Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-20Approved Nov. 3, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey Winchell ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, ,CONSISTING OF CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 81-11, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-58 (Appeal) Applicant: Roger Cole To allow a windscreen to be constructed at a ten foot height in lieu of the code -permitted 8 feet. The public hearing was opened. Kenneth Bourguigenon spoke in favor of granting the exception citing other residences in the general area where height limitations were not a problem. Roger Cole, the applicant, speaking in favor of the project, stated that he felt that he was being singled out seeing that the height requirement in the.ordinance was just now being enforced with re- gards to his property; that the ordinance has been in effect since 1978.. The public hearing was closed. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 2 Commissioner Porter asked staff if they could find any such cases where an exception was made as to height limitations, as Mr. Bourguigenon alluded to. Staff replied that they could not find any other case. A motion was made by Mahaffey to approve Conditional Exception No. 81-58. Art Folger of the City Attorney's office reminded the Commission that this was an appeal of the BZA and, therefore, the motion should state that the Commission votes to overrule a BZA denial. However, this motion failed for lack of a second. Commission consensus was to continue the item to allow staff time to investigate further to find out whether this is an exceptional cir- cumstance, to see if there are other homes in the harbor where height limitations were waived, and to clarify to the Commission if, in- deed, this is actually a windscreen or an enclosed room. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 81-58 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1981, WITH THE CONCUR- RENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-25/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11603 Applicant: R & R Investments (Continued from 10-6-81) To permit a one lot subdivision on 2.5 acres of property located north of Newman Avenue, 660 feet east of Beach Boulevard. The public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the project was the architect, Mr. DuPlanty, who gave a brief presentation which included material samples of the roof shingles and wood siding. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Porter and seconded by Mahaffey to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-25 stipulating that the site plan dated October 6, 1981, be the approved layout, incorporating approved fire lanes into the CC&R's indicating that it will be the homeowners' responsibility for maintenance. The motion then failed for lack of four affirmative votes. A motion was again made by Porter and seconded by Mahaffey to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-25 and Tentative Tract 11603 with the above -mentioned stipulations. This motion also failed by a lack of four or more affirmative votes. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 3 A motion was made by Schumacher and seconded by Kenefick to deny Conditional Use Permit 81-25 and Tentative Tract 11603 because the project will have a detrimental effect on the City's general health, safety and welfare. This motion failed by a lack of four or more affirmative votes. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-25 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11603 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-9/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-38 Applicant: Warmington-Huntington Harbor, Ltd. (Continued from 10-6-81) To permit a change of zone on 5 acres of property located southwest of the terminus of Countess Drive approximately % mile south of Edinger Avenue, from C4 (Highway commercial) to R2-PD (Medium density residential/planned development). Chairman Paone stated he would abstain from voting on this issue. Commissioner Porter took the chair and opened the public hearing. Seeing no one came forward to speak for or against the issued, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-38 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FINDINGS AS OUTLINED BELOW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: Paone ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-9 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: ZONE CHANGE 81-9 and NEGATIVE DECLARATION 81-38 1. The proposed R2-PD zoning on the site is consistent with the City's General Plan and adopted Coastal Element. 2. The proposed change of zone from commercial to residential use will not adversely affect living conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, since uses in the surrounding neighborhood are consistent with uses allowable under the R2 zoning. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 4 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey, Winchell ABSTAIN: Paone ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-1 Initiated by Development Services _(Continued from 10-6-81) EIR prepared.to_._assess'the potential environmental effects of a pro- posed commercial office project consisting of two (2) 16-story twin towers, two (2) restaurants, and a theater complex on 10 acres of land located on.. -the. -.southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. A brief- oral report was given by Jim Barnes, Development Services, and Lloyd Bookout, representative from PBR, regarding the preparation of the EIR. The public hearing was opened. Steve Sarcus spoke against certification of the EIR, stating that it would impact traffic in the area. Chairman Paone reminded the public that their comments would be limited to only the EIR's adequacy and not the project itself which is not an issue before the Commission as -yet. Speaking in favor of certification of the EIR was Frank Mola. Katherine Snyder spoke in opposition to the certification stating that she felt her property would be affected by the proposed four lanes to be con- structed on Ash Street. Chairman Paone then called for a five-minute recess to discuss this question. Lloyd Bookout stated that any right - of -way --would be taken from the other side of the street from Mrs. Snyder's property. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PORTER CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None - ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-10/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-42 Applicant: Manthei/Buccella Investments (Cont. from 10-6-81) To change zone from M1-CD (light manufacturing/civic district) to M1- CD-01 (light manufacturing/civic district combined with oil production) on 3.207 acres of property located west of Southern Pacific right. -of - way, 840 feet north of Talbert Avenue. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Manthei, spoke in favor of the project. The public hearing was closed. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 5 Brief Commission discussion took place regarding clarification of the number of oil wells proposed. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-42 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AS OUTLINED BELOW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-10 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-10 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-42 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as general industrial; therefore, the requested M1-CD-01 zoning is consistent with the General Plan designation. 2. Oil production on the site will be compatible with surrounding land uses because the surrounding properties are either vacant or developed as industrial. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-11(b) Initiated by Development Services (Continued from 9-1-81) This is an amendment to Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code relating to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Said code amendment sets forth the purpose of the Board and outlines required findings of fact for processing applications. Jeanine Frank asked that the Commission continue this item to allow the City Attorney's office additional time to complete the draft on Code Amendment 81-11(b) so that the language is clear and concise. Chairman Paone asked if there was anyone present to speak to this Code Amendment. Seeing no one came forward, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-11(b) WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 6 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12 Initiated by Development Services (Continued from 9-22-81) A code amendment to repeal Article 974, Park and Recreation Facilities, and amend Article 996, Dedication, relative to park land dedication and in -lieu payment of fees. This amendment will contain a provision to allow a 50 percent credit for private open space. Norm Worthy, Community Development, gave an oral presentation to the Commission. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission of some minor word changes in the proposed code amendment. Commissioner Kenefick suggested that a study session be conducted to discuss the costs involved and to invite members of the building and development industries to attend the study session to give their input. Commissioner Bannister stated he would not attend on the 17th. Chairman Paone asked if anyone was present to address this issue. Seeing no one came forward the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12 WAS CONTINUED TO A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 10, 1981, AND A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-48 Applicant: Tim Abbott To permit the use of a wholesale nursery (horticultural use) on 2.53 acres of property located on the south side of Hamilton Avenue between Newland and Magnolia Streets. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Tim Abbott spoke in favor of the application. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY BANNISTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-48 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AS OUTLINED BELOW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 7 Commissioners discussed the findings and conditions of approval for the conditional use permit. Commissioners suggested an additional condition that an asphalt drive approach be installed. The applicant stated this would pose no problem for him. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-7 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS- 1. The proposed use will not have an adverse affect on surrounding properties if opertional procedures such as reducing the major portion of over -spray, minimizing dust and limiting hours of operation are employed. 2. The proposed use when operated with precaution results in a positive environmental affect including weed and rodent control and an improvement in the visual character of the site. 3. The subject site is adequate in size and configuration to accom- modate the proposed use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated September 29, 1981, shall be the approved layout. 2. The parking area and all interior travel -ways shall have either gravel or all-weather surfacing subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. 3. The taller and larger plant materials shall only be stored away from the nearest residential properties, lower growing trees and shrubs shall only be permitted adjacent to the nearest residential properties. 4. All soils amendments and planting mix materials shall be kept damp to minimize the possibility of such materials blowing into adjacent property. These products shall only be stored towards the center or rear of subject site. 5. Spraying of plant materials shall be done from the property line onto the premises of the site or inward away from the nearest residential properties. 6. Hours of operation for the subject use shall be only during normal business hours from Monday through Saturday. No trucking or moving of plant materials, fertilizing or spraying shall be conducted on Sundays. Only watering and minor activities shall be conducted on Sundays. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 8 7. The existing power line pole which is in the public right-of-way adjacent to the site shall be removed or moved to a location where it will not obstruct public access to the site. 8. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this Con- ditional Use Permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of this approval or violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decisions shall be proceeded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing. 9. An asphalt drive approach shall be installed per acceptable Public Works Standards. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-3 Applicant: Electrical Products Corporation To permit an additional 161IX251311 wall sign for one of the stores at an existing shopping, mall located on the southeast corner of Garfield and Magnolia. The public hearing was opened. Phil Walker, representative of the applicant spoke in favor of granting the special sign permit. William Bufford, Property Manager of the shopping center, also spoke in favor, stating that 40% of the tenants in the center have gone bankrupt and, therefore, he felt it was a hardship case. The public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MAHAFFEY AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-3. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Commissioners Kenefick and Paone both stated they would vote against this because they felt the established sign ordinance was very im- portant. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-3 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 9 1. Strict compliance with the ordinance code will not result in a substantial economic hardship because of options available to the applicant for adding additional signing to the unit that does not require approval of a special sign permit. 2. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that does not apply generally to other shopping centers located within commercial districts. 3. The granting of this special sign permit request will constitute the granting of a special privilege because an additional sign would be permitted on an exterior wall. 4. The existing signage is sufficient in meeting the identification needs of the tenant (as provided by ordinance code). AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-4 Applicant: G. M. Signs, Incorporated To remove existing 8' X 17' pylon sign, 25' high and install a 416" X 22' metal and plexiglas pylon sign on steel structure, 34 feet high on property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, north of Slater Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Doris Bennett spoke on behalf of the applicant in favor of granting the special sign permit. She stated that the alternatives suggested by Development Services staff were not feasible such as a monument sign which is more prone to vandalism, and also stated that the dealer has a time limit to comply with the dealership to install the approved sign whose design has been adopted by the Mazda dealership. Mahaffey made a motion to approve Special Sign Permit No. 81-4 because it is an improvement over the existing sign. This motion, however, failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-4 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in a substantial economic hard- ship. Other options are available to the applicant, including wall signing on the sales office or reducing the square footage of the Oldsmobile pole sign to accommodate Mazda. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 10 2. The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional or extra- ordinary circumstances that do not apply generally to the properties in the same zoning classifications as demonstrated by other commercial uses within the general area. 3. The granting of this request will constitute a special privilege because the applicant has several options available that fall within the scope of the ordinance code as outlined below: a. A reduction in the sign area of the existing Oldsmobile pole sign in order to accommodate advertising for the Mazda dealership; b. The addition of a wall sign on the sales office; or c. Construction of two 50 square foot, low -profile monument signs, one to replace the existing non -conforming Oldsmobile sign and the second to advertise for the Mazda dealership (this option would require approval of a special sign permit by the Planning Commission). AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT:- Winchell ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO RECONSIDER THE ABOVE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT, ALLOWING A MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL REQUEST BY LOWERING THE PROPOSED SIGN TO 25 FEET IN HEIGHT. THIS MOTION FAILED TO CARRY BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Chairman Paone called for a five-minute recess. Commission reconvened at 9:45 PM. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-14 Initiated by Development Services An amendment of the following Articles of the Huntington Beach Or- dinance Code: 938, 940, 951, 963, 973, 931, 936. This code amendment will amend the requirements pertaining to setbacks in relation to properties developed next to single family residential, but not zoned or general planned residential. The public hearing was opened. No one came forward to address this item. The public hearing was closed. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 11 ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-14 WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Doris Bennett expressed her objection to the public hearing procedures used by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION ITEMS: REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITION #5 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-1 Chairman Paone stated he would ask for a continuance on this issue until such time a written opinion could be secured from the City Attorney's office. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BANNISTER REQUEST TO AMEND CON- DITION #5 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1981, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Kenefick asked for clarification on the EIR for "The Ranch" on page 9 of the report which discusses a change in the topography of the area. She specifically would like to know how much dirt would be removed or trees destroyed. Commissioner Bannister requested a copy of the special permit issued at the Plaza Cuidad. Commissioners discussed the possibility of not introducing any new public hearings after a certain time at each meeting. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PORTER TO TABLE DISCUSSION OF TIME CUT-OFFS, FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Mahaffey NOES: Paone, Porter, Kenefick, Schumacher ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 20, 1981 Page 12 A motion was made to not introduce any new public hearings after 11:30 P.M., however this motion failed for lack of attaining four or more affirmative votes. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. une W. Catalano, - Acting Secretary �1 Z_ Tim Paone, Vice -Chairman 1