Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-18Approved March 3, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bannister, Porter, Bauer The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Winchell, Chair- man Pro Tem, in the absence of the chairman. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1981, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Greer NOES: None ABSENT:. Bannister, Porter, Bauer ABSTAIN: Schumacher ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-3 Applicant: George Katsampes To permit the establishment of an arcade amusement center located on the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Hamilton Avenue within an existing shopping center. Michael Strange informed the Commission that two communications had been received in opposition to the proposed use from the Villa Pacific Community Association and from a nearby citizen. The public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke against the granting of the request: Milton Turner, member of the Board of Directors of the Villa Pacific Association; Rita Jett from Eader School; Joyce Roebuck of Gisler Middle School; Robert Hawthorne -from the Huntington Beach City School District; and Barbara Bunker, Robert E. Brock, Jack Matisof, Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 18, 1981 Page 2 Lois Brock, and Margaret Williams, all residents of Villa Pacific. These speakers said that the influx of young people which could be expected as a result of the approval'of this use would bring in undesirables and increase the already existing problems o-F trespass and vandalism in the area. They cited the hazards which traffic on the arterials would pose to children who would patronize the use, the impeding of pedestrian traffic by bicycles, and the downgrading of the neighborhood which would occur. Dennis Sigel, Mary Procaro, and the owner of the nearby coffee shop spoke in favor of the request, saying that it would provide a needed place for children to go and that it could be operated and supervised in such a manner that it need not result in the problems cited by the other speakers. George Katsampes, applicant, addressed the Commission to describe how his business would be operated, noting that he has been in this type of occupation for 20 years. He said the center would permit no loitering, would adhere strictly to local curfew hours and school hours, and would allow no alcohol on the premises. The arcade opera- tion would utilize only 600 square feet of the available 1600 square foot floor space, the rest being used for a small snack bar and the sale and repair of game table equipment. He discussed noise and traffic impacts as outlined by prior speakers, saying that he has al- ready negotiated for space to put in bike racks and that the chosen location was selected because it was well sited not to interfere with shopping in the center. He informed the Commission that the machines he plans to use are solid state and very quiet, and that outside noise generated by the use should be no more than that which would be generated by any other type of commercial operation. He concluded that in his opinion his operation would not be incompatible with the surrounding area and asked that it be approved. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the interior layout of the proposed use and whether or not the pool tables would be for the use of the patrons. Mr. Katsampes replied that they were put there to add variety to the entertainment available, but if the Commission desires he would be willing to use the whole back area for display only; however, he noted that the Edison Community Center is equipped with billiard tables for the use of the young people. In response to questioning from the Commission he said that usually one employee can operate the facility, with a part-time person used during busy times on Fri- days and Saturdays. Savoy Bellavia reported that the Police Department had been contacted in regard to a previous similar request and had indicated that this type of use does generate slightly higher police calls than do normal businesses, but not sufficiently higher to be of over -concern to the Department. -2- 2-18-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 18, 1981 Page 3 The Commission also considered the distance from the proposed use to the adjacent Villa Pacific complex. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-3 WAS DENIED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, AND THE STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION AS BASIS FOR SUCH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The arcade amusement center is generally not compatible with surrounding residential land uses. 2. Noise generated by the proposed use could adversely affect surrounding land uses. 3. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic could adversely affect adjac- ent land uses. AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Schumacher __NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Porter, Bauer ABSTAIN: None The applicant was informed of the appeal time and procedure. After taking action on the above application, the Commission discussed how to control the installation of individual game machines in liquor stores and other establishments and how to establish criteria for locating arcades in the community. Savoy Bellavia informed them that the staff is conducting a survey of neighboring cities in regard to this subject matter and will submit the results along with a proposed code amendment to the Commission shortly. By consensus decision the Commission d-Lr- ected that locational criteria be established and considered for inclusion in the ordinance code. The Commission recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15. DISCUSSION ITEMS: PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN Savoy Bellavia noted that parking had seemed to be the most critical issue when the Commission had asked for further informa- tion on this proposed senior condominium project within the Pacific Community Plan, which does not presently allow for indiv- idual ownership. He informed the Commission that a study of the parking at Wycliff Gardens, a similar project, has revealed that the 3 to 1 ratio of parking provided there does not seem to be adequate and that facility could easily absorb a parking ratio of 2 to 1. The staff is recommending that a 1 for 1 parking ratio be established for the subject project. If the Commission -3- 2-18-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 18, 1981 Page 4 concurs with that, the staff is prepared to set the proposal for public hearing. The Commission reviewed the history of the development within the Pacifica Plan. Commissioner Winchell inquired if the code amendment will permit apartments and condos to be constructed in both District 1 and District 2 of the plan area; staff replied that these will be permitted only in District 1, Area C, and will be delineated clearly on the map when the amendment is processed. Commissioner Greer ex- pressed a desire to see a parking layout so that adequacy and conveni- ence of parking to the units could be ascertained. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET THE CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Porter, Bauer ABSTAIN: None OUTSIDE STORAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.: Savoy Bellavia briefly described the staff's research into the matter of outside storage and informed the Commission of the criteria and uses which it would like to amend to permit such outside storage. This would entail removing four classes of uses from the administra- tive review requirement and placing them under a requirement for a conditional use permit; these uses include contractor's storage yards, building materials storage yards, lumber yards, and storage space for transit and transportation equipment (except freight classi- fication yards). Screening, setbacks, stacking, circulation, etc., would also be addressed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET THE CODE AMENDMENT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Porter, Bauer ABSTAIN: None CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meet- ing of February 17, 1981, for the Commission's information. -4- 2-18-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 18, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Palin also noted that the Commission's request for a study session with the Council will be brought up at the Council's next regular meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-28/TENTATIVE TRACT 1127z: The applicant on this particular tract, which is a 76-unit planned residential development at Delaware and Atlanta, had previously been granted a 90-day continuance; he is now request- ing that the application be rescheduled earlier for the meeting of March 17. ON MOTION BY GREER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET THE ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1981, WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT PAY THE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR READVERTISING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Porter, Bauer ABSTAIN: None ITEMS DISTRIBUTED: In its review of the items distributed, the Commission discussed at length the City Attorney's memo regarding reconsideration of items by the Planning Commission. After extensive review, legal counsel Jim Georges summarized the meaning of the memo as stating that the following items cannot be reconsidered by the Commission: 1) Planning Commission decisions on a subdivision tentative tract map; 2) decisions made to appeals; 3) any decision regarding entitlements granted or denied. On the other hand, he stated, the Commission may reconsider the following: 1) Prouadural matters, and 2) Resolutions and/or ordinances recommended to the City Council. Staff noted that this interpretation differs drastically from the operations of the Commission in the past and would affect many already completed projects in the City which were reconsid- ered by both the Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The Commission found the wording in the memo still to be unclear and asked for clarification; Mr. Palin will provide the attorney's office with samples of prior reconsiderations which have taken place and request definite direction in the matter. The Commission also discussed the County Environmental Manage- ment Agency's report on the Bolsa Chica. Staff will keep the Commission informed of any recomendations the EMA makes to the County Planning Commission as soon as they are available. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE COUNCIL GO ON RECORD AS TO ITS PREFERRED LAND USE IN THE BOLSA CHICA; THIS -5- 2-18-81 - P.C. Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission February 18, 1981 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE COUNCIL'S FIRST MEETING IN MARCH. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Porter, Bauer ABSTAIN: None There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. :df Grace Winchell, Chairman Pro Tem 1 -6- 2-18-81 - P.C.