necessitate a ne ermit q Y P P io than depic. e on a prev ouE P to ,� at• Walls . ` It is: recommended that Building- No. 2 be' setback ,an ,. additional„`4 ; Feet from Garfield ;Avenue in ._order' to ,'provide', greater. g movement amongst fGur 'buildings vfs1ble from :Garfield: r building the . , ' Avenue . The patio walls ,,provide , some , sound a'tte_nWution and their g Y 1 :t varieu setbacks ne aces the monotan of a lineal continuous wail i itt A r +t ' • 1, ! at r }, Staff ltepoxt 12/16)86 9 1 { , f 'tr 4 `.: ,.: .. t r: ` :l. ;. ' ` ° r•r ri ; +i- - - ' t.: 1 •.i • `yam, T5 SP4CIAG� pERM2T. ,REQUE8 • t 1 y •.il. ,,, ..' '�4 = yry ' t - d �(t ?' !'• -:'t'1�7 , ' t 1 'At ._tt a :P a' 5 19@6 all; seven j 1 nnin Comm�ssian. meetiri : s ecial' ermit�_,r.e i�ests�.were 'denied .-b etra�� vo P. P ,9 . Y �� appl ca was 8d"v.ased ,to fe'Use he, ro' ect?i to -sUbbtantiiill' -'conf i nt S . e ' p o k t y rm w PRA S tandarde. The original special` perii reg6e'sti wsre"as follows ' with changes reflected in the ieVised- plans 1 . A- 6 foot high":,wrought izon . fence along the..., front=.proaer,ty' line 3.n lieu of ,a„, 20. `fooL,46 backs no .change' eXcept` fbhce w111 contain landscaped cut =outs: ' This J is more `deAirable Wand IJ provides greater secu"rity. ; 2. A 34 foot building separation*"between';opposie. seconar �r�d third fl'oar fear elevations (dritfewa' y,' rdl.ae n .lfeu of 40 feet; ' reduced to otly one. -eat betwee& buildings: 3. Si�a: feet.;;Go, .10 'feet ,setback, from dwelling 'unit to driveway and/or pa king' spices in,-.lieu .of . 15 feetf 15 feet provided between dwelling units and diiVeway. 4 . ProvideU feet setback for garages ftom driVe aisle fort 18 .,;6$ ( 21 ) r 'of the units in lieu ' of of 503 ( 65 Y increa • 5$ ( 30 1 aed t:o 27 units) , o offsets. in ,.twelve front: buil.ditig fa,cac es fn 5. P�Quids n 4 and 5 unit bull , ding,.'��ypes in lieu of ,,4 feet r on11► four 'bui"ld i`ngs n have no offset. . ,. 6. All three story Units .in ,lieu of one third (P:,;'Ur Us) bei ��' two story; 31r unite,; ( 28: 4% ) are two-story but clustered ed ja'c_.it' to R1 zoned properties . ccamrrlon 'open apace area of: 84;'4J0 ;aq iarer feet" i,n, ''lie i off, f t m ti s , , q p. ,p ,., 9 `,square 90 �00 s ware' ee • � a co mo o � n �8 ace area �of=`f9q,2�1 videa but „some areas contain . lescsl than ';a ,; b Fo` ; feet ' is ,pro of dimension ( 87,200 square feet is now th'e required open .g"pace') . p ests are required w:ithr� tne '. revis' � Additional, ,special ermit requ ed plan as follows 8. ',Solid so ri'vate atio wall sr 6 feet is .'hei ht with 13 feet tb" 1`6 feet front yard setback in lieu of 20 feet. ` 9. Interior yard . setback from R1 zoned' properties ' 0f'°30 ' feet in' lieu of 33. 7 feet and 42 . feet . p . ; process -was. designed to enable ' o4i'atione ko tlhe ' The s eci31 tiermf t, , ! siaential,'development ,.standards . provided `thatl ,t�iese P P r _ spacial rermits resulted,; in a . more ,•aesthetically p=leasing , ae _ pp acance, enhanced I v.ing .environment ,for "the ees'idences of the . pro e' cr,' 'and/or to facilitate innovative : archl.tectuza�l ;design t : T�i'e buildings have, a , Avenue :greater than 20 foot setback, from Garfield ^ Staff Report • - 12/16/96 --3 t `t t ,, i t :1. t .y, t t.J. l ;+;` + .•+ '•Y.., tx l _1 • 3.. ,_• i ..E J F �, �f',t ' 'w�f.>rc' .�• .' r r 1 i� ,{ t i� I - +w whic f6 .,desirab order w, ya a 'i to le in` to all th r pri e, }`J wal 11r1:vJ.,, , �.'• Y.Ar �•`AO71s:-TM P o � - encroach , u to lai +Ffi 1,4 fe;et The end units' of .the bui ngs a1o'ng A 'Garfield', have `+an', t�verage ;5 `foat�,:offsetbetween,';thet scon'd'=and; hr"d , 1 . ,::- t ., .,s .�� .. "t lr ;n h r 'V 'i -,Q61 ,floor, side:�walls .= Rev'i'sed1' 'roofi g .'material `usting� ac- gat charcoal cal'ors is :more compatkile" with' the blue ' and'�:be' ge 'wal'1 `'�a 'dirig' than the origiinal black ,,co 1'o"r• t 1 4 . 0 RECdMMENDATIbN: - t , e.y f�Kw; Y'•:. rA ' t staff recomn►ends that, the ,Planning Commission `app.rove, Conditional ` dsePermit. No ; ! 86-51 -and' Tentative,- Tract,,'�12896' as mo' di`fiea by staff base d on the following findings and conditions of approval: ;v,'atr�ti�'i, ,'' ,: c .i. �•'r t S,r ''a(? i FINDINGS, .-.''CONDITIONAL USE 'PERMIT `N0. ; 86--51'.'`AND 4TENTATIVE'TRACT MOM- .t it•3; J.✓r. J 4�.J" t'' .. ` t t •';'t.'.7 ,1 ` ` 1. The' +proposed subdivision 'of this 7 96 . acre..,parce.1 of lan'd„:zoned ' havinea13m7Dunitay erBidossiac•reis . proposed ''to .be: consttucte'd r•. 9 P 9 2. The General Plan ` has set, forth 'peovisi'ons '-for ;this type 'of •land ;< use as 'we11• as, setting .•:forth "provisions for the implementat`i'on of ,;th°is : type of ' housing +' <t:•� ,,i t' i , �4• f 3 The" 'pr 'petty w s p y i y `of �_ an'd o a reviousl studied for this ntens t 1 7: use al the ,time °thelana use designation 'and T tfie =R2PD zoning �k { designation were,"placed on 'tt�e subject property'. IC �4 . The conditional use permit and Ee' ntative tract are consi"si.6n.t . with the' goals and policies of the General Plan . ` ,.• �' � i �. h..L } Y•" ( h rjt1'0• .(�ti �`? :i�..1' r •� ,Yl�,..y"fit, .,1 a 5'. The'.'site "is relatively flat, and physically su table' ' for -;the " d 'de n 'propose nsity 'and type of development. Proposed density `is .13.Y ;units per' acre �whi'ch a'11"ows for adequate 'bui'ldin'g 1'ayo�u`t', open 'space and traffic circulation' " - ' FINDINGS" —•SPECIAL _PERMI`T: ix ,,;�� , "! 7 , , ,t :''�' irylt i 1" • t 7 wy Y,Y"; i `x l . • , The t orientation, of each 'dwelling 'unL't onto pAd om l , c m`on anasca areas " and each unit provided , with., a.:priva'te .,patio will `ft elp 'tj. ensure maximum privacy for the residents within: a proje'ci t of t; this density. 1 ' 2 . Through the use ' f :landscaped planting .materials, �;aestheET I pleasin ,°archit-ecture arid -spec `al g constr c lon teahnfque's, surrounding , use`s ,.wil'l have anminimf zed I'm jaet on • t"he '` i proposed -project and, ;i'n' turn", the prpposed 'pro'j t will not t be . detrimental to .the �generalr- tieal�h ' welfaire s t e ; � afety' and conven';encet.of •the 'neighborhood or the Cit + "4 yin. genera'1. Th`e two-stcity: b'uf.ldi�ng design ,w3.th a miniMUM:,'30 foot 'perintater se bAck. ;will: Y6 . imize visual and noise •impacts to th`e _dja''dent. R1--zoned 'properties. r Staff Report 12j16/a6 -4-, t690d , ' ,. d` :, :. � •T. - r .'fir, :� f•!i ( rr 3 R'hruugh ;.t:he use �pf privi `ts{�el1d common,�,ape;n`' aiiiace. areas `an'd ipy ' 1 ) f ., rJ. f t. ,. , ma imizl: sg 'tt a use 'of aeetheti'cailllyo, easing v architecture the rop1ose'd project11aY de a.;bettier livin,. 4 . P w P i 9 env irr'o1 ntt , bi�ti•r ��. ,.i`i. } ' au 'f} c. : t Sr::"' �� 4.7�Z. l:�fe+r.aii.'n ;i'= � '" k;��!x 4" w;,�,.•,, < tw �4 The1`ot� si�e� ade 't: fro �4er fit �," ., , ,., �•.e'�, s. ; • p , nag �, tzeet �width;��a d thiough' the ,use.��, � of fa spebi 1 per ft #� gn pl .� a r all of er dea ;and, i eittatio , , . ea tares :of: ,the, ropos►�d pro jeck are ' proposed 'to b'e constructed f '" t xi co lLance' ith standard pla` s ands ec fi6iti.ons" an file. ' , With ':the; Cty` s we12 asz;in ,comps iace syvih ttie 8t:ate Mai` Act � . and . supplete{entary` 'City subdyisionordinstce. • <'Y .., 5 . The following . special :germits far ,deviatidns .to 'the, requireimenks ;< designicIe 915 are ecessary for; art jm Koved site layout and t ',. . ♦ �`i. ;!.. dS ti ^1.4. S •`if -'. , '.` .,r� a'1K`t i7 .. ara ico nd 34 a th'izdffl000utearnelevat o aondrivewan de} i!in 'lieunofa40 n ( y feet: b . Six foot ,. to 10 foot ,,setback '`from dwelling unit ' to 'driveway ana. parking spaces in liey of 15 feet, r c: 27..5%. ( 30) of the, units. to $have a 20 foot '.garage,.set:back � from ' drive aisle .in lieu of 50% ' t 55_) . --�� d : �,dJacent: irty-ode 'units 28 4V) are two story .up to �'clusterea ' I -' A to,;R1._ or, .d Pxoperties: in,;aieu of t 37'orie thixd•' units) . being two story aacattered throughout the pra. ect . `comm..on .are .f �eL withe A opesp a . .29 361 square feet distributed in areas with leas than, a' 20 'foot dimension. f. Soli'd pxvate patio? galls . jit a "113 foot to l foot 6 front ►ard setback in lieu of 20 feet. g . Interior yard setback from'. Rl zone`d:` piroperti, of a minimum 30 'feet In 'lied 'of '33 ,'7 feet , aril 42 ' feet: CONAxTIONS- OFF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE '"PERMITS"Nt7. t�86-51 . floor ` ane d`�e e`..at o r eV ,e.`M' d ed `11" 1.. The �,.sit:eplan . p,l r dui V ins,, ec„ iY d,, rice at December. 8 , 1986, shall be revised depictring the modifica't 4ions described herein: a . Undulate the 6 foot high' wroughk fence Along,' the front ' property line with `landscaped.-pockets , b . Setback building #2 , 34 £set from G6rfield Avenue : c. ; 8e0ack two "st bry! „5' unit. building ;types.•,ad jacent- to Ri + properties a minimum 35 Feet. d , Roofing material to be vari ate t . . grey ;. . arcoal , th`ick but ,.� • aaphalt'; shingles. .Staff Report - 5M ( 6904d ) t Y Sax oot hi'gh 'b`lock ,'•wall• aloi� common property, lines ast Q �„ '1�' :.a.•i c_,y�•. a �t .^ rj� .v1 to •'- « ' a measure -f ron g a t. n` scent rode Blo-ck'}' ff be smo th .. •.4 . 3mvm two coarser: de�ocdt�Ve°ablOckr near':'too fin sh wi.t min . - and,„compatible�'c `lor with condo iniufih,dev'elopmaE -r o m t r, ,.:. .'WaEOrproof membrane" or•,`other wate`zproofi`Yig method as . . P ternnined` .b �YBoi'ls `Engineer and 'ap r'oved -by "hP' City •oE ; Hunt ington''Beach t 4 f Additional lands cape:,`pock ets shall"be providedytbetween g 9 garage'`doors alon "the"rear of'�'tiuildings �3 �thcou••aah .9. _ a `Z . riti"r '`to 'issuan'ce of. building permits, the applicant shall: submit, the ;-foll•owifig plans: a. Landscape arid ' irrigation plan, to 'the Department: olf, Development Services and -Public :Works 'for review and approval: a b. aThe nd metege d landscaped area, 'sha v e so ll ha "it " wn e servics j } with approved backflow devices. c. Minimum ',24nch;'box trees shall'' b'e rrovi'ded along the i p perimeter setback area of the project. F 3 Natural. as shall be stubbed in' at the, locatfon'sr'of cooking f' facilities , water 'heate'rs and Central , 9 , heating units. - _- 1 d o a s 'i o as a " water faucets a � .4 . Low volume heads' shall be 115t� n 11 p g t nd so All building spoils, . sucti as unusable ;lumb6r,, ,wire, ,pipe, other sur �.us` or ' unusable material-' ' shall,:b-e di's osed of- at .an off site, acilit y equipped to them. r: E id hti`n �is included ' n the arkin `lot hig -=' ' . ' x steal be used : Fo'r . ener s�avi'n' s . Al loutsidesod�Lm :.Y,. g g P 9� �, P vapor lamps., 1 gy, g fighting. shall be directed 'to prevent " s illa e* ohto ' adjacent properties. u 7. A truck ,route= ,shall be established:' to. bea reviewed and ;`approved ' by:, the Development . Services 'Department and - Publ-ic Works � { . ' 4 Department that addresses number of trucks t'ruck' rou tee : dust control, 'etc. . x a . Truck deliveries '.shall be limited ' o Mondal . thrQugh . Friday �. only, between 7 :00 AM and 6: 00 PM. g . CC&R°s sh'all be ,'submitted for review and'. approval by the 'City Attorney and Development services Department i`n ''accordanceEh Article 915. 9 . Construction hours shall be as preiscr'ibedl by Section ,A . 40, 090(da '�: t working' hour. r shallebeulimitedntoe9C0'OMAMto ' alOo�PM onSatttrda g p P ys . Staff Reporti _ 12/16AG b_ ( 6904d) ,� dbND!IrIS;b0._iPRt ,'�*U, '�E fMtIVE 'T�t�ICT' 1Z69� ON 1 � J F '/1•: a '. {ti" �, ` :7t� '.^`8)t�6•',:. .� `h:�i� 1:wi''bOtech.:TerseU ay }Ta�c 28 aated f • conceptually apOe6o d layoUE wind shall be revA aed•; ko. conform 1 , fY h. P n ated:` De�cembet B ,A,19.66 s Tenbahive ;;bract 'map reyJ ew.and final. rb�+ by hh Pi Coinmisei-o 11 be' ap 'al anriia�g $ha , r e q ed ` 2 : Gerf ield Avenge siiaii be con'str cted •wf th 8 t Pooh ' wide 'side'walks (tTen tat.ive;,Tract Map ahbw$ -naii6kor'. a irk 'ciroes--sections , . 1 w}iich ie 'Wran 9 3. The on-s i ue, sealer systcfn sfiall be, private, "but con struci:ed to Public ,Work' standards t � . The an site water :system shall be puLi blic, and 'shell' be' located f' .. in Vei )i i d U far travel t4ays .ohlya } 5 . Each unit -sha llh-hVe n meter ,;its ,'owh individlia'1 Water service ,,- ,t d ''a ' with approved double check backflow ' device � 6. Th'e s.' mmin o01" recrea�ibn bu ldin shall haliie ; its ;o P / g wn •service 1 art mehet With ' approved daCk`flosa 'de4ice ' 7 Parking shall be prohibihed o"h Garfield Aveh.de'i g: Access- rights {.o Garfiehd AV hie s all be aec dated to he City exce t •at approve' d entrance to project. t i P . . `. . 9 . Gaff ield Aienue shall by re�stiriped , to-accommodiite ,legit tuiris . in tt and oLit of •the pro jzCt a 10, Tie on-sf`te private str.Pets.' shall be desighed !to 'tne Gihy'•s . private street• standards and Ffi e 24, o4t �tidth':'does not include the g1itIL �.ets (see Standard plan 11 . If 'the' entrance is gated, the seci r t ate location shall approved *'b thepattmeht of. Public Wozkn and shall 'have pan � approved turh-around'.- `- . t 12. A11 niiasing 'ot dameged `public iniproliemerite `shall be cons r'ucted Pe r public Works. stanfdards. A ' iavement eValtiation of Garfield �1V ehhe shall `be ;cond'uctea t qualified firm and ,the result's `submitted to . the 'Cit�. Thee developer is responsible to construct the remedial" fmprovemerits fea''Uited . 14 hydrology and hdlraulire fol• the site shall be ,approved , by the DeparEt ehft, of Public wd ks and ne'Vel.opmeht S 'rV.ices i, All surfade water shail dral.h towards Garfield AVeh'de � . 15 Utilities on Garf.4eld . Ave , .. , h ,r r1ue; sha1,I be bored Unless :of 'erwiae apPxdvrd by Oie City. En gin' eer, r x. Staff Report - 12/16/86 :,.:7_ �' `6904' , , :✓ . ( ,i0++�-......r.r.+++f .w .rw.•.+.+r.ir+.a.r.r.r�Wa:r. c 'w:,.0 '� Ifi Yw�,.,�t _,--.;..rw�w.w --.�+w�M�..- r.r.r--.w.•+w wale P , c - .t •'Y`:4^� ?,'�':F . .f,l {, �S^� -i.:y.' ?•i. t 16 Uton atic s" rinkler :s $temsfi ,'I» --. , ^ , Mt16T ;be o o 1 _. , , i.n�kaTled •thx >zgh ut 'al t• "jl/i, � N+�1s�",ij , a•.s r -• ,: ..x,•F}r, 1,r : :.., - in f, >r ,.ryJ' gs` to' comply 'with" Hunti'ngt'on Beach ;Fi're D+apart'me"nE, and 1 ' Ur if i5im Bail in' Code' 9` Standards t '� e,' 1.. 1 v •\ « , 41.+'f.,. it {. '>' 1. ..,af l*�_t I^ i.,.1=3'.ly ! , } e:.i '•sYj• ,. , � •('t 1 1-'•.•,"+ �.i�. (,4,t.;t.n.•t` •.. . i'� , r.},:,'?T•4�4,?•' _ �-�.,f i f17 : A, fi.re ;alazmti s stem MUST , i,n'st.ahled' Ito `compTy� w `: 1 r,r HeaC Fir s H ament� n Unffoz l Fire: `I . . m �cor7e st"an�ar�f System MUST provide the following : `The ' rf ,�a Water flowt valve ,tamper` and ' troubl'e "detection` r; ,,b' 24h'M u io'n _. our� s pervis ;c Ann�inicationt'' -. :d. Audible alarms. t 1 . Fire extinguishers MUST; be installed {and ,.located .in the: Recreation Room to comply with Kuntfncton each Fire 'Cude Standa'r t 19 . Fo t t r 4 ) fire tiydrants MUST 'be h e�iristall d rior- to combust�itile '• P 'f corls,truction.• Sho• g U drawinc s M 8T °tie i`ubm i'tted,'to the ; Public ; • , , t Works +Department and approved -by the ''Fire ''Deparrment 'prior to ¢' installation, : 20 If secure.• gates ,,, .. .. ty t ga es are i st ,i Z1',' a design to comply n' a1 ' they, MU s with Huntington "Beach Fire Departma�nt `Standard ;403. i. "q ae: ati{,''•C .�St 1 `'{• ` .. ,i f�.• ; ,j: { ./ ., 21 . Sh' OW additional,`'dimensions 'on •plans; fo:r 17 . x '4' foot fire 'access jP. i , if p B ^ . r.�d'ius to com h h. i I`. .-turn, to ,A ly with Hunti'rigt'ci ea„ F re ;Depa`r'kment S� andaed 401 . ill ,sheets must:`,be, instal lea with"''all weather I; surface prior tio:`combustible coil truct:ion.' ,<z. 22 t16m' es of 'st.eets "MUST be 'a roved b t Y. '• 'e Hun PPrd ' Y ,; tinyton :Beach: Fire 'Department prior to use to ' corn 1 with Fire De �IQ9. p P Y partmen,t standard 23• Tentative�.Tr.act.r12896 �ill_;be iequired ' to. det"ain•' a ' 6,-hour y m volume on-site. t. ' 100- ear storm r - .:ATTACHMiENTSs� 1 . Zonin � conf orm formance"matrix 2. Memo from Les ;Evans dateti; December.:, 2, `1986 3 . "Staff report" dated''neeember . 2 .1986 4 . Revised site and floor "plans and e3.evabions dated beeember '8, 1986 ' JWP:SH:kla oil t „ S 1 e t staff Report - 12/16/86 (6904d ) . 1 { He CITY t ; NUKTINlQW'r N CM INFER=DEPARTMENT'COMMUNICA`�ION KAMM"It" ' +fY f , G1en Godfrey From - Les Evans• „. Deputy Director , � � City :.nginQex ;! Subject 'Tentative 'Tract 12896 pate becember 21 1986 Ttie Public Works Engineering Division' has .,reviewed the_ puns for:°the proposed jl3.; unit development at"the southeast cornier of Garfield • Avenue anr� Beach Boulevard ,1 •,r , ,. t rr�i • i r c3iir analy'sis ,prejdi'cts. about 1200 trips•};a day ,'into 'and,;rout 'of .th'e, ,deve1op The ro osed _entrance exit f rom ;'the praJ,ect °onto ,Garfield ;;should . . � eaisil' , ac P,.. P .. ., ,�,; .; .. mint. . y comodate the anticipated :tra f fa.c volumes. , ,Gaxf�a ld ''Avenue z vs a rimer yrterial 'desi tied '• to h '" ehicles a da .Present volumes are .slIghtly,,.less than 25 '000 vehicles ., . . :.. s ... . r :, . . . „ ., an a �tra f1c vo. umes �_of. . ., �per,�day:., The 'proposed entrance to the''development is j�located:,far k, j ,... t each B 1 va d th i enough rom' B ou e , r at it should not' be s gn fcan ly ! m :pacted by stacking. .; ,,There : will be ,some difficulty, maka.ng ; left turns ; ;out of 'the development. 'onto"'Gai:kieid `du�ring peak> hours: However, the difficulty of: making. left turns,' iantio arterial street q p . ' c s duri•n eak traff.i hours is a ' fact of life in Huntington Beach. Re ardi ed a ' later issue .raised be the ad scent` • ro ert owners , wegr'eA iew,��ththeravailibl' soils, information. :There. 's`-no .w)a� dence of . groundwater on the -site . (ba'sed . on borings 16 .' below tt a ground 'surface) . Runoff from rainfall' wll be 'directed --away.,from• ;adjacent properties . 1 i There should be impactno '` on the neighboring pro tit! 'due to drainage. � drama There will however be minor a im kact3 on the Huntington 'Beach Channel �D01) wh' g P m ,n to, and ust east'.;of 'Beach 'Hoes. `south of Adams=Avenuel 'and "runs:, pa'rllel tM1 ,s} F ich or�.ganat } `ulevard. DrainagA from'st}%e new development sinters an; existin unde .. .<e t ,. , ` �. r zound storm� drain;��on Newland� Street .and, f lows .,. 9' g to"• the Adams .Avenue ch . . I r g This., is Pupp° station 'at the head . of the Hunt�in ton Be Channel. + its ban w_ , Otihe'r `► i he channel ,whi overflowed. in 1983 u;4;.relopmentsµwhich..drain. to the Huntington; Beach' ;-Channel :;Piave ,been re- , quired to provide . for detention." of a ' 6=hour, 100. year, storm.` This call' ? be fairly easily„,,;:accomplished ,by developments 'adjacenti i.o :flood cont'ro"1 channels. simply 'by;providing fla ates .that 'cxose when ,.water; in ,the+,. P _ g . channel re aches a h i h leve 1.i flood r. t , g o For, .tract:,'}12896 .th�'re is; •, no Adjacent�f loodncon"trol channel. . _ n site detention': could only:be: aC- I comp . w - storm drai,� 9, P P q:� - after storms , � or (2) . building a ne reservoir for •drama a , then, um ir. it� out. ].ished by (1) creating e, rese n .system in • a' rfie,ld 'o `Neither alternative is .very practical in terms of cost to',the .developer; for . constructi'on and costs to the City and property owners for znainte- R nance. Imposing the 6-hour ,'detention condition on tract '12896 ;is''. a poUcy decision that the Planning Commission and City Council' must ' . decide. ' LE.dw i , ;. - i. . , e - 'r•+' - fit: - ,,it (gib 4 hurrti to bas h de?ire�op ent �servi os department ' , , E O R•l 4 •� `y., , 1 NEWS= , , 1 i Plggjli�ng'- ommi'88ion FROM Development tServices': { DATE: December 2, 1986 SUBJECT: t TENTATIyE'` TRACT 12896 AND; CONDIVIONAL;USE,.PERMIT NO. „ (CONTINUED ;•FROM ,NOVEM,BER 18; 1986 'PLANNING.. , COM,'IISSION MEETING). s A'P 1'LIlCANT - a. ,.�� 3 .�•..;�. JF'; _ .. Doug Mason DATE ACCEPTED: „ Magna Corporation CUP: pctober 23 , , 1986' Street TT: October''23 198'6 120 West-. 5th� `,, , Santa Ana , CA 1�i � i r MAN DATORY4,PROCESSING. D, ATE OWNER: Reticent Fund�,.Trus't of CUP : becem er ,; 1 m " ng , rH ing TDecember. 12, :1986 the P u b`i eat T s 19�8� `j , r; jatld Piping In`dustr';y 'of t Souther `Califari i�i" Zrt NF: �R2-PD <, 1456 E. Hill Street; Lon 9 Beach CA' 90806 GENERALPLAN: `:Medium RE U EST To dev o.., Density Reg denti�al• Q slop 113 , .threz- story cc ndomin.ium twits EXISTING 'USE: .,Vacant a With special permits i . ,. , .- ... y, ,,,:. acres LOCATION south side of Garfieli� ACREAGE: 7 . 4 net approximately 300 feet 7 , 96 gross acres ! east :, of Beach Boulevard 10 , SUGGESTED ACTION: Continue, Conditional Us'e Permit No. 86 . 51 and Tentative-,Tract . 12896 as .'ie cant . ; The' a uesred by the a li Pp licant has waived the mandatory processing date on these entitlements . 2 0 . GENERAL : xNFORMATION: On November 24, 19.86 ,.. the 'applicant,. several adjacen'L homeowners , and`. sta"ff,,met to ,discuss concerns ; rtiised by the :,homeowner's, staff and.,:Pi'anning Commiss .on `psrt'Aining. to the , proposed 113 -,unit:.. condominium � project'.• The '";�ipp, icant presented s ;r.euised layout %'with new L•Wowstory, t;uilaings .along `the 'peril 'iter `'of �� the site ad jecent .'to the single'.'fam ly hd mes .' The followtng key issues were agreeable by Magna Corporation and the homeowners : .1 . Maintain tw* o-stor''y., units near adjacent single family residence 1 properties with minimum 30 foot setback . A,p , . .,'1 ,_[ 1',{ ' , ^r • " T� '°t a �� t)6�r.0 Lir 1 raj "�.ro: " t '�•J}!. i„frt ��. ,+ K s'i 2, Provide .minimum: 10 foot offset° from °first+ and front or • facade , on each end '.uni't bf ea`ch two stor' buldn 'floor s C 1 , . P,.j ,'...• L ,'. 5. ,. 1, _.,. � ';. ,t. .' " j ;.�• a$=' r.tU .'' + 1i'.%` t,It ,, r, 3. ;;Create gcea`ter breakup and/or movement o`f; roofl•ine;,on rWo start' ,b.� t 1. ilding�, types; . .,� 4 . Architecture {acceptable as modern :Cape=Cod UIi', tan;;an8 light masonite. suing`'; white trim. and thickb"utt , varied ch'ar'coal: R color asphalt shingles . i �' ; '.' :� .r• :aCa ?" t ,t,t4 nq ..'`. . 'foot high bXock wall , along common propertyr lines as measured,-from ,hi'ghest 'adjacent gr"aae; ;smoo'th finish �tilock ";i th Al i mLn,imum ;two .coarses' "decorat ve;i blockt ;'near top; color c'ompatl e,:with :condomLnium deVe1opment'3 - waterproof ';membran'e',,,or ., . other, waterproofing method as determined by' soils engineer -and aPprov ;d . by City. lenders `in' � pockets , , P p � 9 ., 6 . W�rought' ,iron ,fence on ro erty line alon Garfield Avenge with P g P 7 . 'All build rigs along; Garfield Avenue have "C"-units at ehd of. buildings contain. 5 fo4t average: side. wall, offset b;etw . third floor ) '; other I6ui 46`11. li'uildi�n;g types en second and ( o not have any en d unit offsets . . t" 6 . F'ouz-uni`t ng buildi . -on Garfield Avenue to',�have •minimum 4 `foot Ying ade. offset tietwee`n each`' two units' other four, unit buildi front build• ngs will` not have such an offset . 9 . Five and six' : uriit 'b4 ilding ypes ' have "C" un'i t on each end': t 10 . Five and.-six unit b'uflding types have minimum 4 . foq t "facad�� offset ' every °two units average'. 1�1 . Guest parking spaces to be evenly distributed throughout , th ' 'development . ) 12 . An attempt shall 'be mad'!o design 50% '�of, whits. with:-20 foot =1' �' garage 'setback from 'drive 'aisle . 13 . Anattemtshal .. :. p p, ; . . p 1 be made to t�axirnize ' common o en, space area , ;• : . 9 9 The issues., of traffic and drama a were also brow ht �u and 'have been deferred to the Public Works Department for comments . The, applicant •indicated that they.-would redesign ttie site,. pian som�withluni;tbsmay�havettoSbenel�i^minated , ineo�eas�ibil'i,ty of ,ttie pro•ject f der' to ,:accommodate ';al'i concerns, They felt some special permits will still be'•necessary, Staff s comments regarding these issues will bf. presen'ted when 'the final 'plans reflecting these changes are .received. Staff Report ( 67,70d ) all :' t�� ra �.� i Wa t:: S ,- �r •, �, t. r .+ ,. ' �•a�t t t r t• 1 f.t ]� '} 4 : a •� H+'• i = r ' p �S^'L I .S l � i,i �� 'a.t'.:+r�1 r�!Sd.t',�:ti � ..e, y.. +: ft �;i, .tiw•'r �+r, r,v` Y.r:r� •,1ti. A••;ctin fivance Eb ,Ehe,; Decemb ,; g n ee�in,er 1 ;I B l�a :l cin s z , has', een requested b ,ths• a�pplicant�� to 'allow �i.me for adequate , + f' r redesign', o Ehe 'pro j'eet. "1kTfi1�CNENT 1 . LeE'ter of,.Coiirf'nuance K s: 2 . Staff report aa'Eed kook mbbt 18, 159 6 " } JWP:'SH:k•1`a t . pop - r. r is t,y�t i�i I Srtaf r r Repor t `12/t2/96 • i,`1 4r n: { , i,ry. 1 , I{r� t; r ,a{ + > > h ! i tr• r Ili ' �;��, ^rl a ..p;, I��d '_, ,. ,�';.u", .t,`;• ..yr ' t ri r !y'Nt .�it�, }, a�, �.,�t;•.r t�'„ ,f .'.r;' ,j try +y 't { r' ', • �.�`; f �'�.,e��({{ Fj}F, 4 r t, '� ( {, , �>.: y.Jn. r L +S +%•' ),f' {rr .:�/,+.��.♦j 7 +'�..' ';Y.j.. 7: + i„!,y'. ' Tl :., {a P&7TINSO1V ass�cr r s ,�aaaoM�rNsrRE�r aurr t 'i./� f ` ' ':.t ,a•„ NUMr'1NGr♦oN I�+acK,c fuFoRNIA V294 ; w( r�+sit • ` ' „1 � 1 ;+ � t r { r ' ' �•� t r r t Cj i r.el '� '� t}1 :S , fry J r'a :'Y.r •i tgT'+I. �• rr TO :auntingt'on Beach Pl'ahni:ngComvnissi'on t `:5� { �ttt ttI r, ^�' / +j ��.. { ^•1 r I • (( L t t.J(+ s fi 1 � " '�" y ?Y�r 'S:`. f t '7 t. {'•t r r.r" t �' j � f {i,,,. y , + E!•'ROM : Magna Col J rt <z rporat on DATrE Novem..ber 25, 1986 SUBJECT 'Condit�f,onal Use Permit No . 6•-51"/Tentative 'Trace r r 12896 t , Members of the Planning Commission : We'-respect f ul,ly request a ; Continuance on ;the above ''listed ' item. y• � , g 2; 1986 'to ttie second regular, . on our meetin of December ' ir meeting in December . sae• .are request inrg 't i ,,.,,. h s continuance t for 'the purpose of r,evisin' ' r f our ro osed 1`ans i`n "o t ., #; P P I?,. der .. t,°. address . the concerns` expressed at the meeting held on N6vemb6r,,. 24 ,�;t1986; between the developer, Sfa'Ff And FHun�ting6on °Crest 'hromeowners. `:. DecembeI heeb thmd sng , tima r 22 1986 �r wazwee' rnaEory proc. s� ? an th"isr ap' 1 ation . 5 y + 'UPS a •fully, Ro PAttinson,;;. ConsuItant/Magna Corporation i . r NJ- ,ter .� _ 3 I'• 1 r;. t'} • ll U, �• 1'- '3� tr vIpp py CONSULTING&GOVERNAIENTAL NEI ATIONSv. • •,- i oi, � , i .,, r ti,f,,' �.`�; r .,V.l Y r.,1fr{,•�r "•�� s i' e� }: • a+r�huntii�ton: b �i h'�sdev�lapm nt a0tv�c��} departrn Mint rf�ii� �f. .1, 1'1• . [I1,.7 ,Y ' Y J•1 S+•r N. ,. , 1 5.,t S} �" .5rA a 1' i' { f j ... ,A } R' ♦ •. r qZ C., t r, t I TO: Planning `-Cammias`i"on 'r1 FROM: E' ►bevel opinent: 3ervicea' DATES Nbvemtaer l8 , 1986 .tx. it' ' :!, t.+;,�s a f;ti ri. •�,�r F��1 tt.t+ .c .t •r ".ter - ,;+ , t, { i 5U8JECT: TENTATIUE. .TRACT , .12896 ,AND. CONDITIONAh' USF;,PERMIT > 86751 ; ,(CONTINUED:'FROM ' NOVEFiHEP. 51 1986 PLANNING ,. . COMMISSION MEETING) `r' k . ° .: .,`-'bt r a t ., •. ..'t, t +.rcN'�`13�:�6'} .s,'t . f +"l APPLICANT'S Do�i'g' Mason;; , D'ATE �ACCEPTE =� Magna Corporation c o er . 23 , `,:1986 ` 1Z0. West '5th . Street TT: Octobe 1986 Santa Ana, CA ,' a .,•. {{ . ,` MANAAORYPROCESSINGyDATE :� � OWNER: Retirement ,Fund ,.Tru et of Dee m er. the Pl mbin Neaten TT. Decemner ,12 "1 g t g • . 986 1 and `Piping Indii ttry� ,'of F �� ..Or , tp:..'. -.,r• � � l9,</Y-d Swthez n.' Ca l a furnits 201 E: `R2-PD E e t;; I VW;; -, i,,► �,;` y `f+, , Long Beach ,. CA 90806 .�"` GENE•RAL''�.PL�Ns �Mer�ium Density Res denti'al Y . REQUEST: To J develop' lls, _three _6f,+t s story `con'aominirim units EXISTING SE: Vacant 1 With special c i.a l e r m i t s _.._.._..__.....____. + P P I�nC,�►TION. South side of, Gat fiel'o ACREAiGEi 7 .'A. nit, acres tapproximately 300 _ fee 7 . 9E east ,'of 'Beach Boulevard .o ss, ace , .;t , 7 • 1 . 0 'SUGGESTED ACTION: , } Conti'nu`e .Con'di.tiona'1 pse Permit 'No . 86--51 an•d Tentative Tract, 12895 . f , .-,as requested by the appl#Cant . 1 2 0 ,GENERAL INFORMATION: r, Conditions t U.�e P specalperitsin. ,co with {ermit No . 86-a j with ; Te ntar-ive Tract 12609 c:�ae continued from the Novemher 5 19E6 Planning C mm scion meeting t'o 41'1ow time or ttie :v-ppl'i"cat t,�to suhm t revised 'plane n compa'iance with all regA it ent's `foie -,,o ned P BY :straw. ;vote , the �PZannin`g' Commissi�on : rLSidEnti`al develo' P . p �3. , - cleni �d ..all •sEven ,s ecial • ernu.t re uegts which ; pertain'ed ° �•o buil-d��ng ;" ' �� . Setbacks , building ,bulk elements, and open space area . ; , r , '• I " ur Tlie :'prohvsed project ' etritai.ls 11.3 "conclominiisms on -a 796 gross acre ,. si': :e known; as the ,old ' Fdison `..Man't:enance , yard property `.on tt ��,{,south ''` side of Garfield approxi�mately� 300 feet eazt :• of Beach Boule•�ard ;Ito SURROUNQING LAND": USE,'.'3 2ON'ING AND* GENERAL 'PLAN . DES• GNAT10NR:` North of Subject Property: , GENERAI. Pt AN DESIGNATION. MPdium,;,Density;:_-Re Ydential •.ZONE : `R2 3 ,; R .AND USE: AnA�rt:ments Y, o SubectjPrcpeCty. } GENE�2A"I. PLAN ''DESIGNATION : Low -JDen'sit �: Residential ZONC ' ,a ti Rl .'(single ,`faiialy�'-Res�i en iall) LAND .USE : Single family liomes South 'of Sub:Zect. Property: GE IERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Generbll Commercial : acid .L.ow, Density . . tes'x�ien;tia ZONE ' , ' ;R1=' 'J �c�.,- and � LAND 'USE' Commercial Center': and , single .'faini'1'y J resider�'ces west. o`E Sub ec t, Po, . " /j r pe r ty,: GENERAL )CLAN DESIGNATION: i"= ••eral ` Commercial ZONE ;;. :: .� LAND USE: ; . Commercial ' � 4'.D ENVIRONMENTAL•:STATUS : g.l Tl',e; proposeii,°pro"fect'` is cwerec3 under previously a`pprovza Ne'gat±i've ' De'cIarat•i•on No. 5 : 0 CQASTAL 'STAT4IJtS : No applicable . 6 :0 REDEVELOPMENT: STATUS : a Ttic subject 'prpex "y: �s within Ithe 'propo aci Bouleva `d ►,!" s d He p en`t ; Proaect : area . .This ' pro jectecotifor:�ns to theob pertwe Redevea'o m ski 01 i i •,, of ' the.' Reaeve.l'opment . Department'. 7 , o "gkC"z`FIC PE;AN: i Not: app'lxca le, Staff R,ep6rt JL1/`I818G `'2 L r� .� .:�? , ('66.72 j, r 86 0 SbU 'bZvI S IQN ' COMMITTSE: 01 .Gctotier 19 ; 3.98f;, .the s'ubaivisi.on Com}nittee ,met Eo; discuss` :« }Te'ntativ�� ^Tra t 12896 1or '=113 `con dominiu u`„+ats 4, ►'U 'dance -,were Commisaioneis ;:Liverigood, .arRd Pie�.ee, repreaeptatives*fx.om;, ha, ` Development`;;Se=vices r pe arkme*nt, ,Fire Departtgent, :Publi`cWork% art en t 'a d =t p , , fF. ff ni n heappl i ca'rit ., Concerns '`of taff� reg4ix'dingr:the. � �. ding bulk , and ,inconvenient . guest park ing'{ diatribut' 'on' were;bl � addresse'd : As "well ;:Publie ;_Works'. and ,'F�.re Den artment'?:conAitioiis suggested '' or the .development . " cti �draw� we Detailed se ' ,on "rid the . rapased be'* `in rade diffe9tencesaa°ld' bU. 'k1.M t.o,7h' f h�tebe'twbe'n '' r P, P m 9�. 9 �, , r.9 g the :''suE jecti. site Land adjacent . s3`ngle ';fami'ly :'rea ds ices ;Also a composite :elevat_on drawing from ,the "Gar field 'Av ;;ue, V.iew 'depicting y.• allfour buildings in relationship to the existing ' curb 'was recomm6fide'd . :z 9':70 ISSUES AND 'ANALYSIS : 1�.. ,n ;November 13 , 1966 , sta �� ece ved a ,, it", e�{-p 0 f r i revioed s t Ian and tfaoor , plans , of,'the sub3ect development ,.- a to 'th"eSt tl` to 'be s bmitt1ed e, revis;ed r elevations . .ciineraI calone?3Gax'f eld iteaplan in�:luder,;(1 � placement; figs :' setback o of . the four bu ildi �� f �20 , feet i`n lieu of .;34 to, 40 ::fee'e-'.-hetback 2 50% of the, units have the' garages set back , a v ac.commod . om ttie' main dri „eway 'male'' in orders to atimum �ti�0';feet : f r�n e 2 addit: anal . parking spaces `in, front .of t:h;osel 'urnits �, 9 Y P t•3 )• tha.'cm �,im ., eliminat�n the �necessit for . a s ecial oermi{t um : o Inquarey,rf ,. . common open space area has been reduced from_ 84 , ,^,t,� eet t 78 , 817 square feet ; some o£ the areas included in the ,o om on open . ' , •:. ., . ..aim �'• ,�,;: space ' requirement, ar,e less .than_, the min imam .20 foot ens on; (A � a couple of the buildings' .Have been< shifted up, to 11 feet~ }ci.oser to the exterior ,property ,li es; and 5 1 a .•5 ,- . , '; � , .. ,n, ,: ,:-t. ). 'a `1 ofjt:h�� ' 4 an �un �t buildings have a C type floor plan. wich has an average 5 fool offset between the second and third floor . The fol`lowin i.s a matrix reflect n an anal sis of th' 9: g . Y e toning 'code requirements and the revised condominium project plan . s Issue. (Section ) Requi"red P_ roposed Revue 'l b oo DBedr ni;tyt,.tln�.is i� 9 -units max . 113 units � Same drms , max . 309 -bdrms • 302 bdcros . (9150 . 4 ) S i t o Coverage 50% max . � . ' ame• � � 1505 � 283� s . Bu ildihq' `Height 35 ' max. 30,E -31 from -Same ( g150. 6 ) exiatin g. grade to 'avera9 P e _roof 'itch • ` 25 '-27 ' from berm. Staff Repor t - 11118186 --3- t 6 7 2d) {: q , tit •' :' i 'issue. (Secti"on ) Required r Proposed Fcon'ti �etba'ck �20 ' min'. 0.f setback for { , ,, 01� setba`c'�C 44 a b f T ( 915011 gh t e, ,` r n; nc �o p o r f • . 2 `t pz vate±�ga'tio enoe, * , , .,to b`lYdq`. , ,ZO, o,: s ' fake b1dg 'face . �2,��.:i `{:' , - , r ,.�• 'r r' ,, _ _ Y-•,�i it i 1. 1 Interior = Yard 'Bldgs . setback ';(9150 , 8) B1'dg's 11 .12--16:,;10.' .11 .'S � =45 ' ' ;1�1 ,`5.,_ 4 ' 1 ',it min':'; , 'B1'dgs . 4 6.';8 ,9 34 ' :3:A '-�37( 10 ' t' ;same i'ncrea'se's ' 1 !; ` for B1dgs .. 5,`10 : 43' '� =49 ! 45 ' &46i' every 2 °6" , of 'b•ldg,. s length exceeding dace }, : 25 ' ad nt to �. j Rl ) Bld Separation T ' 't91 • ( a ) t- ront to Front =35 ' 43 ' name t ; f , t ,. .. i►;.t . ;. ' 'r � *` "ter r s (b ) Ream to Rear 40 ' graidetlevel Same between -garage, Y li f ' botween• 'uPper Same* 34 r floors + (c ) `Side to Front `and/or ,%tear 2'0 ' 27 .1 + `26 ' + j (d) Side to-Side 20 (.two•is,tory: 20 (;gra de Same bId'g's ) ;: :25' (three elevated ';min' 4 , s tYory b'l'dgs in betwee : } ( h ) swelling unit. 15 ' 5: 5 ' to 10' on ,2l Same t to open . parking horizontal plane* ' spa'ce ft' Dwelling unit 15 6 to 1.,, on. aF 15 ; to :d r'i v eway a.>y . r hor�i'zonta3. ( 2 s'ituati ons ) , ( j ) 'Garages 'to 5 '; ' 5c� must be 20 8- ; t 18 . 58 with 20 ' S;O �,wit travel lanes setback* 20 ' setback ` Ald Bu1k (a) Max �6 UW1ts s g ide' 4 , . 5 , & 6 unit ;Same s bld( 9'150 12 ) `b side . Y °r g A ut�set � .,' in '0 ,offset C4 & 5 0 ' offset `L• roi t Bldg. :nit, blc3gs ) _ ,,� , (A un"i,t: facade for . r . ever y u . . Hof fset (6 nit ' . Z u'ni is bl d9• ') �'' .off set , (;`5&6. u n`r bld 's ; � 'jr *Special `Permits 9 sEa`ff Report 11/18/86 :.g ;'`✓/ ' JAW .. ..+• r.�,kg ai[M= ,:�i'r ' ��•S�d •`'`i�?'r� '7'JF:stT�s'RV3.'f' ' .;�' •ttiYlrAr..:.:..Ntt►'iRAGiFger«......::.:.....: MA,'^ugaw taue. iSe'cti'ori1 Rairod propo Rev�ise`d a tort' drop Albldgst � $ � � .,a Fe ame* i0 three #ores T . x `two 'toXy a r •Qpenli S pa c e (a')�;I i� . Fommon op rjOp 4 i, 9,0r40p sc� 'ft84 � 57 �q. t'. * 517 ' sq_. ` `ip "areal 96 , 080 scl ` 't Same, t 20`+' t;� ;� tWp 00h'.Oq`; three kedropMs Total; to 86 ;90p 'sq.' t , - irl Ppa Up difienion: ;I0 ' 14 ' Sane' (g) P trio'' arinot 10" t C Oun ard' W 3 .• _ . open Oi 'spac�.•e moat. , •_ - P p. gave: a Jn 1� t. '. dipe 'on, otal 177 3p0 ft . � 1 90 5 �s ft ,1.74 `697 ,•s, . �.� f S9. 8 . /_ �7 4,t r q Main:' ' t . 22 �500 sq,.hec, Area 1p�000 sq� ft. Min 25 30 , (9150: 14 ) t Min-,,'Unit Floor 900 ( two hdrm. ) 422 1 -535 .sq.`ft '. Same , (9150 15 ) • i , 100 lthtpe 'bdrin. ) 1 68b-1 ,:693 sq. fo. Park tn'g 2Z6 enclosed spacea .226 gagage 'Same 1915'0 . 17 ) 57 guest spaces 8 ;(47 throughout 93. -30 front of throughout ga�rges sEback 20' ) ;and 57 in ; front of garages ' • �w ,th '20 ' {Spec i a 1 Permlts �,,., Staff. Report 11118/86 -•5-- ,(.6,672d ) ,..'.,.L-.es,.M ..r..rr l!;C'•^`S.at�Ms>ar ...+f w�..++nla'J•aP..,. 9 . yr,.sJIT..«rML 1'a:f,v i.,.Y 7 ..}^ Nww r.. y three main concerns of t}ieR original, condominium development are reiterated ''wi the respect ;t'owar'�ds 'tae revised' plan dated ' November 13 , The .,fir"s� J. the huikzinEss `of;'-t+he ,three stot 1986 . structures . With the proposed berming ,:,the illUsi'on' of two»story u'` its ..s' n i s created,;; ' However , : this';•effec'c ` Ls 'pr`imacily' achieved or the buildings facing the,., 'central:'common open 'space area: Ttie oi'.ter 3 the sin le family' `res'iden'&6s,,Fwill also facing , bu1 I'd ings as 'scent tc� g appear two .story,,but on a four, foot ,high berm,,wh;'ch'`slo e.s,, to ;grade -e , el at , rY, 3 foot high structures,hwilibervisible � from Garfield Avenuesand the ad 'ace 3 nt single family residences . 0 Secon°c31y , the revised plan reflects the buildings along` Garfield back . A `block�wal'1 is 1`' on `oif iginal ..34to 40� foot eve�nue wxth a 20 foot, sett�ack ; in '�l��eu the i. proposed,,-IP_ P rty line 'along Garfield. Avenue , . The four bu.i,ldi`ns at 'an ' even 20 foot setback, along Garfield combinedeet scene. This can b"e mitigated b e fit-testes with solid black w . property „lin offsets c�.ntthe building facade, ; ccea Y;,,creating greater � • 9 9 Y p g greaEerndsetback ' for; ,every other building for, undulation and b tprovidin 1 cape pockets in the block wall along Garfield Avenue . Staff r building' e ,J; ' recommends that all -that is s.. have at „least one unit , 5 Y; . wo , uni is on the,':four--u'ni t buildings have height and ghat ever` t twolshots have awminimum four foot building line ��offset. Only 24 t y e two stories which is; lAss than the 37 z re qu`ired . As an o tion all end; units could have a ' 'minimum of 5 foot Q P_ � average offset between the` �secnnd and third . floors^ as originally , dep;cted in the 1984 revisE.d plan fore the- site . ' The',' appaic�ant has , proposed only one unit on the four and ' five'"unit, buildings with an average 5 foot offset between the second and third floor . A , thv concern , is the distribution anbewhIn liG kthereisedPlan The dpPanth .szncreasedthenumero ar ing spaces in front of each garage from 42 to. .•114 ,and has . reduced. :the number of '•separate parking stalls , f orn 41" o 3f; . • ,, the code states trhat the parking s aces :in front of„_the araces ,ma beused to �.. g . h y n _g p q ed „parki'ng spaces ( � . e . guest satisfy one of the required uncover • parking spaces ) . The applicant is. proposing that of the 114 additional park`.ng spaces in front of the 'garages .that 21 of trhem 'be parking ,Spaces'. , Due, the ',. counted,: toward the 51 guest pa to the size of , units and :the number , of bedrooms within each unit that the full 57 guest parking spaces should be provided a.�d evenly distributed throughout the project . Upon reviewing the revised plan it was noted that .portions oaf ' the common open space area have less than a 20 foot di"mension,,_ therefore ta�tecf areas the commoneaaenrsved acebareaeC1lt should to ;be -'incorporated as p p P be noted.c'•that staff received a partial set of plans on November 1`3 , 1986 ., and has not had sufficient time to due a comprehensive plan check of the project . staff Report 11/18/86 ..6.. 72d ) E F M1°yr1:Yi,':°�tYAsi. fYrr�lrY ) C`C -SPECIAL PERMIT REgUESTs. F 1, • '!. , - - �� •-• , �,•,'/ i 1: 4..+ ., ,+� ` , .-.p •F , � •' .,, r. rt i�ix*'l 1t�`ij .;C;S' ,.{"7q At the <Plat; n otnmiss on: t .; [ i g G i meeting�,,1a11 �,set�en spec ail. %perrmit regl�ests n t a t LThie a' la dint was . adY odd';to revis ..w". ,, r. rr �., Y PP h.e }, , - ;,The `;or a ,. ere' de ied b tenf1all ecbnform, a ginal ro ject- to sub with th'e, PRD :B andarde. special permit requests Were , as ,f"Itows '' n foot higgh>:.wrot�ght, iron fence along the front property:, line i t; 1°i.esi of a 70 foot' setback . i i tl. 2. A„ 34 'foot bu 'ld ng 'sf'para on .beaween . oppos`i e: second a�d� . Lh'i`rd, Y; floor rear` elevationrs ('driveway sided in lieu of4`0' feet t, f 3. Six feet { to Io feet s , ,. eE6' from dwelling unit to°'driveway ' in ' lieu of 15 feet': . Provide 20• ,feet ' setback for garage' from drive a'isl•e For IS: 6% ' 21 of the units in lieu Hof ` 50% ( 57) . 5 . Provide:_ no offsets in , front building facade 'in . 4 an'd 5 unit buildings, in lieu of 4�"feet . SS 6 . All •three stoi�.y ' unit6 in lieu of one=third (37 units ) being, two l story. >' I� 7 . A common open space area of •_84 ;400 • square feet in lien of 9:l;�00 square :feet : The , follo�r,ing .spec al ;:permit ''changes have been 't' fleCted on the revised Plans '.dated November 13, 1986i` • 1 : Has been .changed from a r'raught iron 'fence,"to a decorative blt ,. ock wail on , the -front pibperty like; special permit still necessary: ` permit still. 2: .No change ; > special required. ` 3 : Revised ,plan .conforms: special p0i'rn t• not necessairy .. ,, 4 : Revised plan conforms; Special permit not flecessary. 5 : Five . unit buildin contains re uire'd 4 '-foot offsets; special permit f needed for tour unit bUildfng only because no offsets are provided .' 6 : All buildings contains at least one C-unit, t�lpe as an; end unit 'which " has. 5 foot average setback between the second and third 4 fto�irs; ' special 'permit still - required . 'Common- 7agnate, �feetr7 • , � � ta en reduced to' . 61 sPeialPermi etillreqiicea The special permit process waa ,designed 'to enable 'deviations 'to" the ertrits�:,t•esulted •,ih a more raestheEl�'call 9 ` that ` these• special; Manned residential develo merit standaryepleasineda P p ppearance, ,enhancEd 1. living enVii.ohihent -for the resideiitcee ''of the pro jest; and/or 1'' Staff 9'*pbrt 11/18/86 7 ' 4 I •k .. , • • t • �Np acilitaC;e �.nnovative arch�;tectural`ide��. n' Wit the,�exc ption special;; permit request: ti , the deyiat �Jc';ode o r ,:; J isns9-t`o� ttie ,do P t,r.confo ,.. r th'e; ob'.ject�.ves . q .f,. •. 4 , iron : open° space . is The' re "uest ' for 'reduction ink com compromised ,.by, the in'�-:rea`se: o'f ` private,,, open,'spa°ce ::provided, i-n the form �.. ,..- y • P} of ` private . 'Patio areas ad3acerit .to each ivsng ,uiif t . ,. i,. . 'Also' , th e�, ma n recreation area is mor`0%°:than Twice . the sire required' by `code: - r. h!•�•Ve ,� .y rt�4rf j i\ `Jt'1!'J!,t�j1��r _/'�}ST-� �.�' ��,,•r�•`YF,�I!R�.r�•�. `fir 1\iffy'' 1 J•� ` Th a aPPI" , i`cant ,t�as ,madean�tattempt•: o;'mitigate;,some ;'�of'� thetconcPrns of. t .q.or•.... -,a ••w•.�a. Ehe`,PlannLng` CJMMISs' ion 'and the adjacent neighbor's�,�� h'owe`ver , there ale` -additional :Arcs►.I ete aural design` changes, driveway �and parking ' layout • -•r 'a r e - ved to:' oxide a more ` �.. changes; and ' open ,.pace , areas' •khat` can � b achie pr ae theti'cal`ly p'1`caeing 'evelopmenrt. .. A .,., re ' ,:" , ;. f �l .` :, r •AJ r �yai '7,• .l�v ti v:.t ':r, � • i. At the Plarmng ,Commission' meeting, shaft ::way: directed to respond , each re request made b the HuntLn ton Crest ' Homeowners '•,'group (see ,'attached . „, mended °modifi'cations � letter ) q The following is :a resonse to recom , •i't,,. i •,,... � ,• r l . a . o• •eate .,. ' �.n'j:he', *eEures wrthin the complex `. Hei tit - The requirement thatfall stru r. compromise; ' mi ht" be to limit he • . ,h t fort seems �extirIng A ' e n g ter two - stories g ; ' g igR r : thro"se `b'uild`ings closest } to the sLn 1' g e fa mily, residences. to,' 'two�stor 'es . , ;:This. woul d minimize visual impacts upon tte, si ngle 'fami ly residences : ' LRt�� .: ' l . b Archr. ecturah` St le. Harmonious.. archi'Eecture '`.is most,jdes i r eab'le P `d�:'ctated 'kin" 1 • ,,+,.e�!elo :mentsc, The, architectur-e ',rsJ`tYPically.y '.. for: sma• - Th is .pBrdelnis.I-arge, ,enou'gtittonwaSrran'tn'i is f-own or ' `ctuzal h`eme ; Without :de't. acti , trom '.the character of compatibility.. t e . ar,chite 9 i. r building mterils fgi�d arc hitec da a � � �Tur ther.e ;�are a�,varietyr Hof ral elemens''which c'ou1d , enhan onducivo .to, th'e :area Des rf the :project and ;make it .more C i'gn `,Review Hoard review. and ':approval is recommended. l . c Un'it Or'ienL•at1on The ma"rity`�oE, the . building unit 'front`s •Tare. I' buildings IMest�ofatihs •` the single FaM g e proposed units ,wi l j, have a `40 foot or greater `'distance from the rear of the single family residential bui1'ding. l . d Lands . ca pin Addi'tTonal. landscaping , can b'e <provided 'and':'or'iented perimeter of the .property .t,o . 'create a, park''`like ' mosphere and obscu , family residences , re any visual intrus_on upon1ttie sing le iI 1e Gradin and Drains e A grading„ and drainage plan must tie,. i reviewe an approved'; by .the -Department of Public Works--,'an& building permits, Department .nat,, only•: pr`iarJ'to ',the: issuance of Dc.veloptnent S P its, but 'prior, :to final approval of '`the'-',xcact Map . All drainage will be designed so all Water flows `towards''`Garfie1d =; Avenue. , 1 . f sewer '- In addition 101 hel drawni e ' plat., a 'soils.-report., is necessa9 . ! flow Cory . Both will . be. .r . fee to determine. adequate : waver Garfield and the' 'possfbility of water seepage . A t ' } Staff' Report -- 11/18/Ob g,. (6672d) 1 . g Tea1ffic. Garfield Avenue -is '+designed to, accommodate the• proposed F` sca e._; of::de��elopment . S� eciFic sheet improyemenEs; are,-; tequ red to improve• move� xom Garf ld onfo and ' offi' of khe subject ent e property. r, 4 • r 1 :h Mall •:-- An ei`ght='foYot` decarative;:'r�all along e�, st j ti ea ern and s-ouftern property 13ne .wi11 miti' ste some no Is . -.""1Yl .'....,17 �5`,*trii<' f. ^ 1 - Y - r u1 4„ ,. 1z.e s i: c T c� ,4• fi u.1, , Y 1. • .. la ''i 1`. Develo menk. A r:ee.menk ` .Th'e; use of` ...development agr:eemenk is not app ica e�,Ie0caus conditi`enal approval 'as ` partcoedit o ' nalse.: permit prociess,js equ•al Iy. e.nfor`ceabl•e 'anc� ach"'ieves the .samepurpose 2, w6 ' un �'tiours -- The ' sug`bs d hours of:.. operatiQn '{(7i00 AM to 5: 00 <., PM on ay tirough Friday). � ie more : t'ringent :than '�the "H`ubtington ., a�each,� Municipal Code i7 :OC-' AM to 6 s 00 ' PM - Monday through Saturday) . 3 . Rodent �o ;, .:, ;.. :.; .•• most a ro ntrol A rodent eradication plan ` is ; pp priate ue o:, .the size of , the lot: and its proximity to the'' single ' family residences: RECOMMENDATION: .1 . taff rVeom ends continuance oA. Conditional Use Permit No . 86 S x 5`1; and 4 ' 1 Tentati. Tact 12896 as requested by t e applicant 11 . 0' ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO . 1 : `..� The 'Plannin .Commlssion . ma den Conditional •-Use`, Permit 'No', 1`66- anc3 Tentative Tract 12896 based on the following `findings ' fo'r 'denial 'FINDINGS FOR : DENIAL, - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.' NO. 8G�51: l . , The proposed 113 unit coridominium,,project:Ywi11 b'e ' detrimental` to : .the ;general health, `,welfare', safety pand convenience of `persons residing or,; woxking 'in ;;ttie neiahborhoad, ;'orto.',the .value"of ;,the . .,.,,,. property, ano ,'impro�rements "in the nei"ghbbihood 'due " to ;the amount of special permits., : 2 The, proposed 113 unit condorii•ni, M project will 'not be compatible " with:, nelrroun'ding two-skory: aingl`e family, res 'aences '-to `tie . east an•d south", because of the bulkiness and three,-story : height of `the pCopased bUildi"ngs . ' F. 'INGS ' OW DENIAL , SPECIAL PERMITS: FIND _ ' ,. 1 . The seuen •. reques s for. spec permits will ,"note promote ;'a better Y.. , with maximum"usenofnaeathetide . , . laving en" ' / p better land planning ° techniques cally ,pleasing' architecture.. '2 . The .granting of even bpecia'1, permits will .bey detriment ' x to the rneral, h6e 1fh A e sa`fety an Y 9.• and det'r , 'd convenience 'af the , .:welfar , neighborhood; ,.. , imei�ta3 ,to, the vaIue�.of pcopeiiy , and,�or , i`mprovements'-`af the neighborhood . , • Ska'ff Report 1118/86 9.. r r 6 67x Y 1. •i:, i' ' ., 1t �•�, 11 r1ii�� , ,. t t'.j f1Y+- ha yy •.1�' ' ' F fY 3 . Theme. special..lpezmit;: :requests�r- am,po ent`�aitfi7 E obyjectives of they pI"aned�,resfdential ,.zaevel"opment standards, :Ln —. f s , achi`evi.ng' a clev'elopment adapted `' to the terrain"and ,compatible: th tiie su-rrounairig `environ'men't '•' , a .fYf ,; ..NT t yt.•� r t .•- .7i7. .•1 hi.Y . ,a "�' y ,r r'•' r. FINDINGS FOR' DEAL`=,,',-- TENTAT'IVE TRACT'-NO.1-x12896 .� r. ,.r Al �� 1h. r... : `i.; t ,YJ l� <t1,1S }:p, ",l� t�A 'd b: i�}1• Y •.' , "t � . The, site ,.a nok physicall ' su 'kable for� .the roposed. density of 14 :5 units er acre Y� r '" p _, an'd tiype ,�of "dev�el` pment pr'o"posEd: The btttiIding, bulk and `thre'e-story. height ;from eXi*st ng 'grade is " not conducive '.to the site. 3od 12 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION No. -�i 1„a�! iF.� t• , 1 S:j,' I ",.•.. i .''iSPil ' , -' '• ,'.1 •> •.`! 9.' PP:. y ditLonal Use Permrt';No .:..86 Th'e{;P1`annxn Commission '' ma a rove, Con and .TentatiVe',,'Tri ci. 12896, as''` modifi6d .by staff based on 'the folaowing ; findings an con'di7tions 'or approval : .:•i.=tire, :U•r ! tt. �...t, «�Ca,V4� • '. ! S•1 .`,h ,r, 's : '. 'i`' 'FINDINGS w CONDITIONALS<-USRE; PERMIT•'"NO. 8651 ''AND TENTATIVE TRACT 112896 i 1 . Tile proposed , slibdiwision �of this 7 . 9G acre parcel of land zoned y;'Residential, . . ,: R2, Med um- Densit is proposed 'to' De., ,con, having �-:�5-. units per gross acre,, i i ' :L, � •�1t .:.t t 1 j 1 tt i 1 i 4 � l is•i.yt, •• _ s . . ; ,:. .�:,. r�th •_ rov ' s , '., ,� , � .,•r.+ .. ' entatiorn . p sxons .for ahs s :type of land' The General: Plan hti'n fo provisions i r„ { as et• forth ' rovi ''use as well as aet ,•g ons 'fo_ � the -implem ii of this type of housing. 3. p P �, Yt. . p Y �,. , . Y , '. ed for/..this xntensit of .land Y. Th,e ro ert was revxous�l stud'i use at •'the time the„ land use des�gnati'on' in" _the R2�PD zoning designation were placed or. the subject property y •. 1 , • r 4 . The, conditional use permrt and 'tentative tract are '`consistent , , ..with _the ,goals and policies of 'ttie General ' plan. 1 , �wy`s `IL ,: S , ,p; ltd�•iftF}�: r�; ,. t e x s relatively,. flat �and physically .suftable' .foz the - _,proposed density and .type : of " aevelopmerit'. , Proposed density,! i 1'4 , 5 , un`i is er 'acre wh � , ich allows, 'for 'adequate bu'i!]:ding layout-, open space and tra • c cxrr n 'FINDINGS SPECIAL `PERMryIT: The,, ori nta'tib of each of th'e dwelling :units ,,onto common aandscaped ,areas keep each wri t via 'at''priva'te peti'o,, will, help 'to y; ensure ; maximum privacy 'for "thQ , residents c�ithin ' a'=project of thi:� dens i ty, Thr��ur2�t, the us t; , ,r P - P t. , ically ;. ,E P 9t `gate 2 � leasLn architecture ;and• .s ecial deli nE arials; � a u'ttib e of landsca ed lant n ,> ", , cons , techniques,' surrounding ils�s ,•�fll ha in'' m ��d `imp _' � . •�_. " , , act .din "the �, ve a: m x ire • prot)osed-,,, -ro ject., and , in turn , the proposed pro'je`ct �wirll 'not 6e deti�i`mental :to. :the `°yeneral health ; '.wel'far.e, 'saefy acid , , + l., convenience of.' the neighborhood or the 'City ;'ln ,,general:` ' Stafjf IRe ort' 11/lfl/86 _1p_ «,r� , r P,. 2d 6 e t 1. .'C. � ,a.. 'eat 1 3: Thr.,ou h! the 'use::of' prigate and,_commo:� open�:;space aeas ''•and key maxim 2 kn ,�th*e �use 'of. desthet1'6ailly .r leasing _,types or _ i~ ' .architecture, the proposed":'pro"ject .,w 'll'=OrovWe.,6 better 1`iving environment, _ ify' v 9; 4 ., I . '.i r kt l• r ` � '� r ' �i" < lif` :. ` 1 + r tj. <:{:'� N 1,': -•Tk it � r c, Y,.. - i '.,4; h �; ;The', to . . ' , F �.. �;.� - •' , t ,, depth , ' rontage {street width ;and"� hroughr the use ,�,, a des .,: .xa P . ;ofa, special,, perm� t',., 11oh rµ+f. f'gn a µ,r: m 1'ementator� feat ,res - of ,,,the ;pr,oposed_ pro fec+t y are proposed.4.to-,be constructed .e e �.ncompliance wi th, :'s,Land�r. ,`plans;, ani specifications on `f ile w`i th ttie"City as well.. as ire. compliance .wi_th the S�:ate Map : Act and supplementary Cityz . :subdivision ' ordinance: - 5. 'The :�fol,lowi`n s e`cial ` permits for a vi.a'tions to th•e :requirements ' g,.- P of -Article 935 are necessary for , an `.imp'roved sitg layout anc des a . th34'. f fot' bui'lda;ng :separation between''opposite ='second:'.an,d 1Gor rear el;evations ,; driveway side } in lieu of 40. feet `. ? b. Si'x: foot to 1"O,. .fcot setback :fromjdwellin unit to driv-ewa,` �. g Y and parking, spaces in lieu of 15 feet, c. 18 .'6% '(2]. } of 'the un:ts. to have 'a 20 foot garage setback. . from drive aisle in lieu of 50% (57) twa store story units 'in Dieu of one-third { 37 units } bei.ng }: � d • Y • }, r e . A common open space area of 84 ' 400 square ! feet 'in lieu of ' _.. .90 ; 40a `square feet . CONDITIONS .`0F L ' CONDITIONAL APPROVAL J. - NDITIONAL USE',PERMI'T' , 8 6-=51: , }? ' 1 The : si` p , rl .o cezved and }`dated r to lane ' floor lane, and elevations . re x; Octi, ber 7, ;19g6 , shall be ' revised depicting the mod J.f'icat fons . 'de'sCribed herein : , a Reduce ',•.the, height by..one story or 1'ea one ,.. . ,, :f a't ?, st;. � , un� t within •� ;each ` bu ng;� unit , or provide •min`imum 5• foot Offset - between ' 'the; second and third floor bn each end unit. ' 1, . ` Prov ide ,,minimum 4 •foot 'of fs et, for .every two -units :,at 'every . building. c. Delete the'` 6 foot high wrought fence alo-ng the .front property line . r' d . Distribute - guest parking spaces th'tough'out ;the devel©pment by . relocating some to the end 'of Buil•ding ' "8 - t u . Reduce bedroom count to•.maximum 3b2 Staff . .Report 11/18/86 2. Pr�ox tri��s'suance cif building ;permits, the' appl`fcant . tt 11 sut�mit the`+'fol'lowing plans : ` r Y• �,�s, f, , is - .. r j , ', a . Landscape and r r f4 t ion Milan' to the Department of , �bevelopment Services and Public Works for review and : 1 � t� r appr`o%, 1 l arr s t l r ea 1'andsca ed area` shall have its own seirvic b The _irrigat` a d er s with '=a ro ed 'backfl .. n ,met t ) pp w Y ow 'devices e s 3 ural ;'gas, sha ll "ke s. ubbed ,'•in ret}�ahe location9 bf cooking Nat " . fac`i'li't1es water heaters, and .central heating =units. 4'. Low-=volume heads s used on all spigots and water! faucets . hall t he r'. frni.{ ..'' , C-JI-, f 1 :•!. fi. • y � ••; T ti, 5: A11 building spoils , such as nusable lumber w�ce, pipe and the �sur `lus' or. unusable material ` sh'a'11 be�dis osed -of at an o r .p.. r P c: off -site • facility equipped 'to` handle; `them : ' If Aia titing' is ;.included in the park rig loft, higti ; ty 6, va ~ A1J.r'outs'id'e` :odiun for energy_ say, , P = , por ,Yampo, shall `be used �s 'j1`la e" onto ad�a lighting shall' be . directed to `prevent cent pr'opertips 9 truck 'rou'te al 7 sti be h'1 sh'e to b ie ed na a`ppr 1 esta i d e trey w ' a oved b h`e : Devzlo 'ment ' Ser'vi'cesDe" artmen* �n�t Publ'i c Warks y P P ' Department.. at ,addresses number ` of tirucksj' :truck ' '' ute, dust control , etc, l a . Truck ,del ivEr i itial l r be `'Sl`irni`ted '`to' . Mon'day:. through' Friday: 'only► between 7 .M AM :and 8,: 00 PM. ' ,! '�' - .,.. ." 1, y -+ +"tir ij y �t :• �.;. .i(r ,1,•a,t ' , 8, CC&R ' s shall b' submitted,`--for 'review and,_ap roval 6y th`e City . r, _ .., o t Services : Depar,tment i.n: .accordance' with . I� " d Attorney an LevelAmen Ariisle 915. IONS-'OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE ,.TRACT- 12896i 1 • Tenativ,re Tract 12896 A'i d"Octobe'r -7 '1986 sha11 be th'e r ,approv,ed layout. t y ,e:. J ". 2 : Gari:ield Avenue shall be .constructed :with 8 _.Foot wide sfdewal� 3 i, , ,. 4. ",....'., r . ( Teritati.ve' Tract Map showis narrower ' ross-sections ,idths �n ,c 4 - which is wrong ) . 3 . The sewer system shall be private , but' 1constructe'd to - ,t Publ'ic Works St•a'i Birds. 4 . The on site water ;system shall be. pub"i ic, and shall be =1'0catecl ln �' '•' yeh-icular ' travel ways Drily , 5, Each -unit ,sh•all,. have ' ts ','own. ihdIviadal water . servi-ce . and 'irieter with a�• roved do,uble check back£lo' device. Staff 'Re oic t l l.18/8`6 -1 2 , r• 6 : The and � `pool%recrea'tiio b"u'` 1"d fietez With sppcoved backfl'oW' irlg„ hail have ,its own service de'v i ce «i y . Parking sha11 ohib be pr i ted on Ca r f`i eld Avenue 8 . Access a rihts:�to 'GZrisi�'�ld :��...i�'r. ,, `?,� r, ;-. r f;s..'t Avers exce . ue shall be""dedi'cated to tilie. G p,t a� .-approved z''entr3nce,'to :`pr'o jec.tt ` 4 ity . Av' r,1 ,� 9 . G rfie d ha ei -s aa enue ll he . i �� . r r r ` ,4 and out of : P minadate y ed the u pzo�ect . ,� , to -deco r .. f , 1 . t t ns: ins ire r i va' `e "4s X,='�'w �, p t ,s�reet�.. shall -be' designed : to l the'.Gi kyl' s �..., 4.priv9uttEtreet standards,-and Fh' 24 foot width does not include the ~` s .� `see Standar ` . a 1l`• If, _the' er� ranee is gated, r x the securi,t} approved A by ti e �` ga"te Iocati`un °'sha`I kiie Department' of PUblf'c Works a nd ` ';sha11 =hzi've an -approved . turri-around , 12 . 'Al1 missing ; or damaged publ`i'c im ro.ve y ,.tf per -Pubil'fc Works P me'nts shall a constructed standards . aveme"y 13 . A p nt ' evaluation of Car fiel'd Avenue sh,Alt ,`b'e con'ducted 'k y qualified fzrm 'and: ,ttie icesul'ts., submi'ttec7 ` to ;thex C'itx' The opeP e�ia'1 inproveme'nts. aevuiredr is res onsible 9 tract 'the ' rem t•o cons - t r Y h 14 . 9Y h a , . H �i'rolo , ,. Y., and raul�ics for the site, •shall be a ` ` Department 'of Public Works . pproved .by th`e Utilities - on Garfield;;Avenue shall be' bored unless;'oth'erw"is ,e ; " approved by the City thgiii �t 16 . Automatic sprinkler systems , MUST be installed throu ''''" buildings to -comply wi .,qh out ` �th, Nunti.ngton Beach Fire ' pep. rtmeht; and ' Uniform Bui1ding Code Standards 17 . A f ' alarmMUST- be s I ire system MUST j�e s �p:i w ' h 96}nt ;. . , Y Bea��:h Flr,e Department `and 'Un�:form1F`i` t° ,.com i re Code ` ng Y Em .MUST StEndaz`ds: Th`e s st provide the fol]:owxng • ' ;a � .Water fl w, " _ . ° ; • OwNa"lve tamper and -tr6ub1e - ,• b. 24 hou r . ,: supervision•. ' de�erti"on C. Annuni,cation . d: Audible alarm . . 18 . F`i L e .e'x ti nguishers MUST be instahl1ed ,f �i wl th a l oca ' Ftecrea `c:ump-Y � HU`ntiriika .: he:;, '; ;.• ted �n on Room to on eeach 'Fire Cade Standards. 19. Four. "(4 ) :fire hydrants ';M-,US,T be rl •; d • insta le pr"ior `to co' t construe 'ion`, t =Shop ',dr rig MJ mbus ST ;die b1 ubl i'c subr�i tied� t`o , p . Works ;-Da artmerit and appr.cvP"d. by' thP ' ite ,Depttrt`ment rior ' installs a - tibn .` P t7 !, 1141 Staf f Repo t 2r 1/18/86 1 er f;�;• ' ,. .,1 t. 1 ,.t �f',! t ,4 t{ `' t =1 '�i'.,� —, '• r -]L ,,,f. -.r V .l'a rrr,.j_4 - .. •,,',`•r :'1.,. ., 11 45�, •, it i ! . i' i. ' 4 , r�^•Y, '�13t�'��T�� ,f\. .. ... _. ...........•+«;:v ..�!{"`-L.R• •i.. a.\.... ...+\.+s...owr.r..«.�.�_:.. . ..w.rfr�a�.'""^'.""'• ... •��'�" 20 . If security gates are installed , they ,MUST be 'designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 403 . C' . 21 . Show additional dimensions on plans for 17 x 45 foot fire -,access radius turn to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 401. . All streets must be installed with all weather surface prior to combustible construction . 22. Names of streets MUST be approved by the Huntington Sea�.h Fire Department prior to use to comply with Fire Department �Staisdard 409 . 23 . Tentative Tract 12896 will be required to dF,,tain ,a 6-h6ur 100-year storm vGlume on-site . ATTACHMENTS: 1 , lett er dared November 14 , 1986 , ;requesting continuance. 2 . Concerns from neighbors of original plan dated November 5, 1986 3 . Staff Report dated November 51 1966 JWP : SH kla . r 1 r t j • r { Stdf£ `.Report, 11j18j86 -1'4A (`66�2d j j PA7'TXNSON &ASS off: :Es � '�� r8 ft.- AINSTREET-SVIM290 (7N)d11,Si62 NUNTINM- NREACH$CAUFORNIA 91648 To : Huntington Beach Planning' Comml'ssion From : Magna Corporation Date November 14 , 1986 y Subject : Conditional Use Permit No . 86-51 Tentative Tract 12896 - � Members of the Planning Commission : We repectfully request a continuance on ' the abo,tre listed ite■ oin your meeting of November 18 , 1986 to the first regufar Meeting In December . We are requestiing 'this continuance for the purpose of`' addreeeing ' the concerns of the residents as voiced at your last regular aeeting. I Res ' tful y . on, Pa ttinson Consultant/Kagne Corp . 4 ,f . ' CN WNTINGTOW..-KA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. Box 190 '��48 Huntington` Beach, CA .o , ,r�. 'r COASULTIM9 4 GOVERNMENTAL R�I�ITIpNS t - .Jt►�,wl+.—....- •. .. ts?+n•......�r.«... +--'^+r............ ._.....,,..........+....r...::.....-.►1KtNA� �,,..�ss -J .:4t1'{11{�'}erir A ;,.. �" huntkpton beach develop y. nt servic4a der p riftme. ntST4 f f • EPOR, mood , TO: Planning Commission FROM : Development Services DATE : November 51 1986 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-51/TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 APPLICANT : Doug Mason , DATE 'ACC•EPTED Magna Corporation CUP: MOM 23, ,,1986 1 120. West 5th. Street TT: October 23, '1986 Santa Ana , CA MANDATORY" PROCESS I NG 1.DATE: OWNER: Retirement Fund -Trust of Id UP: acem er , the Pluiibing, Heating TT: December 12, 1986 and Piping 'Industry of Southern California ZONE: R2-PD 4456 E. Hill Street.1 r t Long Beach , CA 90806 GENERAL PLAN : Aediwr � ensi y es dential REQUEST: To . develop 113, three- f story condominium units EXISTING USE: ; °Vacant . with special permits `--J LorATION: South side of Garfield ACREAGE: 7 . 38 -net, acres . approximately 300 feet 7. 94 gross acres east of Beach Boulevard 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No . 86-51 ' as modified by staff and Tentative Tract 12896 based on the findings and, conditions ,ot o approval outlined in this report . 2 . 0 � GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditona? Use Permit No . 86-51 in conjunction with ntatiive Tract 12896 is a request to develop. 113, three storycondominiur.�s :on a 7 . 94 gross acre site known as the old Edison, Maintenance `Yaid. property on the south side ,of Garfield approximately .300 feet east„ j. of Beach Boulevard . In.' addition , six special permits are re pertaining to building setbacks , building bulk elements , � and -ooe'n space - area . Th.Qy are as'. follows ; ` < A•ra49311 V 1 . A 6 foot high wrought iron fence along 'the front property line in lieu of a 20 foot setback , ti se aration between o ositesecond and. third .,,. 2 . A 34 foot wilding p pp floor rear elevations ( driv6wa'y aide) in lieu nf: 40 feet . ' ' 3 . Six feet to 10 feet setback from dwelling unit to driveway in , lieu of 15 feet . 4.. Provide 20 feet setback for garages from drive aisle for 17% ( 21 ) of the units in lieu of 50% ( 57 ) . 5 . Provide no offsets in Front building facade in 4 and 5 unit buildings in lieu of 4 feet . 6. All `three story units in .lieu of one-third ( 37 units ) being two story. I,. In 1980,. a ll3 unit condominium project was approved -on the site,.•This 'plan was , contai swo. ghtly revised in 1984 . The last, approved, �plan ned 113 m units with speci..Al. permits for building bulk and open space. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE , ZONING AND GENERAL - PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North of Subject Property : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential f ` ZONE: R2 and '`R3 LAND US P-: Apartments t .� '{ East of Subject Property : GENERAL PLAY DESIGNATION: Low Density .Residential Zot4E: R1 (Single Family Resi.dentii,l ) t ' i LAND USE: Single family , homes South of Subject Property : 1 - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: . General commercial and. Low ,,Density, Residential 'LONE : C4 •anr' R1 ' • .. `, ` residences. i.ly , ;•, LAND USE: Commercial Center and. sing le fam' West of Subject Property: r . GE-NERAL FLAN DESIGNATION: •General Commercial ZONE:, c4 LAND (I SE: G'cimmercial Staf t. Ropor t 1 6 l/5/ 2_ Y .-� ( 6 5 7r0d )' 4 . 0 . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered under previa11aly approved Negative , Declaration No . 0 COASTAL STATUS : Not applicable . 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Tee subject propert is within the p Y proposed eea��li Boulevard development Project area . .his project conforms to the objectives of the Redevelopment Department . 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PL".N: Not app.licatle . 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: On October 29 , 6 , . th .. _ us ].98 a Subdivision Comm.,ttee met .to -disc. s tentative d units I� atten entative Tract 12896 .,for- 113 cot► ominium dance were • • Commiasioner•s Livengood . and Pierce, represent dtit�es,;from the_ Development Services Department; Fire Department, Pibl'ic . 7orks Department and tile. appl'iceiIt . Concerns of staff ' regard`iit'g the ' huildl.ny bi�Jk and ,inconvenient `guest parkin dia g ribu tion` we*-e addressed s c- a_ w_11 as public Works and Fire Department �cbadition8 .,, suggested for the development. Detailed section drawings were requested 6 order to f 1 'evaluate i the proposed berming, grade differences and building `;height; between the 'subject site and adjacent - single family residences „Also', a composite elevation dr awing from the -'Garfield. Avenuedepicting recommend�+d all four.:.bJ'ildings in relycionghip to the existing curb was . 9 . 0 , ISSUES AND ANALYSIS : The proposed . candoniinium 'deve,lopment con_ sists of._113_ three-story 9 � , 9 • ranee fromale922nsfuare feet ' todlsbx unit buzlfl�n s Unit size's i 9 . 9 :grade 1 . Wi' h ;two an'd three bedraom5 lus a family room. , At existinuare _feeteVel i8 a two cat P q garage.. -two upper floors comprise the habitable �ar',eas p� roximat:el 4 000 cubic arda .of : A � ' an artificial - gr fronaia ill be impor.,t0-d to, :create s ndwsldes; .of each' bu�,ld create . the aarance of two sto ing t° ade aro�fnd the PP ties g►-ade to- rooe: 'peak,, is fee dj �.irrom a n;j 3 t- . D u i'� ��g . . ., teri�r� b Ex .. h`zigfit '. �isti ing, ma eriaJ s inc tide _ masonite siding and stucco walls ,, aspnalt shi'7gle raof• ''a��d xesawn cedar trim, Overall. 'architectural st le is of ,3 ,Y '`"Car; ��:od' f 1,4 vor . i Stat r RE•poct 1 ./S%S 6 � �' ;. t 65 Od, The , following is a Zoning cOnform]nce breakdown, of the proposed project . Section Lasu'e Re uire 1 ,• q d �Prop'osed 9150 . 4 Density-Units 119 units max . 113 '�units -Bedrooms 301 bdrms . max . 309 , bdrms . 9190 .5 Site Coverage 50% max. 28 . 9% I 91_'0 . 6 Building Height 35 ' max. 30 ' -31.' from existing 'graaE to a erage,,roof tch; ."25 '-27' from berm. 9150. 7 Front Setback 20 ' min . O ',.setback ;for .wrought iron fence; 2o',t.,to pr va tie .,ga t.i'o ' wa1 s'; 34 ' to Bldg.. face, r 9150 . 8 Interior Yard Bldgs . 317 , 8 :.: 17 :_ 20 1, 'BE.aback Bldgs . 111 2-16 : •10 ' 11-.'5 ' -45 ' ( ] 0.,1 min . ; Bldgs . 41 6 8 ,9 : 34 ' 14 ' :increases 1. '. for Bldgs . 5, 10: 43 ' every, 2' 6' of bldg . length exceeding 25 ' adjacent to R1 ) 915(1 . 10 Bldg. Separation (a ) Front to Front 35 ' 43 ' s (b ) Rear to Rear 40 ' 90 ' . at, clrade,' Level between, garages i 34'. between upper f�oo'rS* ` ( c) Side , to Front and/Oir rear 20' 27' ( d ) Side to Side 20 ' ( two .story 20 (grade:• bldgs ),; 25 ' ( three elevated mxn . 4 storybldgc•. ) in between;.bldgs .` ) ( h7) Dwelling, runilt•; 15 ' S . 5`' to, 10 ' on, a to.- open ,parking l�or'f ontal plane ` space i we I> ng. unit 15 6 to 10 4n .a to 'driveway horizontal plane Garages to- 5 ' ; 501► 'must be 20 ' 8 '; with 20 ' r travel lanes ' baOk aj�c?cialt:, pernfits : Si t.'tl,x - 1' ' f Re��ort"` . 11/5 8fi -4� ,, 6570d )' Sect i on IscWa keg,uireo. Proposed, 1 • 9150. 12 Bldg. Bulk ta ) MaX, �' units bide 4 �t'5(I , 6' 'unit' by s�de ks 'Agars fib ) offset in 0,',�,offset (4. 5 frimt 'bldg . uriit':bldgs ) '*:: 4 1 facade, for every offsas (6 unit ' 2 ur i is bldg .' ) �c} 4ne stork drop. All bldgs, are for 1/3 - units in three stories* each bl'dg: ( 37 ttni to must bb two story) 9150: 13 open Spare 90, 400 sq. fti 84 ,`457 ( ci .Min. patib area 96,08CI sq 'ft .`' 250 sq iTt : twd b6drooms ) 30 �64,1t + ( three bEdroon(s ) { t Vital patio area 86 ; 900 (ga patios cannot 20t l � coUrit toWardst open 4sce Musa have . a mih �:. ;,I ditnwisicih bf 20 i Tota1 '. as reguiirbd : , � �7 + 00 sq , ft "280j537 sq :ft Ile" 91`50014: kain ' ' 4c ; Atha 10;000 sq : ftp: Min:. 25 1,30 8q i 9150: 15 . Min , Obit Floor 9b0 ( two bdrm: ) "1 422=1;'535 sq :'f.t l ; lbb ( three bdrm► ) 1 606 'l 693 sq; ft . 9150 . Ii Fatking 226, enclosea spaced 226 - garage 5't �iiest .spaices 68 f47 throfe'gh'out t: ih, ton .of -garages setback *Special Pe l hi is sta f€ RepatE '11/5/86 ( 6570H) �: : r ' pro There are-,,three main concerns of the proposed coidon i'n.ium 'development . . �aiese three story structures . With th e The Ei rst �s - the bulkiness Hof ; cr• proposed berming, , the illusi on two story units is, created. However this effect is rimaril achieved for the buihdi'n,gs, fa ing P Y the central % common open' ' space" area . The outer facin99 'buldings , towai'dsl Garfield andpthe single family residences , :will also appear two story but, on a 4 foot berm which slopes to grade . level - at the property line . In essence , three-story, 35 foot high structures will be . visible from Garfield Avenue . Staff recomirv:,nds 'that all building s have at least: •one unit that is twostories , in height and that,,-,:every two units have a minimum 4 foot .. ron t >building line offset. , Orily 24 two story units would; be • two-story which is Tess than the 37 cequ�red . . an opt on all ,;end, t nits could have a minimum 5 foot offset between the second and third floors as *depicted in the 1984 revised plan for the site. second the-''distributi'on;.of guest' •parking ` spaces is concentrated in the ,.front half of 'the . project . This could result th apa'rking and p rotect . .fully �s completed . Staff recommendsrelocating some circulation problem towards the 'r+aar when t gu4st parking spaces from the main parking . area to the southerly end ref building 18`. Thirdly, , the::proposed wrought iron- fencing..,al'ong ;the,. front property creates; a double wall effect 'because the front :privat atia walls >• re ' thin 20 feet.of to. fence . The wrought. iron , fenee- is not are within ' 9 !; commen . obtain a greater open feeling and -= �i effectiveness i;f landscapf'ng when driving down Garfield. I� Granting special , • �� • .. .,n permits to enable deviations to the.. Planned � r . . 9 .. Residential Development standards is : perr i•tted rf a 'better living ' environment and land planning techniques are achieved . a , ccontain � so the meevel`opmen is interesting . : The, sy, unit but ld�n s , ovement and variation. in. front ,buildinggl facades t4 foot offset ) and end unit movement 'by offsetting the second and „third, floors . Staff recommends carrying that same 4 treatment through, : the and 5 unit building. : All the buildings have some 'variation in roof k i .'lines. t Sitice the bedroom count exceeds the maxi muoomlcouet revisedD lcor : necessary to reduce the bedr Flans will be n � n � .-r h -, ap_ lican•t .in,di�cated this - can asily • be achieved.-by converted some be'drooms ' to family rooms . OMMENDATION: -: f 5t al f' recommersds approval 6t Con'dttional UsA Permit No . 86�51 an'd j Tentative Tract 12896 as mods Led '_'by staff based on, the fol'Zowi_ng Findings and conditions of approval Staff, .Report. 11%5 B 6 t ` `6� ; (6570d) ,• .i+ ,rlrw. - - t• ..T . . . . .. - .. i ,. -s7YtiMto.:. s' •.')»+s'4. .. . tJtwi�1►i4..... _.. _ - FINDINGS CONDITIONAL. USE PERNIT :NO. 86-51 AND. TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 : 19 The proposed sub'Jivis on , of this 7, 95 acre Percei `of - la'd zoned R2 , .Medium Density Resioq " t4l , is proposed 0 be''coustrttcted having 14 . 5 unite ."per gross acre , i 2 . The General Plan -has set €or•Lh provisions for this type :,of land use as well as setting � forth ''provaisions for the implementzti.on of this type of housing, 1 3 . The property was previously studied . for this 6teqsity of land use at the time the 1aP4 uae. design atiotj. and ��•he ' R2�PD zoning designatio were placed-, on the subject . pruperEy, FINDINGS �- SPECIAL PERMIT; 1 . The or ie q itioh of e4ph of the dwelling una,ts onto com non landscaped areas keep each urit via a private patio will help to .onsurt, maXiMLip privacy for the residents within a rr`oJ,ect of this dansity. , p . , :e of , landsc� , ed 'planting .matey ials � . .aesttieti cal'1y 2. Through ., the use I r r. ;� P .. .. ,, . ., pleasn9 . archi s tactu e a d s ecial r,�ee�gn sold cod}, traction . trohni Sur osoc��projectos�d��,. urur es Witle��ro gseave upro'�ect3whltnon the : st P P . i. 1� ur h p . p . - the detrimental to the ` general. health. wplf4r.e' . $0fPty; rand convenience of the heighoorhood or the City in gerisral.', 3 . Through -the use of private , and• aommorl. open';spaoQ areas- and by maximiipg the use of Aestheti cal lly plf. aing, types . `o£ architecture , the 'proposed project will provide a betterr., 1ivin;g environment , E street w'i�dth" . a to ttirol� . tall. 4 . The lot size , depth, freut ge"r r 'qh � use of a special periAitr s,all , pther design asd- iMp.paMgp,tatir� t feaures of the proposed project are,, proposed to be constructed . in compiiihc'e with standard plans and specifiaatiohs: 'oil file with the City as well as �,n compli�auce with the State Map A t acid supplementary city subdivision ordinance , CONVITTONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. A 6 51 : 1 . The site plan , floor plans , cip0 elevations IreeQiVe'd .and :dated' October 7, I986r shall be revised c`jepic: ing the modifications '; described herein ; a . Reduce the he. oy one `stQ_r�y for at. fe' q' .`oile N!?a,t w#t t n t , r q. to fiul�' 5 .foot offset ,between thesecohd i�duth' rd floor oneedQh end a"it• a b PCo VW . , mi►1; u 4 foot offset for •k`Yer, kwp . its ' ' Y u� At every building Staff -Report,,.--: 11%5%86 ..7. ( 6570d ). ' 1 c . Delete the 6 foot 'hi;h wrought fence ' along the front property line . ^ } 'Distribute lest parkingOut spaces,,'througt t 'the 'development by relocating some to the end of Building 16. e . kedulce bedroom c:om;«c to n1suximun 3010 i issuance of building permits, the applicant shall 2. Prior to �s 1l ' submit the Eollowing plans : a . Laridscape:,and irrigation', plat. to the '1?cnartment "of . Development Services a^!d Public Works f :r review and ' approval. b . The 'irrigated landscaped area shall have , its own service ( s ) and meter( s ) with apprcved backflow devices 3. Natural as shall at- the " loc ' g be � sk;ubbec� in • ns261 cooking facilities , water :eaters, and central heating units. 4 . Low-volume heads shall 'be used on ail spigotG ' and 'water faucets . 5. ll : building spoils , such as unusable , IU.m er , wire, pipe, and. other surplus or unusabl:: material , shall be dispos= a rf At an nff-aite f.acik ty equipped to handle thn.m. , 6. If ,.lighting is included in the pa ring lot , , high=presbure sodium vapor :lamps shall be lased for energy savings All .outside,, � lighting shall be directed to prevent "Lepillage.' onto adjacent properties. 4 . { CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - 'TENTATIVE TRACT 12896 :' 1 . Gar fiald Avenue shall be constructed with 8 font wide sidewalks ( Tentative Tract Map shows narrower widths in cross-sections, 'which : is wrdng ) 2 . The on site sewer, system shall be private , but constructed t P o ,> Public Works Standards . 3 . The on�u�i'te water system shall be public, and shall he . Joc'aied in vehicular tra•iel ways only . R 4 . Each unit shall have its - own individual 'wit er 'service and meter '. w! th . a'pproved double check backflow device . j 5 � 9 "P , g, shall have its own service The �wimn�.n ool%recreation' bul!dL'n and meter with approved backflow device . 6 . Parking shall be proh�ibiie,d on Garfie'hd avenue. 7 . :A&cess ridht's to Garfield. Avenue ;shag a dedticated to <the ,'C t ' except at a roved .entrance to i Y Pp proje t t Scii Report::' ( 657ad') and out p , ccominodate `left turns 8 . GariaEl'd Avenue � shall be re-stti" ed t�► a` ' ' of the project, in 9 . The on--s ite private strek_3Fs shall . be desi nod to the C 11 i y,1s private street standards and the 24 foot, width does not include the gutters ( see Standard plan ) . , 10 . if I the en t ran►:e is gated, the security gate 'locati,on shall `be approved by tn'e Department of public Worts and shall have ' n approved turn-around . 11 . All missing or - damaged public improvement`s 6.hall be constructed per �Mlbl] c Works standards , 12. A pavement evaluaGiu`n of ' ,"' _ Garfield Avenue shall , be 66',nducted by a qualified developer isrm and the resporsi.bleresults ubmitted to the' City: . The required. construct the remedial improvements 13 . Hydrology dnd hydraulics for the size shall be a ' , Department of Public Works . Pp�oved by the 14 . Utilities on Garfield Avenue shall be bored unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer . 15, Automatic sntinkler syotems MUST be installed thrau hour a1 � - buildings to comply wi;:n Huntington Beach Fire Depagtrnent and Uniform =building Code Standards . 16 . A fire alarm system MUST be installed to comply with Nuntin9 ton` Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards . The system MUST provide the follo►4ing : a . Water flow valve tamper and trouble detection . b . 24 hour supervision . C . Annunication . d . Audible alarms . 17 . Fire extinguishers MUST be installed and located in the Standards .Recreation Room to cvmnly with Huntington Beach Fite Code , 18 . Four ( 4 ) fire hydrants MUST be installed construction, prier to combus��ible Shop drawings MUST be submitted to 'Cho usti l Works Department and approved by the Fire Department rior 't Installation . p o 19 . If security gates are installed, they MUST be . de' sf "n with Huntington Beach Fire Department Standard 403 ne'd to ;comply 2C1 . :.how. tonal d , ' addit imension rpdi us turn to comply with Huntlans for x7 x 95 fo�t ,:fire .,access 9 .. P P y in ton ;;Beach Fire, ,Department ', s s..andard 401 . All streets: must, be 6stalled wjth all Heather surface prior to combustible construccionO -Staff Report - 11/5/86 w . 21 . Name. of strQAts M:iST bP 'approved by, the ;Nuntf ngt�n 9ea'4r� ,�Fi.re. P P be" artnen_. 'rior to usE to comp�:j with Fii�t�,'Depaztment fitandard . 409 , _ . !A 0 ALTERNATIVEoACTION: The -Planning Commiss 'on' ma`%• ':approve , the.•p�u ject as ,'-proposed. with" r � ch'anite since. _ham ng bulk to :only :,the buildings fronting ` Garfield Aven• Irian eG in, huiid� h y are most visible by aapprevfng the foll.d4�.ng modified condition : PPRdVr� CONCONDITIONAL OF -,'A ITIONAL USE ' PERM 1T 'NO. 86=51 s` 4` .: , ;•;� l .a •( Modified ) Mndify eu Idi'ngs 1 , 2 •and 3 'a1r."jng :Garfield Avenue by � to unit �y 'e C {h'�,s onvr f-1o•or' offset on side )•. ertin.r teae end un�.ta ' in each building. • u ppe' b Provide: 4 fooL offset every two 'or three units .: : r ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Narrative 3 . Site plan, floom plan and elevations TWP :SH: kla 1 x Staff °Report ' :11/'5%85 wlo_ 1. ,1,, , , r M2~C i ► R / •�.. , �i IR2 'RZ ' 11 R3� MH - . At— R3 ., tr ) '.R3 two re.trrti �'~' R3R3 C41 P 1!2=;p �� t co..,.r.K,! FZ i I M• ` Ri R3 r ..w..�..� �L1ACif IC I I 0^tcr 6TY LAZY; R 3• �� R2 � � 1 Mz-a R RI L- R, Rs R P2 RZ. P.E �• R3 I .rMr• � RE ! S Rz - —e • _ _R a -Ala- �— — - - _ GARFIELD- -e wr,w.t , r. R2 "" ! .� R1 R, ..moau a �;l MH R2-PO RI RI R1 R2 M r`+ " C2 / kt Rl Rl I Mt~Q r ' Caw rsr.ait OR • R2 RI t Cot �r_E M! Rz RA f R, •' ' y R= R2 V.RZ R1 , Rl Rl alp R3 j R3 cr RV R! Rl RI .91 R2 J ri2•a•va;; .• J Rx-M Rs 1 1 I `r, R1 f�1 Rl Rl RI RI R 1 I cz R2 R27t _ s irir Jw9 HLAIn,rG70n IKK" "UNTINGTON SEEK" PLANNING 01% i0; I October 22 , .1986 Planning .,Commission City of 'Huntington Beach : 13. o. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: Special Permit Request PROJECT : Seawind Cove Condominiums Garfield Avenue Huntington Beach, California Dear Commissioners: Magna Corporation is proposing to develop a site of approximately 8 . 03 acres in size just east of the intersec,cion of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue. The existing zoning for this site is R•-2 PD. Although the maximum number of units allowed by code is 120 , the applicant. proposes to build 113 . The proposed .. condominiums will be built in 24 buildings of four to six -: dwelling units in each building . Each unit will have a two car - garage . Total site coverage is 93 , 218 square feet or , 27% of total site where 50% is allowed . Guest parking has been provided throughout the site. Although the required minimum unit size for ' a two bedroom unit is only 900 square feet and a three bedroom Unit is only 1100 square Feet, the Project will have five unit types that surpass these minimum requirements. These unit types . { are: Unit type "B" Two Bedroom - 1, 422 Total 1q areFeet uare U1tit tvpe C - Two Bedroom FamilyR - T S q Feet t Unit type "D" Three Bedroom ;1 , 606 Total Square Fleet, f unit type "I?1" Two Bedroom, Family Room - 2 , 606 Square ; Feet Unit type "E" Three „Bedroom, Family Room 1,1693 Square Feet It should be noted that the size of these units, while in ,excess ,, . of most planned developments , 1`10re closely matches the average i October 22 , 1986 it Planning Commission Page x size of the surrounding homes ." The applicant in attempting to provide a quality living environment with emphasis placed on interior amenities, quality of constructl'on and ample livirig `I a teas. This ro ' ect will serve as an excellent transition from p 7 the commercial. area to the west of this site and the surrounding residences . The quality of these units will serve to rotect the P ., integrity of the neighborhood values and lifestyle. Individual features to be provided include: Private enclosed patios that exceed minim':i1m requirements Two--car garages with direct home entry Automatic garage door openers Large master bedrooms with vaulted ceilings Skylights Bay Windows Pantrys Walk in closets Large oval tubs with separatesshowers Separate dining areas Breakfast Bars Ceramic Tile Baths Raised Tile Entryways Firepl ices: with gas outlets Upgrad.-:d dual pane windows with lattice dividers. f Seawind Cove condominiums will be a unique development because its . innovative architectural design and amenities. Great care has been taken to provide an ample buffer from the surrounding residences by pleasingplacement of b:i1din s walkways and 9 . Y landscaping . The developer estimates that the proposed landscaping will cost in excess of $250 , 000 . Common amenities being provided include a recreation building , pool , spa, sauna , r: barbecue area and a tot lot. The total required major recreation � area is 18 r 6A5 ,square feet, however - th+e developar is ' prov,iding' , October < 22 , 1986 Planning Commission Page 3 21 25a square feet . The required minimum clubhouse size is 791 ; � � q square feet and the proposed clubhouse will be "1 , 032 square feet. Construction will be wood framing , concrete floors and wood siding. Exterior appearance will be of a "Cape Cod" nature. Magna Corporation desires to build a project which will be ' of high quality, superior design and incorporate amenities that will provide residents superior quality of life. The applicant , Magna Corporation, requests tithe Planning' Commission approve the following special permits to the above referenced project. The Huntington Beach code allows for special permits upon the findings by the Planning Commission that Y.: the requested exceptions will : (a) Promote better living environments . (b) Provide better land planning techniques with maximum `r use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping , site layout and design. (c) Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, f safety and convenience , nor detrimental or_ injurious to the value of property or improvements , of the neighborhood, - or of the city in general. (d) Be consistent with the objectives of the - ,planned residential development standards inachieving a development adapted . to the terrain and compatible wl.th the surrounding environment. The _ao l. icant feels that .the followiaig re�ested exceptions ns are' AQk October 22 ,1986 Planning commission Page q necessary, to achieve the st4ted goals and intent ''of the planned development, standards and that they do meet the criteria' for acceptable special perni.ts- The Seawird Cove Condominium project was pant approved for construction by the Planning Commission , of Huntington Beach in 1984 . Most of the special permits that: are being asked for in this application were granted at that time. The project has been redesigned in order to more closely meet the changes made in the building codes and zoning codes since that time. 1 . S. 9150. 10 (i) The code requires that dwelling units be setback 15 , from vehicmlar accessways. The applicant requests a reduction in the required 15 ' setback to the vehicular accessway. There are 9 situati' ons within the above mentioned project that are affected by this setback requirement. However, if measured from the traffi'c areas ' diagonally to the living areas , in most cases , the minimum setback would be meta The applicant requests this exception in order to provide enhanced overall architectural design as evidenced by increased separations over the required minimum between buildings in almost every case. 2 . S . 9150. 10 (j ) - The code requires that 50% of the duelling units have a setback 20 feat from the travel lane: The applicant requests a reduction of the required 50% 57 units) with a 201 setback to the travel lane 'to 174 (21 units) with a 201 aetbdck. . The remainin units w ' 9 ill have a setback of 9"f � a Kam,._ ..- : t October 22s 1986 Planning Commission i 'on i Page 5 which is three hz feet in excess • of the accepted minimum'. To mitigate the impact of this exception, open parking stalls have been provided throughout the project for P 9 P � t common guest I parking . This request in justified in that each unit provides for tuck under, attached parking garages which have direct access to the living area . Also, the project meets parking requirements for residents and exceeds the required number of guest parking stalls . 3 . 5 . 9150 . 12 (b) -- This section requires that buildings have a 4 ' offset of the front building line for every two dwelling units. The applicant meets this requirement in buildings which contain six units, but requests a deviation from ' the required 4 ' offset in the front building line on ' the 4 and 5 unit buildings. The applicant requests this exci 5 PP qu ept i'an because it is felt that the overall project offers a pleasinr, architectural style which meets the intent of the code,, In i the and 5 unit buildings in which the offset requirement is not met, . the applicant has achieved a pleasing architectural design through varied roof lines and mass movement ` at' the second level along with movement at the rear ' 'of ~he 41 buildings. In addition, architectural novement has been c ` achieved by offsetting entire buildings, especially ""`81ong r a - the perimeter where they are most visible to the public 4 . S. 9150 . 12 (c) _ The applicant requests a eviation f'o m ement ,that 1 3 of t e er , bu the requirement ., �.� 9u / h tot:al• unit® p flding ` be f i.1 • '• i '�.�� .I t7 11 October :, 22 , 1986 I)]anni ng ; Commission Page 6 o e story less in height than the remaining orti.on of the � y h 9 n 9 P building. This requirement•, is mat in buildings containing 6 units, but is not met in buildings containing 4 and 5 units $ The applicant again feels that the design meets the intent of the code by stepping the second story back for the entire length of the building and not just at the ends. In addition, the use of varied roof planes contributes to a pleasing ` design. The applicant feels that the overall architectural design maintains a duality of life by utilizing larger units with less density. This objective could not be accouiplished without this exception. Thus exception is also necessary because the applicant wishes to provide tuck undor parking for all units and would be unable to achieve this and provide the necessary relief. This type of construction is necessary on the site because the applicant f cannot excavator to provide garage parking as nri storm drains { are provided by the City of Huntington Beach along Garfield Therefore, we are limited to surface flow to achieve proper drainage . 5. S . 9150 . 13 (a) In this request, the applicant asks for a i deviation from the required open space of 90, 400 square feet to 84 , 400 square feet. While the open space as measured i under thf s ordinance does not meet the requirement, the applicant feels this deficiency is offset by the ' increased . � private patio areas in a total amount of 3 , 648 48 a re . last in. . : October , `1986 tober '2� . Planning 'Cortmissior,1 Page ? excess of the re ired minimum. The proposed design . � P P provides more ;privacy in front of residents ', units which homeowners prefer over of larger common open areas. In addition, applicant is providing additional amenities including a tot lot, pool , barbecue area, spa and a sauna. In summary, the applicant feels that the above requested special permits are necessary to achieve a better living environment for this development. These requested special exceptions are essential to provide a project which is conducive to the overall neighborhood and necessary to provide a pleasing environment for the residents. In all cases, the applicant feels that the requested exceptions can be justified and that they contribute14o` the quality of life, enhance the architectural design, adapt well to the environment without being detrimental to the surrounding area . As noted before, these exceptions were granted in 1984 and we feel they will not negativtaly impact the community. overall, the applicant believes that through the use of i . a landscaped planting materials , aesthetically pleasing architecture , and special design and construction techniques , the project will contribute to the alit of life general , proposed P ] � Y � health , welfare safety, convenience of the neighborhood - an and convenien d the City of Huntington Beach in general . ' Very trimly s, Tom ' Hru tome o Ry: Chief E 1.9cut:ive Officer j r F IOM: CONCERNED HOMEOWNERS HUNTINGTON CREST t. PLANNING COMMISSION/DEtiELOPMENT S£RVISSMA4 M 10 • '36 T(:: PL ' MATE NOVEMBER 51 1986 COMM. DEVEL.As adjacent homeowners of the proposed` gioject , we respectfully regiiest your consideration of the following concerns felt by the residents of Huntington Crest . Should the project be -approved we , .request that you 'consider our concerns as specific conditions of approval . The concerns expressed at present were also addressed back in 1980 when originally proposed . As property owners , we are anxious for development of the vacant land surrounding our neighborhood but: we want a development that will promote better living conditions and environments for all concerned . We feel that the establishment of this project , as proposed, will be detrimental to the genera]. welfare of persons residing and working in the vicinity . t Please review the following modifications and may we suggest that theyy be imposed as conditions of approval to alleviate any potential pr-3 e' r.s : 1 . The site plan , floor plans , and elevations shall be revised and depicting the modifications described herein: - a . Height -, No three story structures shall be allowed. If three story units are preferred the garages shall be. subterranean. There shall be no artificial grades or erms area ed . Roof peaks shall e no more than 27'feet from ground level . b . The project design (Cape Cod ) will be revised to be more architecturally compatible with surrounding neighborhood ( new commercial center stucco buildings ; commercial buildings on corner stucco with red tile roofs; adjoining homes ' to south and east - riediterranean ) C . Front of units shall face the adjacent single family , ti homes; garages shall face away from the homes to alleviate , car noises . There should be a minimum 40 foot setback from the existing single family homes . � P g d . Landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for. review and a . The _Developer is proposing to spend . . 250 , 000 on landscaPing. The single family homes to the ' east and south have approximately 50 , 000 in land �sca in P Y � p g , per lot . I. a " r HUNTIMCTON CREST HOMEOWNERS Page 'Two e . Grading an- drainage plan should be completed prior., to development . Drainage is a main concern of the adjacent property owners . Many of the adjacent single family ;. residents have subterranean family• rooms/recreation areas that. will be subject to flooding . There should be a foot- drain tile on the west, south and east perimeters inside project wall draining towards Garfield Avenue. f . Sewage Study - A study should be completed to determine any impacts from ground water caused by sprinklers in the project as well as storms . g. Traffic study should be completed immediately. The project will create a hazardous traffic problem to the area , ( 113 units x 2 cars = 226 cars + existing traffic on Garfield + school children + bike riders = major conjestion ) h . An eight foot high masonry wall shall be constructed of uniform design and material along the 'Pastern and southern edge of the property . The applicant shall work with adjacent homeowners toreplace or repair any walls , patios , tile work damaged during construction . .�iil i . A Development Agreement shall be prepared pursuant to .the ._.. Government Code and those procedures adopted by, the • City Council for such agreeme;,.ts ( Resolution No . 5390) . 2 . During construction period, i:ours of operation should be limited to regular working hours ( 1 : 00 AM to 5 : 00 PM) no . week-end work allow•ad . Requirement of daily water trucks to wet down the dirt to alleviate any dust problems. If construction occurs durin winter months , allowances should be c made to mitigate any problg ems with mud/compaction . 1 - 3. Rodent eradication plan, approved by the Orange County Vector Control District , should be provided by the developer . we will be present and well represented at the Planning Commission '? meeting this evening and are prepared to speak ihdi.vidually on each It of the above mentioned concerns . t{untingt on Crest Homeowners S , ILI January 9 , 1987 t-c!G XC l � Ae le City Council �l�!'' �� S"; T l �� r�'/ City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92646 ;3 Al ell, 1=1l1 lel SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 86 . 51 Tentative Tract No. 12896 Seawind Cove Condominiums Garfield Avenue Huntington Beach, California Honorable Council Members, Magna Corporation proposes to develop a vacant site of approximately 8 . 03 acres, just east of the intersection of Beach Boule„ard and Gorfield Avenue. On December 16 , 1986, the Planning Commission of Huntington Beach denied our application to develop this property by a vote of 4-3 . We have ,apj�ealed their decision to you . Because of the complex and lengthy planning process which has taken place, we would . like to present our views of the issues, involved in our, application for development. Since November 5, 1986, we have worked with the Planning Commission, Staff and the neighbors to create a plan which ' is both desirable and feasible. In doing so, we have been quite frustrated by the many different, and at tinP:, conflicting wishes of these three entities. At the same time, just when we seem to have reached an understanding, opiiilons change again. We have also attempted to keep in mind what will be good for the future residents of this development. The background pertinent to this project is: The existing zoning for this site is R-2 PD. Although the maximum number of units allowed by code is 120, we propose to build 109 units. The proposed condominiums will be built in 23� buildings of four to six dwelling units in each building. Each unit will have a two car garage. Total site coverage is 113, 016 square feet or 32 . 6% of total site; however, 50% is allowed by code. Guest parking in excess of code has been provided throughout the site. 1 ; . Although the .equited minimum unit size for a two bedroom unit is only 900 square feet and a three bedroom unit is only .. :., 100 :square feet, the . Project will have five unit types that surpass these minimum requirements. These unit types range in size from 1 ,535 square feet to approximately 1, 700 square feet. The size of these units, while in excess of most planned developments , more closely matches the average size of the surrounding homes. The applicant is providing a quality living environment with emphasis placed on interior amenities, quality of construction and ample living areas. This project will serve as an excellent transition from the commercia3 area to the west of this site and the surrounding residences. The quality of these units will serve to protect the intf=yrity of the neigh5orhood •ialues and lifestyles . Individual features to be provided include: . 1 . Private enclosed patios that exceed minimum requirements 2 . Twc-car garages with direct home entry 3 . Automatic garage door openers 4 . Large mastor bedrooms with vaulted ceilings 5. Skylights 6 . Bay Windows j 7 . Pantries 8 . Walk in closets 9 . Large oval tubs with separate showers 10. Separate dining areas 11. Breakfast Bars 12 . Ceramic Tile Baths 13 . Raised Tile Entryways 14 . Fireplaces with gas outlets 15 . Upgraded dual pane windows with lattice dividers Great care has been taken to provide an ample buffer from the surrounding residences by pleasing placement of buildings, walkways and landscaping. The developer estimates that: the proposed landscaping will cost in excess of $250, 000. Common amenities being provided include a recreation building, pool , spa, sauna, barbecue area and a tot lot. The total required major recreation area is 17 , 985 square feet, however the developer is providing 24 ,352 square feet. The required minimum clubhouse size is 763 square feet and the proposed clubhouse will be 1, 032 square feet. Construction will be wood framing, concrete fILOIs . and wood siding. Exterior appearance will be of a 'Cape Cad" nature. Magna Corporation builds projects which are high quality, superior design and incorporate amenities that will provide residents superior quality of life. This development was submitted and approved by the City of Huntington Beach in 1980 and again in 1984 . For various reasons, 2 L- the prior applicants were unable to complete development of the project. The original plan was of the ssme architectural style and consisted of all 2 1/2 story buildings. The architects for the development can both those occasions was the firm of Nuttall & Uchizono. This same firm has been retained 'by, 11-Igha Corporation to continue the architectural work on the project. Prior to our original Clearing date of 1115186 with the Planning Commission, we sent a letter -to residents outlining our proposal ` and requesting any coiments be referred to us for a response . We heard from no one, but - a letter of protest was filed by a group of neighbors the day of the hearing. Because the project had previously been approved on two separate occaisions Magna felt there would be minimal protests if we proceeded with an identical project. We appeared before the Planning Commission on November . 5 , 1986 , and requested approval for conditional use permit and tentative tract map for substantially the same project. Certain special permits had been granted -w;,-n the project was previously approved and, because our project was substantially the same as the previous submissions , we asked the Planning Commission to grant the same special permits. j The public hearing was quite lengthy and it was quite evident that the residents and the Commission had a difficult time fully understanding the diverse and complicated issues involved. At the same time, the Commissioners ' and the residents ' discussion expressed substantial concern about certain aspects of the development. These major concerns included: 1 . Building bulk was too great, especially along Garfield and adjacent to the residential property. Ccmmissioners suggested that buildings along the residential property be reduced to two stories and, interior buildings be 2 1/2 stories . It was also suggested hat units along Garfield be softened. 2 . Residents complained about the "huge mass" along their property lines and about the setback from their property. 3 . Commissioners and residents expressed concerns about the architectural style of the development. They wanted the style to "mix in more" with the. neighborhood. Also that "liner, were too straight with not enough architectural relief", and that "buildings did not stagger in and out" . 4 . Concerns about drainage were expressed Rbsidents were concerned that water from the development " would 3 flood their, property. A condition of. a roval - P P Y PP renuiring detention ,of 100, year flood water on site for six hours was made . Perimeter berms were stated by the residents to be unacceptable, 5 . Not enough parking, both distributed free parking and parking .behind units, Because of these concerns, the Planning Commission deferred the decision on our application. We were instructed to work with the residents and the Planning Division Staff, to make revisfons to the project that would address the concerns of the residents and which would eliminate the special permits requested (special permits that had been granted when the project was previously approved) The strongest objections of the residents had to deal with elements of the project that were not in conflict with codes, such as building heights along their properties . Between November 6 , 2986, and December 16, 1986, we met with 'the residents on three separate occasions and with Staff on several other occasions to discuss their concerns . At all times, !Magna has kept the residents fully informed of developments and supplied with all copies of revisions . The point has been made by both Staff and the residents that Magna has been cooperative and honest in their efforts to resolve this problem. At our November 24 , 1986 , meeting with the residents a general consensus for approval of the project, at least from the residents ' perspective, was agreed to providing the following: conditions were met: 1 . Two story units only around the perimeter of the project , 2 . Setbacks from residents property at least 20 feet. 3 . No perimeter berms. As a result of the input we received from Staff, residents, and the Planning Coitmisslon, we made substantial revisions to the project plan as discussed below. The most current revisions which will come before you still have all of the conditions in the original project plan requiring special permits, but the instances they occur in the project are greatly reduced. At the same time, changing our design to satisfy the neighbors, 'eoncerns created other conditions that require two additional special ' permits . The following is a summary of the specia.1, exemptions requested and how they have changed in the subsequent revisions: 1. A 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the front property line in lieu of a 20 foot setback. This condition has not changed in any of the revisions'. We feel this fence: will allow for greater security 'to the _project and that, through an undulating 4 = - . .. .. ..•sue , . -i.. ..��'+ - � .�-_� --. • • M. w r� • configuration, will not negatively affect the ':street scene from Garfield. The onsite sidewalks that provide access 'to each home will rise and fall with the berms we will create and we see. this as an attractive nuisance to children either riding bicycles or skateboards. Magna understands that this section Hof ' the code is primarily designed to prevent two solid walls _too _lose together which would create an unappealing appearance. An open, attractive wrought iron fence will not 'create this type of appearance. 2 . A 34. foot building separation between opposite second and third floor rear elevations (driveway side) in lieu of 40 feet. On our original plan,. this condition occurred in several places. Presently, this situation occurs in only two areas on the site. Where it does occur, it is not because solid walls are too close together, but because architectural pop outs and overhangs are within 34 feet of each other. We have more than ample light penetration and feel this special permit is necessary to provide a more appealing architectural style. 3. Six feet to 10 feet setback from dwelling unit to driveway and/or parking spaces in lieu of 15 feet. This condition deals only with the separation between parking spaces and buildings. We do provide at least 15 feet between dwelling units and driveways . In all instances this impacts only the side of a dwelling unit and if measured diagonally to the nearest window exceeds 15 ' . The request for this exception is to provide for more parking. The granting of this exception allows us to provide pull in parking as opposed to parallel parking. 4 . Provide 20 foot setback for garages from drive aisle for 27 . 5t (30 units) where !:0% is required. The original plan submitted had 18 . 6% of the units that met this requirement. Parking is a major concern of both the residents and. the Planning commission. The need for ample parking is also a major concern of Magna. What we have done to mitigate any potential parking s to provide .more than required free open 'problem i q P P P parking spaces around the project. This is one area in I. 9 p p � P which the Planning Commission did give us a firm direction in which to work. However, they failed, to let us know how Much parking they would like to have. In total parking," we have 303 countable spaces> where only 273 are required. In actuality, ' we - have an additional 30 spaces behind the garages, yh.3ch cannot be counted in the official tally because by Code only 50% of the units that: are within the 20' setback -fznm :the Y • drive. aisle may be counted. ' Hy satisfying the neighbors concern about building. : height around the adjoining property lines, we needed to make those buildings longer to place the garages adjoining, but behind the units Therefore, we could not provide the additional 20 foot setbacks to meet code without drastically affecting our open space. 5 . Provide no offsets in building facades. in our original submission, this condition existed in all ` four and five unit buildings. currently, this condition occurs in cnly four buildings which are in the interior cif the project. We also feel that there are enov.gh other architectural movements within these buildings -to support this request. 6. All three story units in lieu of one-third being two story. Currently we , have 31 units which are two-story but clustered adjacent to Rt zoned properties . It �Ias suggested by the Planning Commission that this would be a good compromise. To further reduce the building bulk in the remaining buildings along Garfield and throughout the project, we ha-✓e softened the building bulk by offsetting the end units at least 5 feet. This was at the suggestion of staff and has been allowed in several other projects in Huntington Beach. As a j result of these changes, our project plan has reduced bulk on 57% of the units. The special permit is still necessary because they are not at both ends of each building . However, each end of six unit buildings area softened and at least one unit of the remaining five unit buildings is softened. 7 . A common open space area of 84 , 400 square feet in lieu of 87 , 200 square feet. A common open space . of 90, 249 square feet is provided but some areas contain less than a. 20 foot dimension. As staff has pointed out, our total open space, including private open . space, exceeds the minimum requirement. our requested deviation is about 11% . Basically, we are providing more private open space as opposed to common open space. Additional special permit requests that are required with the revised plans are: 8 . Solid private patio walls, 6 feet in height, with : 13 feet to 16 feet from property line in lieu of 20 feet. , our request for a . variance for a Patin wall ceE art• setback from. the front to property 1 ine is rie y . provide those 14 , units along Garfield . privacy while at the same time, allowing for more overall. parking behind w 6 r ! - — ' ' __ _� t _ •fir; s; '' . E.� i dwelling units. 9 . interior y properties - r and setback from Rl zoned ro ertj.es of 30-•35 i feet in lieu of 33 . 7 feet and 42 feet. By redesigning th ebuildings, we have made. ,them longar. which 'therefore. increases , the required setback.. Magna -lid not, widen the buildings which are a good deal below the allowed -maximum width. At the same time, we have setback the -' second floor windows about fifteen feet from the front building line. We actually have less visual impact than or;e would have with two R1 properties back to back. Along the R1 perimeter, the building height does not exceed 21 feet. We did not need this exception on our oric ' nal design. 1 As stated before, we have redesigned and created a new two story unit which provides a good transition from the residential properties to the higher, more typical townhome that appears in the interior of the project. This was accomplished, only by the elimination of four units. We were also able them to create more parking. Another concern of both the Commission and the residents was that of drainage. Our civil engineer prepared a drainage study and attended two meetings with the residents and answered their questions and addressed their concerns about drainage. In addition, -the City' s Engineering Department studied this problem. As a result, the Planning commission agreed with our proposed j drainage plan and subsequently recommended removal of Staff s condition for 100 year flood 6 hour retainage. Magna also removed all berms along the perimeter of the R1 residences . Despite our efforts, the Planning Commission rejected our application on December 16, 1986, by a 4--3 vote. Therefore, we have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. We request that the City Council approve conditional use permit No , t36 . 51 and tentative tract No. 12896 with the requested special permits. It should be noted that the conditions requiring special permits arose primarily, from the project plan revisions that .were made to address the concerns of the local residents that had na,-h h to ore, the conditions a 9; code. Furthermore, • re do_ with violations of . relatively insignificant. Please note that a project -plan with -no special permit requests could be submitted, ' but it would require returning to the original building design which created so much opposition from the residents. ' The major objections of the residents which still remain have, to do with the' architectural style we have chosen ' and the fact ` that y tirthe 'would lic to have al four unit buildings along ' properties. Both of these ebjection have nothing too with, code. The question of the architectural style is a highly charged emotional issue. P t boils down ,to a question of taste. The Cape cod style we propose is not an unusual style. The neighbor's agreed. at the meeting of Novc%ber 24, that this style ways acceptable, as evidencedby Staffs report (pages 1 & 2) to the - Planning Commission dated December 21 1986. In fact, we went so far as to allow them to approve the colors and the roofing material . They now say they object to this ntyle . We feel, as Staff stated in their original report to the Planning Commission, that this project is large enough to support its_ own style. We have been informed, however, heat Staff has reversed ,their opinion and is now recommending that we use stucco and tile.. We have researched, the market and feel the stele we have chosen is compatible with the area. I think this objection would have more validity if we abutted a subdivision which had a particular architectural style. In truth, we have no architectural style to blend with. There are at least six distinct architectural styles in the surrounding area. The quality of materials, construction and amenities of our proposed development is in keeping with that of units . which f will sell for approximately $154 , 000 to $180, 000 . We would be foolish to build a product that would not be accepted in the marketplace. i in answer to the residents request for only four unit buildings } along their property lines, we make the argument that in mixing } building types, a more pleasing architectural design is achieved. Staff concurred with this feeling. We have only three buildings along the perimeter which are five units, the rest are four unit buildings and one of the five unit building abuts Garfield. Current Code allows for six units within one building. This # objection was not raised by the residents until the December s second meeting in which Magna requested a continuance. At that time, the objection was raised that any buildings over 4 units would create afire hazard. All units are to ';a fire sprinklered and will not create any fire hazard. Currently, the residents object to five unit buildings as being too wide. ?: Through planning process,_ i all co in trying to work with_- � i parties,ncerned u We have been i neded by.the,,constant' 'hanging . conditions and objections of: both Staff , and the Residents.eats. Examples .,of . this , are the,;. residents ' objection to .:the - number Hof units -in . each building and Staf f 'and residents cab j ection , to the architectural style. Magna has attempted to neet '�the desires of all C.once�:ned parties. In attempting ;to solve those 'objectioris, mainly ".in building, height, parking and setback, that were not in violation of code,, we have been forced to ask for 'special t 8 ermits, While -,the i •.e1�b . est .inc ach , instance in whichthe var reased, the frequency of . ance is ''needed, decreased. ., The result of these 'changes has been the loss 'of units rind ottler a increased costs. In summary, %we. feel that we have tried-to, meet . the intent of the:` Code of Huntington Beach while at the same ` tilie, satisfying as `many -personal objections not related to code as . possible. 'Staff , has > stated:.to us that they feel we have,, met al-1 'of their major concerns with the project. However, despite =our many-: efforts, it is., impossible to please everyone and Magna wishes that we could have; come to the Council with a plan which had the unqualified endorsement of both Staff and the residents. We - are unable to accomplish this, bixt Magna feels that the plan ,:before you is ., a ,quality development which will add not detract from the .. I neighborhood and will improve the City of Huntington Beach. Tha nk you for your time and consideration in this matter. 'Sincerely, Tom Bruttomesso Chief Executive Officer 1 u 9 120 `West 5th Street Santa Ana, California 92701 �(JAM, t,V Arr,1.5'.xi,Vrar sc9,/ o _ z January 16 , 1967 dr&2'csr# a9m The Honorable Grace Winchell city Council �'•r S /Ir.},al 1``1/� CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH v3 6 LUiJ'ch"l P., 0. Box 19 0 %1�/r' cfIj, `�'�i', ,. Huntingtun Beach, California 92646 -41d , QC Subjects Conditional Use Permit Number 86.51 C�Gl%;,� Tentative Tract Number 12896 seawind Cove Condominiums ��0�'r� Garfield Avenue Huntington Beach, California �c� Cry Dear Councilwoman Winchall : I have had delivered to your office a copy of the tape of the Planning Commission meeting of December 16 , 1986. I apologize for the fact that there is some extraneous programming at the end oS: the tape, which I was unaware of when the tape was duplicated. i The following are a few projects in the area, which have the same type of architectural materials . They are: Pentridge ' Cove Condominium project, located on Baker Street, between Bristol and Bear; there is also a condominium project on Baker Street, located between MacArthur and pear; The Woodlakes project (this may be an apartment project) , located on the corner of MacArthur and Greenville. While the architecture is not exactly the same as what we propose, the materials are very similar. I -have also enclosed for your information a copy of Homes Ma azine, which illustrates the homes for sale throughout . Southern California . The paper-clipped pages are examples of the same type of materials and similar architectural style to what we propose. I think the sale prices that these homes are 'offered for demonstrate that our architectural style is both 'desirable = and valuable. Thank you again for your time and consideration in thisrmatter. i If you `have' any-further questions at all, I will be in California ; 4 T `•January . 161 1987 ;.The' Honorable Grace Winchell Page' Two Monda Tuesday,:.- . contacte Y andY , an be , g d throu h Ron Pattinson. Ort I can beo rear iold through my Las Vegas Office (702) 369--9999 . Sincerely, MAGNA CORPOF2ATI0 TOM BRUTTOMESSO President i ' TB/Isb Enclosures As Stated .t , r s • ' s s